Wednesday, 7 December 2022

WEDNESDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2022

WEDNESDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Visitors

Ireland—Oireachtas Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group for New Zealand

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Senator Barry Ward and Senator Gerry Horkan, members of the Oireachtas Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group for New Zealand, who are present in the gallery.

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

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

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

CLERK:

2021-22 annual reports for:

Diversity Works New Zealand

WorkSafe New Zealand

2022-23 statement of performance expectations for WorkSafe New Zealand.

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

CLERK: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all of her Ministers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Christopher Luxon: Are media reports correct that Minister Mahuta did not tell her or her Cabinet about the 60 percent entrenchment provision before it was voted on?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already been clear on this issue: caucus did not discuss this specific Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), because it had not been tabled. We had a general discussion on entrenchment, but, ultimately, I think, the most important thing is that we have said it was a mistake and, as a team, we have fixed it.

Christopher Luxon: When she said she has no plans to remove Minister Mahuta “based on anything that’s happened here”, does that mean as Prime Minister she is willing to tolerate one of her Ministers deliberately keeping her in the dark?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is implying that somehow I should have seen an SOP that had not yet been tabled, and also the point that I’ve made here in this regard: there were 24 SOPs. I would not have an expectation that for every single bill that comes through this House, we would see every single SOP. And I imagine that the member himself may not have either. Again, the most important thing here is a mistake has been made and we have corrected it.

Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that on 30 May, Cabinet “agreed that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions”, and, if so, why is she tolerating a Minister going against the explicit instructions of her and her Cabinet?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister has not.

Christopher Luxon: Doesn’t the Cabinet Manual state, “Once Cabinet makes a decision, Ministers must support it, regardless of their personal views …”, and why has she not taken any action over Minister Mahuta saying in this House, “There is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, that is what the Cabinet Manual says. Yes, the member did continue to uphold the Cabinet decision. The member, actually, though, is asking a question about another party’s SOP. Again, I come back to the principle point: Labour maintains its position that you should never sell these assets. It would be good if the National Party confirmed the same. We also confirmed a mistake was made, and we have fixed it.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that Minister Mahuta has clearly breached the Cabinet Manual, and when will the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and sack her?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, the member has not. Secondly, leadership is fixing a problem when you see it. The member on the opposite side has never once given New Zealanders an explanation of what he would do to fix failing water infrastructure in this country. Saying you’ll do nothing is not an option. This country cannot afford to no longer invest in water infrastructure. We have a solution. The member only has opposition and no ideas.

Christopher Luxon: Why is she allowing one of her Ministers to blatantly defy her by standing up in Parliament to speak in support of something Cabinet had collectively agreed not to support?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member continues to misrepresent the Minister. Secondly, as a party, we have always stood against the notion of privatisation. We have been absolutely clear on that. We have used every mechanism to make sure that we do not see the privatisation of those assets. The Minister has gone to great lengths to ensure it. What we’ve come to is a question over whether or not a mechanism like entrenchment should be used for those purposes. Our view is it should be removed, but we still stand by keeping them in public ownership. Does the member?

Christopher Luxon: Has she lost so much control over her Cabinet that she’s now either unwilling or unable to remove a Minister who has openly defied her?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister has not defied Cabinet. The Minister has not broken the Cabinet Manual. Again, I accept the member hasn’t been here very long, but it was an SOP from another party.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The resilience of the economy has been reflected in the latest Crown accounts. For the four months to the end of October, the operating balance before gains and losses, (OBEGAL), recorded a deficit of $2.8 billion—this is $274 million lower than forecast at Budget 2022 in May, and $5 billion lower than for the same period a year ago. Tax revenue also came in slightly below expectations. We know that 2023 is going to be a difficult year for the global economy and for New Zealand. We will not be immune to what happens overseas, with a period of high inflation to be followed by what is now forecast to be a shallow recession. Government actions to grow the economy and support New Zealanders mean we are well positioned to face these global challenges with a solid balance sheet, near-record low unemployment, more people in paid work, and wages increasing.

Barbara Edmonds: What else did the report say about the impact of the economy on the Government’s books?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Net debt stood at 19.5 percent of GDP in these accounts, which was above forecast, mainly due to market conditions affecting the New Zealand super fund’s financial portfolio. Using the old measure, net core Crown debt was below forecast, at 39.4 percent of GDP compared with projections of 40.4 percent. Our debt levels remain among the lowest in the OECD, and well below the Government’s debt ceiling of 30 percent, ensuring we are well positioned to weather further economic shocks.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The situation and outlook for primary industries was released by the Ministry for Primary Industries and it shows that food and fibre exports are projected to reach a new record high of $55 billion in 2023—$2.9 billion more than in June 2022. In addition, tourists and holidaymakers are returning in greater numbers and our immigration reset is working to attract the overseas workers we need to rebuild the economy. This will all go some significant way to help protect New Zealanders from the sharp edges of a global downturn.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The credit rating agency Fitch has revised downwards its forecast for the global economy. Fitch is projecting global GDP to grow 1.4 percent in 2023, down from 1.7 percent in its September economic outlook. It has lowered its forecast for growth in both the US and China. New Zealand finds itself as well placed as any country in the world in a volatile and uncertain global environment. We will continue to take a balanced and responsible approach in managing our finances. We remain focused on prioritising our spending without adding to inflation pressures, and returning to surplus as soon as possible.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that taxpayer money is being spent appropriately and delivering value for New Zealanders during a cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes—in the context of a period of time when the COVID pandemic has disrupted the operations of all businesses and Governments. As signalled at Budget 2022, our spending decisions continue to focus on delivering value for money and maintaining funding for core public services. The economic environment in which we are operating has shifted since the period when Government spending increased during the COVID emergency to save lives and livelihoods. In our decisions at Budget 2022, the Government looked to strike the right balance between returning the level of Government spending following the COVID emergency to more normal levels, continuing to invest in public services and infrastructure, and supporting New Zealanders facing cost of living pressures.

Nicola Willis: Was it acceptable for the Minister of Transport to politicise transport funding decisions by asking Labour MPs to nominate transport projects in their electorates to receive taxpayer funding without doing the same for non-Labour electorates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is incorrect in the assertion at the beginning of her question.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware of other occasions when Ministers, acting in their ministerial capacity, have explicitly asked their caucus colleagues to bid for taxpayer dollars for projects in Labour-held electorates to the exclusion of the rest of the country?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to that member’s question, I’m certainly aware of the former Minister of Transport Simon Bridges offering to build 10 bridges in the Northland by-election in the hope of making sure he got a National candidate elected; that didn’t work out so well.

Nicola Willis: Why, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, is the Government prioritising the spending of $370 million on a merger of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand, when neither the Minister responsible nor the Prime Minister can give coherent reasons for why?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of the actual expenditure on that project in the current financial year, I believe the number is somewhere around $20 million. The spending that the member is talking about is what happens over coming years. From this side of the House’s point of view, it’s important that we continue to invest in all of the services that New Zealanders need. Public service broadcasting is one of those things that will require funding however it is organised.

Nicola Willis: Why did he ignore advice from Treasury to not use funding from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund to manage the impact of ongoing spending and instead chose to raid that fund to pay for yet more three waters consultants?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the assertions in the member’s question. What we did at Budget 2022 was close the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund and do as any Government would do: make a decision about where to reallocate that funding to.

Question No. 4—Police

4. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made about helping Police respond to fleeing drivers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Last week, the Minister of Justice and I announced a range of legislative measures designed to give police greater enforcement tools when dealing with dangerous and reckless driving on our roads. Overall, the changes will mean drivers can be disqualified for longer, have their vehicle taken away for good, or that the owner of a car could have their vehicle impounded if they choose not to help police track down the driver of a fleeing vehicle. Put simply, if you flee from the police, be prepared to lose your car.

Willow-Jean Prime: Why are these changes important, and how will they actually support police?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Police have told us that these changes will help discourage people from fleeing, because they’re now likely to lose their vehicle for longer or for good. There were 8,673 fleeing driver events in the last 12 months—that’s the 12 months ending 31 August—which is an increase, a substantial increase, on last year’s 6,757 events. While no law enforcement can ever stop an offender from choosing to flee, evidence does indicate that the changes most likely to influence offender behaviour are those that create a greater likelihood of getting caught and then losing access to their vehicle.

Willow-Jean Prime: What exactly will the changes do?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The changes will increase the maximum driver licence disqualification period for a second offence of failing to stop or remain stopped from 12 months to between 12 months and 24 months. They’ll amend the Sentencing Act so that a vehicle can be forfeited on conviction for failing to stop—which would mean that offenders could have their vehicle permanently removed and they would not get any proceeds back from the sale of it—and they allow police to impound a vehicle for 28 days if the owner fails, refuses, or provides false or misleading information about the identity of a driver from a fleeing vehicle event.

Question No. 5—Children

5. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does he agree with Royal Commissioner Paul Gibson that “The experiences of disabled survivors, shared with the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry, describe a terrible history. But it would be a mistake to believe this remains in our past”; if so, what interventions are in place, if any, to ensure a disability rights focus within Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): First, can I just thank the member. I think this is an important conversation to have—that we do shine a light on the experiences of our hapori whaikaha—so thank you very much. In terms of the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry, it has, undoubtedly, highlighted some traumatic experiences suffered in the care system. So it’s important that we do listen to the survivors and that we ensure that this doesn’t happen again. It’s also important to remember that ensuring disability rights are strongly in focus as a whole system—it doesn’t just come down to one agency, because many disabled tamariki have multi-layered issues. But Oranga Tamariki is driving change across the system through the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan; the Oranga Tamariki Future Direction Action Plan; through the appointment of a Disability Advisory Group; through appointing a Chief Advisor Disability; through the development of a disability strategy, to be completed by May 2023; through examining whether residential care is fit for purpose; and also through having appointed Ruth Jones to the ministerial advisory board as a voice for our hapori whaikaha.

Jan Logie: Has he seen Paul Gibson’s further statement that “Many families who had disabled children faced a hopeless search for community-based services, an acute lack of any support for their child to be cared for within the home”, and, if so, will he ensure the strategy prioritises safety of care within the home?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, I have seen that comment, and that’s what I say about the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan—make sure that the whole system is looking after the needs of the children. So it’s not just about Oranga Tamariki, it’s not just about Education, it’s not just about Health; every agency has a responsibility to look after the needs of our disabled community, in particular in the home.

Jan Logie: Are disability rights systematically included in staff training—in light of the stories of survivors of abuse in State care—and, if not, when does he expect this to happen?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Not necessarily as a result of the inquiry into abuse in State care, but as part of the Future Direction Action Plan, where social worker practice is a key element of that plan. We are making sure that social workers do have the skills to look after children from across society, including those with disabilities.

Jan Logie: Acknowledging the Minister said the strategy was due in May 2023, does he have a sense of when disabled children and their whānau might expect to see an increase in resources available to them and support through our child protection system?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, again, that comes down to, I guess, the way we drive the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan. All Ministers have agreed that children in Oranga Tamariki care are a priority population. So all Ministers are really working to make sure that all of their agencies provide for the needs of our disabled community.

Jan Logie: Does the Minister have any reflections, at this stage, on the stories coming through the royal commission and the challenges they reflect for us as a country in terms of protecting our children?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, I do have reflections. I wonder how on earth we could have let this happen over the course of five decades. I have told the story before of a gang member in his 60s who sat down with me and said, at the age of 10, he was picked up from his family for four years because the State didn’t believe that his parents could care for him properly and the rest of his siblings. Within two weeks of coming out of State care, at the age of 14, he had joined Black Power. All his children became gang members, all his grandchildren became gang members, and, I’m sure, many of his great-grandchildren became gang members. We can’t sit in here and judge him and his family for all becoming gang members when the institution that actually created the situation in the first place was the State.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the justice system is prioritising community safety and providing justice to the victims of crime?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes, because we have put more than 1,600 police on the front line. That’s over and above attrition. We have increased the police budget every year after the National Government froze it year on year on year. We are doing more to reduce the harm caused by firearms than any previous Government and we are doing more to tackle gangs and organised crime than ever. All victims of crime deserve our sympathy and support, which is why we have doubled the level of funding for the victims assistance scheme since National left office, and in Budget 2022 we put aside $45 million of a whole-of-Government support approach for victims of crime. On retail crime in particular, shop owners and workers feeling targeted is completely unacceptable, and this is why we have rolled out a thousand fog cannons since 2018. We have introduced a new fog cannon subsidy scheme that will provide all small retailers with $4,000 to go towards installing fog cannons. We have invested $6 million into a retail crime prevention fund to help fund things like CCTV, shatterproof glass, bollards, and other improvements at retail stores. This is a Government that is focused on the victims of crime.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is a 30 percent reduction in prison numbers, irrespective of how many crimes or victims there are, this Government’s only explicit justice target?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On this side of the House, we have been focused on ensuring that there is a continuing trend on crime that is going downwards. When we look at targets, we are making sure that we are focusing on the victims of crime. If we want to take a fact-based approach to this discussion around crime and law and order, I have only but repeated the statistics in this House every single week. We have seen a general trajectory—a downwards trajectory—of crime going downwards over the last 10 years. But it’s this pitch I want to bring this House’s mind to: that side of the House is focused on getting tough on crime slogans—boot camps that cost expensive amounts of money and have an 85 percent failure rate.

SPEAKER: No. Order! [Interruption] Order! I warn the member that when I stand and say “Order!”, she should sit.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That was an interesting answer to a question Mr Goldsmith did not ask. There was no addressing of the question of the reduction in prison numbers or the explicit justice targets of this Government.

SPEAKER: I completely agree. I will award the Hon Paul Goldsmith two additional supplementary questions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she denying there has been a 20 percent increase in serious crime in the last few years, and, if not, why is the only target that the Government has a 30 percent reduction in prison numbers?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Thank you to the member for bringing some facts to this House. Let’s talk about facts. What we have seen over the past 10 years—they know, we know; we see spikes in crime all the time. When that side of the House was in Government these are the spikes of crime that we saw. [Holds up graph] We are seeing a spike in crime—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I would ask the member to ask the question again. It’s a straight-up question. We do not need attacks on the Opposition.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister denying there has been a 20 percent increase in serious crime in the last few years and, if not, why is the only target that this Government has in the justice sector a 30 percent reduction in prisoner numbers?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the premise of that question. This side—the Government—has a range of different targets and we’re working solidly towards those.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What are the other explicit justice targets?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: For example, just in retail crime alone, one of the targets that we have is to provide wraparound support for victims of crime. The targets that we have are to make sure that we get resources out to those victims of crime. We have the belt and braces measures approach that we have announced earlier this week, and if I compare it to the approach from the side opposite, in 2016, when they invested in things like fog cannons—a failed approach—we fixed them in 2018. We continue to up the ante when it comes to ensuring that there are the appropriate responses in place for those victims of crime, and that’s just one of many.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister know the difference between a target and ambition?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On this side of the House, we know the difference between spikes of crime that are temporal and a trajectory that goes straight down, and this is where the statistics show us where we are at. [Holds up graph] This is the state of crime here in Aotearoa right now.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would real consequences for serious youth offenders be a better solution to the increase in ram raids than telling shop owners to defend themselves with fog cannons and bollards and then not delivering them?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Thank you to the member again for that question, because I think that the real issue is in how we do address our youth crime. We know that when the National Government attempted to do so, particularly in 2016—when we saw that immeasurable strike right there [Holds up graph]—the response was boot camps, failed boot camps of 85 percent proportionality, and slogans like “crushing cars”. What this side of the House does is we focus on evidence. Now, that side of the House may call it “Kumbaya” mush; we call it wraparound services that get results.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the Minister aware of the evidence that there’s been a 500 percent increase in ram raids in the last year, and what is she doing about it effectively, rather than just announcing more funds?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, I’m well aware of the statistics. I’ve shown them to this House on multiple occasions. What we are seeing is a general trajectory over the last 10 years—but particularly under the Labour Government—of crime rates that have come down.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she or her predecessor, as Minister of Justice, sought advice on the effects of automatic release provisions for first-time prisoners with a sentence of five years or lower?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, I have no immediate plans or any other plans to make any changes to those types of measures.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question, and it was not addressed.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to ask the question again.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she or her predecessor, as Minister of Justice, sought advice on the effects of an automatic release provision for first-time prisoners with a sentence of five years or lower?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I think it was—[Interruption] Pardon?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question absolutely was addressed.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was addressed.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made on extending hardship support for dental grants?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In Budget 2022, the Government announced a lift in the amount someone can receive in hardship support for dental grants from 300 to 1,000 per year. This change came into force on 1 December. During 2021, approximately 40,000 people used the $300 special needs grant for dental support through the Ministry of Social Development. However, the grant had not been increased since 1 July 1996, and $300 was no longer adequate. This is why many people needed an advance payment of benefit to fully meet their emergency dental costs. By increasing the dental grant to $1,000, it’s estimated that we will reduce the amount of client debt to Ministry of Social Development clients by $95 million over 4 years, as more of the costs will be covered by the non-recoverable grant.

Dr Emily Henderson: What other changes to hardship support will help people access dental grants?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In Budget 2022, we announced a lift in the income limits for hardship support. This means more low-income people will be able to access hardship assistance, which includes help for costs such as food, bedding, bond, car repairs, electricity, gas, and, of course, dental grants. We estimate the changes we have made will increase the number of people accessing dental support from 40,000 to 50,000 people per year.

Dr Emily Henderson: Why is extending this support important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Dental care is something that can be put off by people due to affordability difficulties, especially in low-income households. We also know that issues with dental health have a negative impact on people’s general health, financial health, ability to work, and quality of life. This is particularly important when it comes to employment. Having bad oral health can decrease someone’s confidence and affect their ability to secure long-term, sustainable employment. Therefore, the changes to the grant could have a positive effect on getting people disadvantaged in the labour market into employment.

Dr Emily Henderson: Are there any changes to the criteria for the grant?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. Alongside increasing the grant and lifting the hardship thresholds, we have widened the criteria for the grant. Instead of the grant only being available in an emergency treatment, it will now be available for essential treatment to help stop minor problems becoming major ones. We’ve also changed the amount of times you can access the grant throughout the year. Previously, you could only receive one dental grant, even if it did not reach the $300 limit. Clients will now be able to access the grant multiple times in one year up to the value of $1,000, meaning if you have a treatment that costs $400, you still have $600 you can access if another necessary treatment is required.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why was the non-recoverable amount set at $1,000 when no one should be getting into debt because of their oral health?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s fair to say that it is a significant lift, considering it hadn’t been shifted in over 25 years. What we did see was that many clients who were accessing the $300 grant previously were also incurring debt via the advanced benefit payment that they were having to access to pay the additional amount that wasn’t covered by the grant. From memory, they were ending up with a debt that was around $800 because of that—I think that was on average. So this goes a long way to supporting the clients with their dental health needs, as well as addressing the debt issues that many of our clients experience.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: On what date did he first write to Labour MPs encouraging them to put forward bids for funding under the $350 million Transport Choices package, and on what date did NZTA open expressions of interest for councils to bid for the funding?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I reject the assertion in the member’s question. The Transport Choices package was announced publicly in May as part of Budget 2022. On 27 June, I wrote to my Labour colleagues reminding them of the purpose of the fund and encouraged them to engage with their communities and councils to help in the collation of ideas for it. MPs did not make bids that were assessed by Waka Kotahi. The Transport Choices package will support 397 new or upgraded bus stops, 242 kilometres of new or upgraded cycleways, 119 school improvements, 29 more walkable neighbourhoods, and 11 new bus prioritisation lanes. All 46 councils who put in a bid received funding for projects in their areas—all of them. These projects will help make our towns and cities more people-friendly places. They will reduce emissions and make life better for local residents in many towns and cities all around New Zealand.

Simeon Brown: When he wrote to Labour MPs on 27 June saying that if they “would like to bring potential projects in your area to my attention, please contact my office.”, how is that not a political slush fund when councils couldn’t express interest until over one month later?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can explain that very, very clearly, and, again, I reject the assertion in the member’s question. I provide that member and the House with assurance that I would not conduct the affairs of my ministry in that way and neither would Waka Kotahi, who were the ones who made the recommendations for the expenditure of this fund. The way that the process worked was that Waka Kotahi engaged with councils, they collected the ideas that came through from councils and communities, and then put through recommendations to joint Ministers. The one significant change that I made to the recommendation that was brought through from Waka Kotahi is that they recommended funding went to 42 of the 46 councils who applied; I thought it would be more equitable to ensure that all councils who applied received funding, and so I asked that that happened. That included funding going to councils such as the Invercargill City Council and the Ruapehu District Council, which are of course represented by National Party MPs. Again, I say to the member that the way that this process went about was through the collation of bids that came from councils and an assessment of those based on their merits and based on the criteria.

Simeon Brown: So why, then, did the Minister choose to write to Labour MPs over one month before expressions of interest were open for councils, and why, then, did he not write to all members of Parliament?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’m very happy to provide the full context of the comments that I made to Labour MPs in the letter that I sent to them. I said, “As Waka Kotahi engages with councils about possible programmes for investment, I want to encourage you to spread the message about how critical providing competitive transport choices is to reducing emissions and support these important initiatives as they get under way. You may also want to encourage councils to identify which gaps in their networks and supporting investments may make the greatest difference to people’s transport choices.” Our Government is one that is investing to give people greater transport choices and to invest in a low-emissions transport infrastructure. I know that the National Party criticises every investment we make to reduce emissions within the transport system, but even this is desperate for them. Again, I repeat to the House that 46 councils from around the country applied for funding and 46 councils received funding for projects. There was no favouritism in that.

Simeon Brown: Why did the Minister write to Labour MPs on 27 June, one month prior to councils being able to put an expression of interest in, saying that if they “would like to bring potential projects in your area to my attention, please contact my office.”, and why didn’t that go to all MPs?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because it is perfectly normal for Government MPs to support Government policies and to talk with Ministers about things they want to advocate for.

Question No. 9—Women

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to—[Members interjecting]

SPEAKER: Sorry, can we start that again? And I’m warning Dr Megan Woods and Nicola Willis—cut that out.

9. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements have been made on the Government’s progress on pay equity?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): The Government has announced that we will extend pay equity to all community and iwi organisations who employ social workers and receive funding from the Crown. This is expected to reach approximately 4,600 social workers, who, as a result, will be paid more fairly for the incredible work they do, with some of our most vulnerable in society. This extension comes after a pay equity settlement for almost 500 social workers employed in five community and iwi organisations.

Sarah Pallett: What other claims have been settled since the passing of the amendments to the Equal Pay Act?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Five claims have been settled under the new amendments to the Act so far. These amendments have enabled the settlement of historic pay equity claims in female-dominated industries. As a result of these settlements, there has been an average pay correction of 33 percent. This has made a significant impact on the lives of New Zealand women.

Sarah Pallett: What feedback has she heard from social workers on the impact their pay equity settlement has had on their lives?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I’d like to share with the House a quote from a social worker at Oranga Tamariki who said—and I quote—“When the social workers’ pay equity settlement was reached, the impact on me was huge. The impact on the social work profession was huge. It righted the wrong. It ensured that the front-line social workers at Oranga Tamariki were going to be paid what they should have been if they had not experienced gender undervaluation.”

Sarah Pallett: What are the next steps in the Government’s work programme for pay equity?

Hon JAN TINETTI: There are currently 27 active pay equity claims across the economy. This is complex work and, as a world leader, New Zealand is doing well to right the wrongs that many women have faced in the workplace, but it does take time. This year—2022—has seen a significant increase in the claims, with 18 percent of all claims ever raised being in this calendar year. However, this Government believes in fair pay for fair work and in ending gender discrimination in the workplace. We are committed to doing that.

Question No. 10—Police

10. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that all information stolen during the firearms licensing data breach at the former Auckland Central Police Station on Vincent Street has since been recovered?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Police have advised me that they believe that all of the information stolen during the firearms licensing data breach at the former Auckland Central Police Station on Vincent Street have been recovered. The member may also be reassured to know that the police have been regularly running checks to identify if any firearms licence holders have been subject to a burglary, and I’m advised that no one from this cohort has been.

Nicole McKee: How can the Minister be confident that all of the information stolen during the firearms licensing data breach has been recovered, when he can’t confirm that of the contents of the storage bin that was stolen from the former police station after being left there for 11 to 12 months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can only go off the advice that Police have provided me, and they have provided me with advice that they believe that all of the information stolen has been recovered.

Nicole McKee: Why have only 2,245 individuals—out of the 3,763 individuals who were affected by the firearms licensing data breach—been contacted by police, and what efforts are being made to contact the remaining individuals affected by this data breach?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m advised that Police has now analysed over 4,000 documents that were stolen and recovered. Police have spoken to 329 individuals of an initial group of 444 whose data sheets contained full details of names and addresses. Police have been unsuccessful in contacting the remaining 115 individuals by phone. They have attempted to send them communications—either email or text messages—to their last known contact details. Police have further identified a further 2,814 individuals for whom partial identifying information was on the documents, including partial full name or address. There have been 1,293 notified via email or text message; however, not all individuals have been easily identifiable, and the police continue to identify and notify those individuals as they can. Police has also released a public notice encouraging firearms licence holders and anyone seeking information on the privacy breach to contact police on an 0800 number that has been provided, or a dedicated email address which has also been provided.

Nicole McKee: Does the Minister stand by his response to my written questions, where he confirmed that he hasn’t received any reports, briefings, memos, aide-mémoire, notes, or written advice on this matter from July to date, and, if so, what communications has he received on this matter that justifies the confidence?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At the time of the answer, it was correct—of course, I’ve received some further information today in preparation to answer the member’s question.

Nicole McKee: Does the Minister expect firearm owners to have confidence in participating in full registration of their firearms, and if so, why should firearm owners have confidence when police could not keep their information secure or even hold an inquiry to investigate how such a data breach was able to occur?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that the situation that occurred with Vincent Street was completely unacceptable, and I think that Police do acknowledge that. I think moving to a digitised system of keeping firearms records will ultimately be more secure than having paper files in filing cabinets.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on entrenching a provision of the Water Services Entities Bill, “We know that while this particular SOP may not pass the constitutional threshold, there is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP”, and does she stand by all her statements on entrenchment provisions?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): As stated yesterday to exactly the same question, yes. I also stand by my statement that we want all New Zealanders to know that when members in this House say they’re against privatisation, they actually mean it. But some people want to create a perception that they don’t want privatisation. However, they are offering up ways in which you could better privatise water infrastructure assets, and we have already seen what happened in relation to electricity reforms. It has always been a bottom line for Government to safeguard against privatisation when improving water services delivery.

Simon Watts: Why did the Water Services Entities Bill report back to the House on 22 November with entrenchment of a privatisation provision when Cabinet resolved on 30 May “that the Bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the Bill;”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Because Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 had a lower threshold that was accepted under Standing Order 270. We rectified the advice that came after the vote was taken. A mistake has been fixed, and we’re moving on.

Simon Watts: Did she discuss the 60 percent entrenchment of clause 116 of the Water Services Entities Bill with any Green Party MPs before SOP 285 was tabled; if so, who?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said in the House yesterday, we became aware of Standing Order 285 when it was tabled in the House. Let me be clear; I made an error yesterday in the timing, because that amendment to SOP 285 was tabled in the committee.

Hon Members: Answer the question.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am answering the question. Listen to the answer. [Interruption] If you really want to hear the answer, listen. That SOP was tabled in the House after our caucus meeting on 22 November.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I think you know what I’m about to say, which is that that was a very clear question about conversations between the Minister and Green Party members of Parliament, and that answer did not mention that at all.

SPEAKER: None the less, it’s been addressed.

Simon Watts: Did Cabinet authorise her to make a decision on any entrenchment amendments tabled on the Water Services Entities Bill, and, if not, why did she say “supporting entrenchment was a moral obligation” despite Cabinet agreeing not to entrench any privatisation provisions on 30 May?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said in the House yesterday, Cabinet papers that I referred to in the House yesterday provided the context of entrenchment matters that were considered, and for clarity, the dates of those Cabinet papers were April 2022 and 30 May 2022. The SOP 285 that the member is referring to was an SOP by a member of the Green Party.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister had assurances from all parties in this House that they will very definitely not sell our water assets?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Sadly, no. National and ACT have not agreed to any undertaking of that kind.

Question No. 12—Digital Economy and Communications

12. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What reports has he seen about improved rural broadband?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): The expansion of the Rural Capacity Upgrade programme, funded out of Budget 2022, and a Labour Party manifesto commitment, means around 30,000 rural homes and communities will soon have access to faster, improved connectivity. I was pleased to be at Fieldays last week to share this good news alongside the launch of Lifting Connectivity in Aotearoa, which sets out a high-level connectivity vision for New Zealand over the next decade. This will significantly improve connectivity for homes and businesses, and has the potential to boost economic productivity for those with a slow or unreliable connection across the country.

Anna Lorck: What reaction has he seen following last week’s announcement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Our connectivity plan has won the support of Tech Users Association of New Zealand (TUANZ) chief executive Craig Young who said, “We’ve been proposing a 10 year plan for some time now, so it’s great to see this is now in place with some clear objectives and principles on how the Government aims to meet these.” Federated Farmers have applauded the Government’s rural connectivity ambitions. Board member Richard McIntyre said, “While it’s going to take a lot more investment on top of the money already announced, we applaud the commitments made to [long-term] rural connectivity solutions,”. The expansion of the Rural Capacity Upgrade programme has also gathered praise from the Rural Support Trust, stating that connectivity is not available to a lot of people, so this is really encouraging. With more businesses online, more people working from home, and access to many health services, the opportunity for greater economic growth is there, and this Government is ensuring greater access for those in our rural communities.

Anna Lorck: What other reports has he seen on improved rural broadband?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: More good news. The latest Crown Infrastructure Partners quarterly connectivity data shows that as of September 2022, 86.4 percent of the population can now access ultra-fast broadband (UFB). That’s up from 63 percent when we came into Government at the end of 2017. The member for Tukituki will be pleased to know that for the Hawke’s Bay region, the proportion of New Zealanders able to access UFB went from 57 percent in 2017 right up to 85 percent in September this year. This is a Government’s that delivering for rural communities.

Anna Lorck: What support is there for those living in the most remote communities?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Remote Users Scheme was launched last month, and it will equip as many of our most remote households as possible with broadband for the first time. We think there might be up to around 5,500 households who may be eligible to connect for the first time, and this initiative, which provides a grant of up to $2,000, has been designed with them in mind. The Government has also made deals with the major telecommunications network operators to accelerate the roll-out of 5G services across New Zealand and improve rural connectivity. For the first time, a spectrum roll-out of this type has placed requirements on those providers to prioritise rural and provincial connectivity. It is as important for wellbeing in our rural communities as it is for futureproofing our agricultural exports. As the global cost of living crisis puts pressure on New Zealanders and their families, we know a reliable connection will make it easier to earn, learn, and socialise from home. It’s just as important for our remote communities, and this Government is finally putting them first.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill

1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Member in charge of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill: Why is tackling alcohol advertising, as proposed in Part 2 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, important?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Member in charge of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill): It’s important because alcohol, like all drugs, can cause harm. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug in Aotearoa New Zealand, consumed by 80 percent of adults, a quarter of those to harmful ends. As the Cancer Society says, it is a class 1 carcinogen and known to cause many cancers, while economists estimate it costs our country up to $7.85 billion annually. In 2014, the then National Government commissioned a ministerial forum on alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sports to consider whether restrictions on marketing could reduce alcohol harm. The forum, chaired by Sir Graham Lowe, found very clearly that they could reduce alcohol normalisation and glamorisation and, therefore, alcohol harm, by ultimately phasing out all alcohol marketing in sports like we did with tobacco in the 1990s. The alcohol harm minimisation bill would implement three of the recommendations in that report.

Hon James Shaw: How would ending broadcast alcohol advertising impact funding for sports organisations?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Well, I have asked the alcohol, advertising, and sports sector for the 2022 value of sports sponsorship. All of them have said that they cannot provide the figures but they estimate that it is less than the $20 million that was estimated back in the 2014 ministerial forum. I have written to many members in this House outlining the two key mechanisms that we could use to assist with the phasing out of alcohol sponsorship in sports; namely, they are, first, a time-limited fund like the one set up to phase out tobacco sponsorship in sports—as actually recommended by that 2014 ministerial forum—or, secondly, to use the pre-existing health promotion levy, recycling an extra approximate 2c on a can of beer, 2c on a ready-to-drink, 5c on a bottle of wine, and 6c on a bottle of spirits.

Urgent Debates Declined

Cyber-security—Incident at Ministry of Justice

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Nicole McKee seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 a recent cyber-security attack involving the Ministry of Justice. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible—Speaker’s Ruling 200/4. It is not clear from the member’s letter what Government action she wishes to debate. That is a central requirement of an urgent debate application—Speaker’s Ruling 200/4 and 205/5. The application is declined.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday, 8 December for the third reading of the Water Services Entities Bill; consideration in committee of the Electoral Amendment Bill, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill, and the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 73, Noes 40.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This Government, in the last five years, has faced some of the biggest challenges that any Government, in any time in our history, has faced. If we think about dealing with our end of a global pandemic, that has been challenging enough. When we think about dealing with a terrorist attack on a minority in part of New Zealand, that has been challenging enough. When we think about dealing with a national tragedy like Whakaari / White Island, that has been challenging enough. If we think about dealing with the growing frequency of serious weather events that are causing major damage and trauma to many of our communities, that is challenging enough.

But nothing has been as challenging as dealing with the utter mess this country was left in by the previous Government that we’ve had to step up and deal with. When we think about a health system suffering from years of underinvestment and struggling to be consistent but, most importantly, equitable across our country. When we think about a mental health system that was just literally ignored and neglected because we had a Government that did not care about people who needed that help. We think about an education system that was struggling to do its job of consistent education, good literacy, good training, and a good environment for our children across the country. Classrooms that were leaking—classrooms and facilities that were desperately short of what was needed to keep our children in a good environment. We think about regions that were desperate for investment, desperate to keep their people, desperate to keep their businesses. We think about a police force that was understaffed and under-resourced, and a former police Minister who signed off on a reduction in the police force in 2016. We think about a social support system that had been set up to punish and stigmatise rather than support and transform, which is what we have now. And we think about a drinking water, a waste water, and a stormwater system that was struggling to cope, has been underinvested in for far too long, and to which the previous Government simply turned a blind eye. Everywhere you looked, everywhere we looked, we saw neglect, we saw cans being kicked down the road, and a Government that just gave up.

But then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern turned up with this Government and it all changed, and it has all changed. We’ve got on with dealing with those hard, intractable, nearly impossible issues. All those issues we’ve been dealing with: health, education, welfare, all those things. What have we done? We’ve lifted incomes. We’ve got people who were on benefits working. We’ve lifted incomes in the last year alone, on average, 8.8 percent—that’s the lift in incomes that New Zealanders have enjoyed. We’ve lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty through better income support and through the school lunches programme. That’s a testament to Ministers like the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and, of course, our Prime Minister in her capacity as Minister for dealing with child poverty. We’ve got more young people in apprenticeships than ever before—more than 50,000 young people in apprenticeships. That’s thanks not only to people like Carmel Sepuloni, again, but to Willie Jackson, with his Mana in Mahi programme and He Poutama Rangatahi programme. We’ve got more police—1,600 more of them. And what we now know is that more crime is being resolved; people who commit crimes now have a better chance of getting caught than ever before. And, of course, we have the huge challenge of waste water, of drinking water and stormwater, because we’re not kicking the can down the road anymore. I pay tribute to our colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for the incredible work that she has done to face up to that challenge and actually do something about it. Because, on this side of the House, we have a Government with Ministers who are focused on the task.

Forget about the noise. Forget about the people opposite with no plan, with no idea, with nothing but chipping away. This is a Government that is getting on with the business. A stable Government with stable Ministers focused on the task at hand, knowing what New Zealanders need, and delivering on that promise. And we’re doing all that stuff, looking after New Zealanders, while also responding to a global pandemic that has seen billions of people around the world shut in their homes and shut in their cities. We’ve done this because this is a Government that has given priority to the stuff that matters to New Zealanders.

SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT believes New Zealanders should have hope about our future, even though 2022’s been a tough year with the cost of living crisis, crime out of control in our cities, and the sense that the Government is trading away New Zealanders’ property rights and freshwater rights to a privileged few. However, the things that matter to New Zealanders have actually changed very little over the last 50 years: that if you work hard, save hard, you can build or buy a family home, you can raise a family or even a dog; that the natural environment and those special places that are important to New Zealanders should be protected; and that we have safe and efficient transport options to get around our cities, to get between our regions and our ports and markets, and even catch a bus—if it arrives on time.

When I was an engineering student in the 1990s, I fully expected that New Zealand would continue to get better. We would solve problems around waste and pollution, fresh water, and biodiversity. Our cities would grow into modern, fun metros like Sydney or Melbourne, and there would be affordable homes and lifestyles for people of all ages and stages of life. We would be able to get around on safe and fast freeways, linking cities, regions, ports, and actually have decent public transport which turned up on time.

But since the high-water mark of personal freedom and private property rights in the 1990s, things have not progressed that way for New Zealand. More and more rules limit how people can use their own land, which makes housing less affordable and delivers fewer housing options for younger people starting their careers; more rules which make building vital infrastructure slow and expensive but do little to enhance the environment; more people and groups with special interests are allowed to object to vital projects like upgrading ports and building the electricity transmission lines we need to transition to a renewable energy future. Labour has proposed challenges in resource management and planning laws which will actually make these problems worse and slow down progress just at the time when we need to accelerate.

That is why ACT proposes practical and sensible solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. We released this policy last week to give hope to young New Zealanders and the people who build New Zealand that we can be better, when New Zealanders are free to make the best possible use of their property and our shared environment so we can live our best lives. ACT believes we can improve biodiversity by incentivising landowners to carry out private conservation rather than imposing blanket planning rules on private land. By adopting environmental limits and allowing water users to trade water in a market-based system, fresh water can be more fairly allocated to the environment and for people. Where more water is needed to respond to climate change, ACT would make building water storage a permitted activity under a new environmental protection Act. A new Urban Development Act would encourage vibrant, mixed-use communities with cafes, corner stores, and childcare centres a permitted activity you can build as of right.

Landowners who see benefits in building up would be able to vote to increase development potential above existing council limits. ACT believes that only people directly affected by development should have the right to object, and rather than spending years in Environment Court begging for consents, a planning disputes tribunal would be a much fairer way to determine compensation.

When it comes to infrastructure, New Zealand has fallen far behind countries we like to compare ourselves to. ACT believes the fairest way to fund infrastructure and to build it faster and to get more built is a user-pays system. Road pricing is much fairer than fuel taxes and would provide a dedicated funding stream for transport network operators. Smart networks in the US and Singapore actually price road use by the minute. That’s how we manage down demand in other countries and provide reliable journey times.

ACT believes Kiwis and especially young people should have hope as we head into Christmas and 2023. There will be a change of Government next year and, with ACT playing a major role, a real change in the way we build our cities and conserve nature.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The Government has charted a steady ship through the choppy waters of the pandemic. And now as we emerge from the emergency phase of the pandemic, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to continue our strengthening of our health system to build a modern and high quality system that cares for people. We know the problems with our health system; they have been well traversed in this House. It was not fair for everyone; in fact, you might say that 15 percent of our population was not thought of in its planning. It was fragmented, it was complex, its institutions were unsustainable, they were perpetually burdened by debt. Healthcare had become dependent on where you lived, there were multiple DHBs in which critical specialties like dermatology were just unavailable to people. People who did need to be sent to tertiary referral centres were tracked with a complex series of payments between DHBs that meant clinicians couldn’t make effective and fast decisions in order to look after people. It was not right.

This Government, led by my colleague Minister Andrew Little, has been changing it. This has been a long hard piece of work to create a more equitable system, but we are making excellent progress, re-orientating the entire systems towards Pae Ora - Healthy Futures for all. We are doing this because all people, all whānau, and all communities should be supported to achieve good health and wellbeing. It’s the biggest change to health in a generation. We have created Te Whatu Ora, a national entity that can drive consistency of access across the country. We have a New Zealand health plan that outlines priorities for investment. Finally, the health system can think ahead of one-year cycles and we can tackle the big problems that have plagued our health system for too long. We have had no systematic workforce planning because we couldn’t think beyond the one-year cycle. DHBs were not able to set planning beyond their annual one-year budget cycle—we’re moving that out to two- and three-year cycles so that we can address the underlying problems that have stopped New Zealanders from realising the good health that they deserve.

For too long, Māori had been denied a seat at the table in terms of health decision-making. We are changing that. We’ve created a Māori Health Authority and iwi-Māori partnership boards. And yes, while we have brought to the centre the planning and delivery and addressing of our health infrastructure and our health planning, we are creating greater opportunities for local engagement through the localities prototypes, where communities do get to work with health and social services providers to make sure that everyone gets the care they need. I’ve been particularly proud to be able to re-orientate our system towards prevention. That’s why we’re bringing our smokefree bill through the House as well, and we’ve been investing properly in women’s health screening and making tremendous progress there.

Transformational change does not happen overnight, but we have been courageous and determined in addressing the big issues around resourcing and inequities. We have looked at the infrastructure that supports our health system, be that digital or be that buildings. We have turned around the fact that the party opposite for two years did not fund capital investment at all in our health system, starving our health system of the ability to care for a growing population. Our health system needs choice and quality services, and this Government is seeing to that.

So when New Zealanders head to the polls, they should know that a vote for the Opposition is a vote that puts their health services at risk. It’s clear that the National Party’s plan is tax cuts for the highest earning New Zealanders, and that means massive cuts to health and other social services. It does not add up. We have ambitious goals of making New Zealand smokefree, of ending HIV transmission, of ending hepatitis C. A vote for the Opposition puts that at risk. Some 31,000 children in healthier homes—a vote for the Opposition puts that at risk. The DECIDE abortion service for telehealth abortion—a vote for the Opposition puts that at risk. Our reforms are ongoing and we will chart our way through difficult economic times to make sure that we continue to provide New Zealanders with the services that they need and deserve.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): After five years of this Government, this Labour Government is in total disarray. They’re tired, they’re divided, they’re arrogant, and they’re out of ideas. The Prime Minister will be coming up at the end of January, and she’ll be turning up and announcing the election date for next year. I’d advise her to announce it for February so that the country can get on with it and get back and have a Government that knows how to actually implement things, rather than just to stand and announce and think that the announcement of spending is all that’s required, because that’s what this Government seems to believe and what Jacinda Ardern seems to believe.

So if we start with the entrenchment debate, I mean it’s an extraordinary set of circumstances. We have David Parker pointing out and making sure that we’re fully aware of the Cabinet note which said that Cabinet decided not to entrench the three-waters bill. The Government had been thinking about it because they know the three-waters legislation is unpopular. People don’t like it and they don’t want it. They don’t believe that putting everything together in one big monopoly, like the Unitecs and like the hospitals, is going to lead to better outcomes. They don’t believe it, and so they’re not liking it. They don’t like the co-governance provisions. They believe that all New Zealanders should have an equal say in who affects them and what their decisions are about water and basic things like that.

They don’t like the co-governance, so the Government wanted to entrench part of the legislation. Cabinet disagreed, and then, lo and behold, it gets in front of the Parliament and the Minister of Local Government, Nanaia Mahuta, slips it through with the Greens. They kept their heads down quietly for a little while, and then Duncan Webb said, when they were caught out—they were caught out, and then they panicked for a little bit. Duncan Webb said, “I was just following the Labour caucus’s orders.”—so what does that mean? So Cabinet had decided no, Duncan Webb says that the caucus had said, “Yes, let’s do it.”, Nanaia Mahuta says nothing, the Prime Minister says, “It’s nothing to do with me. Oh yes, we made a mistake.”

The only mistake that they made was that a political mistake that they got caught. That was the only mistake they made—they got caught. They slipped it through, hoped that nobody would notice, and now they’ve undone it. So that doesn’t convince people that they know what they’re doing.

The problem is that, actually, it does matter if the Government is coherent and predictable and capable. It does matter to a country, and New Zealanders look and they think that they have no idea where things are going, and when it comes to the issues of the constitution, they’re rightly concerned. They’re rightly concerned that this is a Government that no longer believes in equal voting rights.

That’s a fairly fundamental issue that most New Zealanders would be concerned about, but in terms of local government, or the Canterbury bill, they’ve done away with equal voting rights. The same Minister—Mahuta—is keen to extend that provision right across local government, and once they’ve gone through local government, they’ll probably go into central government, and all of a sudden we’re in a country that no longer believes in equal voting rights.

So people are suspicious around the constitutional tinkering, and when the Government of the day tries to entrench its legislation so that future Governments can’t have a different policy and can’t go to the electorate and say, “Actually, we don’t agree with three waters. We don’t support it and we want to change it.”—it now tries to meddle with it so that future Governments can’t do their job. What a disgrace, and it shows what a divided Government it is.

Then we have Michael Wood—Michael Wood bringing pork-barrel politics from Mt Roskill—trying to write to local Labour Party members of Parliament and saying, “Why don’t you come up with some ideas for new bus stops and bus lanes?”, but he doesn’t write to anybody else. He doesn’t write to the ACT MPs and he doesn’t write to the National MPs, but he’s only concerned with his own. Then he stands up and says, “You can be sure I wouldn’t engage in any untoward businesses.” Well, he’s been caught red-handed with pork-barrel politics, and he should be thrown out.

Then we’ve got Willie Jackson—Willie Jackson. Willie Jackson goes on the TV and says, “I believe in media independence.”, and then says, “But I also believe in my right to attempt to bully a journalist live on TV and to try and get him to shut up and leave me alone because he’s being too mean.” So I think that he’s sent a slightly conflicting message on that one—

Hon Stuart Nash: Come on, you’ve got 45 more seconds—go hard.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and there he goes.

Andrew Bayly: What did Nash do?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I don’t know what Nash did. What did he do, but he looks like Max Bradford to me.

Surprisingly, you’ve got the Minister responsible for this $300 million merger of Radio New Zealand and TVNZ that nobody—I have yet to meet anybody, including the Minister, who understands what the point of it all is. Nobody understands it.

You’ve got a Prime Minister saying that Radio New Zealand is going to go down the gurgler unless we do something, but then she is reminded that, actually, taxpayers fund Radio New Zealand. They’re not going to go down the gurgler. You can’t possibly go down the gurgler when the taxpayer is funding you, so it doesn’t matter. So that was a bizarre twist earlier in the week.

Then, when we finally come to—oh my goodness, I’ve run out of time. But this Government is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise as the local MP for Palmerston North and make a contribution in today’s general debate. And can I just say that the previous contribution from the previous member, Paul Goldsmith, was nothing more than a time filler. It was a good example of all talk, no substance, no plans, no good news to share on that side of the House—no good news full stop. On this side of the House we are far from that. We are full of good news, full of excitement, reared up and ready to go.

I am proud to be part of a strong and stable Government that is absolutely delivering for my community of Palmerston North. There is no easy fix for the cost of living, but we are taking a range of actions to relieve the pressure. And when I reflect on the steps and actions that this Government have taken, I think about that short-term cost of living payment that benefits so many people in my community of Palmerston North. I think about the winter energy payment—the continuation, the active and deliberate decision of this Government to continue that through winter, through tough times, through cold months, to support people in my electorate. I think of the work that Dr David Clark is leading in terms of tackling the monopoly that supermarkets have in this country to provide equitable and easier access to food items and the rest.

Then, of course, we recently took the next step, which is providing support to a majority of Kiwi families from 1 April next year by opening up the eligibility for subsidised childcare support. More than 50 percent of whānau with children will be eligible. And when I reflect on what that means for my community, it means that Māori and Pasifika women will just clear another barrier that is in their way to provide equitable and equity assistance for them as well.

I reflect on the last couple of weeks—actually, the last week. On Friday, I spent time visiting a couple of kindergartens in my electorate—Somerset and Tākoro kindergartens—and I spent time with the teaching staff, with the support staff, and with the tamariki as well, to learn about what it means for them, the various aspects of my community and the support. And I want to acknowledge that they’re doing in that early childhood education and kindergarten space. But also, just on Monday, I spent time at Cloverlea Primary School, talking with the principal and the staff—a great school—[Interruption] Thank you, Ms Boyack—talking about and seeing the investment that this Government has made in infrastructure: their school investment package, the Astroturf, the new teaching and learning spaces, making a difference for classrooms that have been underfunded for significant periods of time, for members on the opposite of the House. We’re not about that here—we are prepared to front up with the resource to support our teachers, to support schools, to support communities to deliver for their whānau.

I also spent time visiting Palmerston North Girls’ High School in the last few weeks and then, on Friday, visiting Freyberg High School, looking at their healthy lunches in schools programme. In between visiting Tākoro Kindergarten and Freyberg, I stopped into Ellesmere Crescent to see two-bedroom homes for Kāinga Ora that have been built in my city, in my electorate—in over 20 years. Those folk on the Opposition benches were far more focused on hocking off, selling Kāinga Ora State houses than building anything in my electorate—an absolutely shameful indictment on the actions of previous Governments. You can’t shy away from that. Members cannot shy away from the fact that if I think of Palmerston North, for the first time in many, many years, we are building warm, dry, secure homes for whānaus and families. So it was a pleasure to be able to see what they were doing in that particular space as well.

I want to congratulate some young folk in my electorate—those members of the Amanaki STEM Academy for their success. They were celebrating that over the weekend. I’m proud of the fact that this is a Government, in Labour, that has invested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programmes, has provided resourcing, has provided funding to tackle the support of innovation, of science, of technology, of engineering, of mathematics. You know, that is such a rich area of expertise and resource and I’m proud of the fact that I’m part of a Government and part of a Labour team that is investing in the future of our community, investing in the future of Palmerston North. I’m also proud of the fact that we are continuing to invest in apprenticeships. We heard Minister Little talk about the fact that we have had huge numbers of apprenticeships up and down the country. I reflect on the two-bedroom houses that Kāinga Ora had built in my city. They were actually developed and built and constructed by WelTec, and I know that that’s another example of apprenticeships working.

So I am proud to be part of a stable, strong Government in Labour that is delivering for communities up and down the country and in particular it is delivering for the people of Palmerston North.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the next call is to the Māori Paati. The Māori Paati are not present. What I intend to do is go straight to the next speaker. It means there will be a spare slot. I’ll invite each party to give me a name of a member who they would like to fill the No. 12 slot and I will choose a member. So if you can just approach me with a name on a piece of paper, it will be a surprise to one in four members in the House. In the meantime, can we go to Angela Roberts.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been wonderful hearing from my colleagues about the significant investment in our people and our economy and our future—health, education, the list goes on. But wait, there’s more. Despite all of the challenges that we have faced as a country in recent years and, actually, the challenges that face us today—cost of living, rising interest rates—we have sustained a strong and stable economy. And what this means is that we have been able to ensure that not only are we surviving but we have the space and, actually, business has the confidence to invest in people, and research and development, and to build a future that is a wonderful one for our people. Our response: not just more jobs but more training and more apprenticeships; not just record exports but more and better free-trade agreements.

As our Prime Minister and Kiwi exporters went out and reconnected across the world with markets—Japan, Singapore, the United States, and Australia—we see the demand for what we have to offer. It’s a really, really great place for us to be. The test—we know in economics—is about the strength of an economy, and is the confidence that businesses have to invest in their future.

When we went to Fieldays last week, it was great because we could see on the ground the results of that significant investment—the partnering that this Government has done to make sure that our food and fibre sector and our exports remain the best in the world. And there were so many—I just want to pick a couple. Let’s just stick to Taranaki for now, shall we? So I was really excited to see the announcement last week of the partnership between Fonterra and Nestlé—as they go down to Taranaki, the wonderful Whanganui electorate of Steph Lewis—and the project that they’ve got about making a commercially viable net-zero carbon emissions dairy farm. It’s great to speak to young leaders like Jason Rolfe, who runs the demonstration farm down there, and the excitement about making sure that we are best placed to lead the world in milk. They’re going to be working really hard to make sure that this project is about being good for the farmer, good for the cow, and good for the milk as well. And so if you’re ever in South Taranaki, which I’m sure you’ll all be doing your best to do, you need to go down and hear more about it. It’s a really exciting, global, leading project that we’re happy to support.

The other project that I think that is really great—another one that came through at Fieldays—was the continuation of partnership with Venture Taranaki and the businesses that they are supporting around Taranaki to ensure a just transition for our land use, diversification, sustainability, and a bright future for our farmers and growers in Taranaki. So right back in 2020, we supported Venture Taranaki with an amazing project called Branching Out. You know, what else can you grow in Taranaki besides grass for cows? Well, apparently there’s a lot, and it was really great to see the announcement this week of an additional $975,000 for phase two of this project. So for those of you who like a little gin, we are doing our best to make sure that Taranaki becomes a great place to grow our botanicals. Hemp fibre, which we know has so many uses—from building and construction to medicinal uses. Again, this is something that’s being invested in to ensure that we don’t just talk about it but actually we have action, and it means that we are ready to not just weather the storm that has been predicted globally as far as economies go, but we are ready to really drive into it with confidence and make sure that we are really well prepared to continue to be world-class exporters.

Sustainable land use: we know our farmers really want their children to be confident and proud farmers in the future, and that’s what this will deliver. I’m really pleased to be able to reflect on the action this Government takes for our economy.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t know which Fieldays that member was at last week, but there weren’t that many people oozing with confidence, there weren’t that many people who were talking about Labour’s strong economic management and how excited they were about the future, and there definitely weren’t many people who were interested in or excited about their interest rates doubling thanks to the cost of living crisis that this Government has overseen.

But I’ll tell you who is the hardest hit with the cost of living crisis, and that is those who are on low and fixed incomes. And so I want to look at some of the causes of the cost of living crisis, and we know there are multiple; but if we look at domestic inflation alone, what is one of the biggest drivers? It is the labour shortage. Combine a labour shortage—where there are businesses everywhere desperate for staff—with ineffective welfare policies and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. So it’s the labour shortages that are constraining the economy right now. Auckland Airport are talking about shortages over Christmas, delays over Christmas, because they’ve got 1,600 vacancies they can’t fill. There are 30,000 vacancies in hospitality; 20,000 in construction—but how many people are on the job seeker benefit? It’s 170,000, and 104,000 who have been on the job seeker benefit for more than a year, so they’re long-term. So why is it that we have these two things happening? I’ll say it again: a contributing factor to the cost of living crisis is labour shortages and ineffective welfare policies.

So let me give you some local examples about how that is impacting businesses and how they are definitely not excited about a strong and growing economy. Hotels and motels in my electorate in Taupō have a “no vacancy” sign out during the week. That’s not because they are full; that is because they cannot find enough staff to turn their rooms over during the week. So these are not skilled jobs that we are talking about. Cafes that used to open seven days are now open four days, or five, because they don’t have enough staff. So how many job seekers are on the job seeker benefit in Taupō? Over 1,200. And when I held “Into Work” workshops recently, there were a lot of service organisations who were very prepared and able to support job seekers who had a few challenges—because we know some do. But guess what! They weren’t being referred, they weren’t being connected; there are businesses desperate for workers—oh, but then I get an email yesterday from a father who is really concerned about his young person, his son, who’s been on the unemployment benefit for a couple of years with next to nil follow up from Work and Income. He was really worried about his son being left to rot on welfare.

That is why National has been very clear about our “Welfare that works” policy, because we are not willing to accept high numbers of young people, when now, under Labour, a young person who goes on to a benefit under the age of 20 will spend 19.7 years on welfare; nearly twice their age on welfare—oh, they’re pretty quiet now—they don’t like that, because that is a figure that’s come out of their own department—19.7 years is an absolute disgrace when there are businesses everywhere today looking for staff.

So I’ll come back to the cost of living crisis, and it is hurting low and middle income New Zealanders; it’s hurting those on fixed incomes the most, and that includes those on benefits. So let’s look at the Prime Minister’s pet project of child poverty. There are one in five children being raised today in a benefit-dependant home; 35,000 more than five years ago. So when Ardern promised, in 2017, to lift 100,000 children out of poverty—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we use full names or titles, please.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: When Jacinda Ardern promised, in 2017, to lift 100,000 children out of poverty—guess what! There are more now than there were then. Yet another broken promise. So Merry Christmas to the children who are living in poverty this Christmas, because they have a Prime Minister who has abandoned them—who has overseen a cost of living crisis—and their lives are going to get harder, not better, and they’re destined to a life on welfare.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in this general debate today. I want to speak about the stability that Labour Governments bring to South Auckland, and the economic prosperity—

Hon Louise Upston: You’re dreaming.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —that those Governments bring. Let me give you an example; in the global financial crisis which members opposite who are heckling me now oversaw, 15 percent of Māori lost their jobs. If you look like me, if you’re a Māori woman, it was 25 percent, and if you lived where I do in South Auckland it was even more; it was almost 30 percent. You find three Māori women who were my age in the global financial crisis that that Government oversaw, one of them would have been out of a job.

Now, in August, in a far deeper crisis that this Government has overseen, Māori unemployment is at record lows. That didn’t happen by mistake; that happened because this Government made choices which kept our people in work. It meant stability for South Auckland households who would have otherwise borne the brunt of the economic impacts of a global pandemic. It meant that people have remained in work. It means that people have been able to balance their household budgets at the end of the week. It means that families will be able to invite each other over for Christmas. It means that in February when mums think about buying the stationery and the school uniforms, they will be able to do that. It’s a very real impact for South Auckland and it’s one that this Government has made choices to implement.

I want to talk about what’s at stake in the election for those families. Labour has promised to make childcare more affordable for families and that means choices for families in South Auckland. It reverses the freeze on the income thresholds that National implemented in 2010. We’re fixing that by extending the subsidy to 10,000 additional children. That means if you’re a family with two parents and, say, 40 hours each, and you’re on $26, say, and you have two children under five, like mine—well, mine has turned five recently; happy birthday, Tem. But if you have two children who are not in school you would not be eligible for the subsidy at the moment, but we’re changing that, and from April next year you will be eligible for $252 per week. That’s a really big change. It gives families choices, it gives women choices, and it’s a big deal for the South Auckland economy because when that member talks about workforce shortages we’re talking about teachers, women in healthcare roles like nurses and aged-care workers—exactly the kind of people in South Auckland who look like me, who make choices about whether they can afford to have their toddlers in childcare or whether they cannot.

I’ll give you an example. When I had my first baby we set up a playgroup with a lot of mums, and I want to shout out to them today, people like Carla, Tamara, Ash, Caroline, Harshna, Isabelle, both of the Megans, and Mel. These were women who were all faced with a choice of paying between $300 and $500 in our area for full-time childcare per child, or going back to work. And if you were on $26 an hour and working 40 hours a week, you would be earning about $760 after tax. That doesn’t add up. In fact, if you have two children at childcare at one of the cheapest centres in that area, you would be paying for the privilege to work because of the choices that the Government made. When you value work and when you value women’s contribution to work—when you are committed to giving women choices to work—you don’t make those trade-offs, and it was a trade-off made in 2010 when that Government extended tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders.

I am proud to be a part of this Government which is giving stability to an economy in South Auckland which would have borne the brunt of the global pandemic, and I’m proud to be a part of a Government that is giving women choice.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d have said a prayer if I could remember it before I started this speech. And having listened to the last speaker, Arena Williams, I’d like to remind her that if she looks like me and she’s got one of these [Holds up a SuperGold card], she ain’t too well off under this Government. Ha, ha! In fact, I don’t recall having had any rise with one of these. And, Mr Speaker, I’m not going to bring you into this, because I realise you’re not far from it. Ha, ha!

I came today to speak about an issue that I think is of extreme concern to New Zealand. And I want to speak briefly, before I get on to the topic, about the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and the challenges that we’re facing with respect to climate change, with respect to the environment, and with respect to agriculture in New Zealand. And I want to again urge the Government—and I’ve done this before and I’m not going to make any excuses for previous Governments of New Zealand, but I think it’s most important that we get some consensus around these issues, because right now, aside from all the other challenges that we face as a country, the challenge that I think will have the most effect on our future relates to the way we deal with the emissions trading scheme, the way we deal with the environmental challenges that our agriculture sector and other sectors in New Zealand face. And if we don’t get some consensus around this, I think we’re going to get into some serious trouble long term, not only with the economy but with our population as well.

So I think we’re seeing some trends in New Zealand right now as a result of—and I’m fully supportive of the ETS and the way we go about these things; I’m just not supportive of some of the outcomes we’re achieving at the moment. We need to pay attention to this very quickly. And it’s going to need a consensus across this Parliament to achieve this. I’d urge the Government to talk to all parties in this Parliament about changes that might be required to achieve some of the outcomes we need to achieve with respect to where we’re going in the future. We don’t want to make decisions now that long term have a serious impact on our ability to both produce food and make a living as a country, and also perhaps negatively impact on what we’re trying to achieve with respect to climate change initiatives and our environmental challenges that we face.

But having said that, what I want to address today is an issue that I think is seriously impacting applicants wishing to register native and exotic plantations in the ETS. And I’ll quote some facts on this. On Tuesday, 18 October, the Ministry for Primary Industries sent out an email which said, “Applications to register native and exotic forests in the ETS after 25 October 2022 are highly unlikely to be processed in 2022. Applications received after this date would be registered in 2023.” Now, that sounds fine, except that there were 1,271 applications outstanding at that time, and those 1,271 applications as a result of that decision don’t qualify to enter the ETS until the next five-year span.

So what, effectively, happens is that we registered in a five-year mandatory emissions return period, and because they missed that date, they get pushed into the next emissions return period, costing those 1,271 applicants a significant amount of carbon units, costing the country, actually, the potential for any of those carbon units that might have been traded to have been part of the solution to the emissions trading scheme. It is a serious issue for New Zealand, it’s a very serious issue for those foresters concerned with this, and I think it’s unacceptable that Government departments who know these walls of work are coming at them—they’ve had five or six years to prepare for this—are unable to handle it when the rush comes. And it’s certainly unacceptable from New Zealand’s perspective, and it’s unacceptable for those applicants who are awaiting approval or to enter the emissions trading scheme.

So to return to the issue that I started with—and we’ve pushed legislation through this House at a great rate, and I’m not being any more critical of this Government than I am of previous Governments, because we’ve looked at this whole emissions trading scheme and we’ve looked at the environmental challenges we face as an industry, and we’ve never collectively got a solid way forward. Right now I think there are two bills related to the emissions trading scheme in the Parliament right as we speak. There are numerous items out there for consultation. None of it has been clearly dealt with, and the way forward isn’t always clearly known. So I urge the Government to get this sorted out. I urge them to take all parties into discussion as to where we go in the future. I think it’s one of the most important issues facing the future of New Zealand. There are plenty of current issues, but this is an issue that might not have a real impact for 20-odd years. And if we don’t get this right, it’s going to seriously impact on our ability as a country to go where we want to go in the future. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Emily Henderson. Can I indicate that the last speaker, if it is not taken by another party, will be by Simon Watts.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. As I’ve been listening to the debate today, I’ve been reflecting on the fact that we live in scary and unstable times—when you look overseas. When you look to the horizon, the waves are pretty big, and you cannot ignore the fact that we are a pretty small boat on this very big ocean—and the storm is coming in.

You don’t achieve stability, however—if you’re any kind of sailor, even a very small boat sailor, you know you don’t achieve stability by staying still. You achieve stability by putting in the effort to keep moving, and that has been the policy of this Government through all the successive crises-tsunamis that we have faced over the last five years. You don’t achieve stability for our people—the sort of stability that Arena Williams was talking about a minute ago, with her mum friends back in Manurewa, where my mum grew up—you don’t achieve the stability they need to be able to buy their kids Christmas presents or put food on their table by standing still. This Government doesn’t stand still.

There is, of course, another way to look at stability, so let’s do a little compare and contrast. There is stability by putting in the work to keep yourselves stable, to keep moving, to keep balance. But there’s another sort, because stability can also mean stasis. It can mean being frozen, say, oh I don’t know, like those benefit levels that, again, Ms Williams was talking about, or perhaps those dental grant levels that Minister Sepuloni spoke about earlier that have stayed stuck since 1996, and what huge injustice that did to our people.

But let’s take, at random—you know, purely at random—say, the freezing of Government investment in, I don’t know, health infrastructure, say for, oh, I don’t know, two years, perhaps, say, oh, let’s take it at random, 2015 to 2016. You know, it’s terribly stable, of course, doing nothing, but the actual impacts are profound instability. If you don’t stably—if you stably refuse to—invest in, oh I don’t know, let’s take an example, Whangārei Hospital, for example, the impact is literal instability. I’m talking cracks in walls, I’m talking leaks in ceilings, I’m talking windows that actually fall out of surgeries during surgery, or—in a recent celebrated example—I’m talking pipes that burst and literally shower excrement down hospital walls. That sort of stability is what was offered by the previous National Government in Whangārei. It literally meant my community watching its hospital falling apart.

And while the previous Government stood still, Whangārei did not. We grew; we are one of the most fast-growing areas in the country. We continued to be deprived. We continued to suffer the impacts of a lack of investment in the basics that any society should be given. It was the stability of no new ideas, no answers, no solutions; a plan, now we hear, that consists of reversing virtually every forward-stabilising step this Government is taking.

But, therefore, it was wonderful to stand in Whangārei not long ago with Minister Little and confirm that we are going to be funding stage one of the new hospital: an acute services building, a child health unit, and an emergency department (ED) that is going to be three times the present size, aimed at what we’re going to need for 2040 at least. Compare this to the current ED—cracks in the walls, low ceilings, can’t put a respiratory system in place because the ceilings are too low, oh yeah, and did I mention the leaks?—which is only 40 percent of what it should be. We’ve confirmed a $759 million investment. And then, because there is always more, we are a Ginsu-knives Government: we have committed to $200-plus million to build ourselves another 159 beds in a new ward tower. Now, that equates not just to the stability that my community is going to need for its own health; it also equates to a steady supply of work in these unstable times, with more than 500 jobs anticipated. I know my local contractors are already saying, “That. That’s the stability we need. That’s what’s going to lead us through.”

There’s stability that is investing wisely or there’s stasis and drift to disaster in our little boat of New Zealand. I know which one I seriously suggest New Zealanders choose.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Inflation and economic doom and gloom have been in the headlines and it’s not surprising if people are feeling worried and anxious about their future. The Reserve Bank recently admitted that it is engineering a recession in the misguided belief that it’s necessary to reduce the rising cost of living. Some bank economists in New Zealand have said we need 50,000 or more people—workers—to lose their jobs in order to combat inflation, and yet it’s totally unfair to ask those on the front lines or those who are on low incomes to suffer even more to stop inflation when they have been the ones who are suffering from the high cost of living in the first place.

If we look overseas, we see a lot of economists suggesting there is an alternative approach. Even the World Bank has said countries should be focused on increasing production, not reducing demand. It is not clear how making those who are the most vulnerable in our communities struggle to make ends meet even more is going to help boost production. As Elizabeth Warren recently said, “Do you know what’s worse than high prices and a strong economy? It’s high prices and millions of people out of work.” In the New Zealand context, that is tens of thousands more people out of work.

Now, more than ever, we need to change the system that is leaving too many people insecure and unable to afford the basics while a tiny a number of people are amassing personal fortunes. We can have an economy that works for ordinary people, not against them. But for the last few decades, economic orthodoxy has increased inequality.

What does that look like in Aotearoa New Zealand? It’s the wealthiest 10 percent owning over 60 percent of the assets while the poorest half, 50 percent of New Zealanders, own only 2 percent. It is generations of entrenched poverty, starting with child poverty, resulting in lifelong inequality, not just of income and wealth but of health outcomes. Ultimately, it’s a huge cost to all of us. It looks like front-line workers struggling to make ends meet as rents rise, living in cold, damp, unhealthy homes, if they don’t live in cars; and essential workers, who made sure the rest of us could eat and get healthcare during a pandemic, being paid a minimum wage, maybe working multiple jobs, having to choose between heating their crappy rental to a healthy temperature or putting food on the table, and potentially being laid off in the coming year in order to combat inflation.

Meanwhile, the Fletcher Building chief executive made over $6,580,000 last year. The leader of the National Party in his final year as chief executive for Air New Zealand made over $4 million in one year. The four largest banks, all almost entirely foreign owned, are now making record profits, and they’re returning the lion’s share of that to overseas shareholders. What happens when interest rates rise? Ordinary people have to pay more for the mortgage, rents keep going up, and the banks’ profit margin on the interest rate increases.

Now, the bank CEOs’ pay looks modest compared to the Fletcher chief executive or Mr Luxon at Air New Zealand—it’s only between $1 million and $2 million a year in the past year. But it would take workers on a median hourly wage just over 25 years—that’s quarter of a century—to earn what the big bank chief executives got paid just last year. So that’s median hourly earnings: $29.66 an hour, just over $61,000 a year.

It’s the same with the big power companies and the gentailers. They’re returning huge dividends to shareholders rather than investing in renewable electricity that would bring down prices, and they’re paying their chief executives enormous salaries.

Now, things don’t have to be like this—things don’t have to be like this. We don’t have to put up with the same old tired excuses. Right now, inflation rules the headlines, we’re hearing that next year’s going to be a tough year—but not for everyone. A small number of wealthy people have made a killing. Supermarkets, banks, and petrol and power companies have raked in billions in excess profit while millions struggle to cope with the rising cost of living. It doesn’t have to be that way. It’s time to rip up the failed playbook. It’s time for a guaranteed minimum income, free public transport, rent controls—we can—[Time expired]

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take the final call in this general debate this afternoon. And how timely it is to be able to take a call when tomorrow at 9 a.m., the Government are going to table and take us through the third reading—the third and final reading—of the Water Services Entities Bill, “three waters”.

What a saga. What a saga that has led us to the point in which tomorrow, this House will go through a period and debate a bill that has failed from the start. Today in the House, we had the answers to questions which were categorical in regards to whether there was an understanding around a Cabinet minute that was undertaken by Government on 30 May. That Cabinet minute said, “The bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill.” It was referring to the Water Services Entities Bill. And the Prime Minister particularly noted today in the House that the Minister has not acted against the instructions of Cabinet. Well, well, well.

How do you reconcile those two statements? I ask: how do you reconcile those two statements? Because the Cabinet minute says, “The bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill.” That’s quite specific, right? I don’t think that’s too unclear, it’s not too murky—it’s pretty black and white.

So how did the bill go from the committee of the whole House stage back to the House with a privatisation entrenchment provision within it? And that did not breach the Cabinet instructions?

Andrew Bayly: I know, I know.

SIMON WATTS: I mean, call me old-fashioned, Andrew Bayly—normally a simple man from the Waikato, originally. You know, I don’t know. Maybe I’m just drawing a little bit too much into that.

But Kiwis can see through that. And that side of the House is sitting silent. They’re sitting with their heads down because they know—they know—that tricky business is at play here. Tricky business at play, and not everyone can be right in regards to the statements that have been made.

But tomorrow morning, we will go through the third reading of this bill and we will articulate and feed back the concerns and issues and huge amount of feedback that came from across this country—more than 88,000 people made submissions in regard to this bill. This is a bill that’s one of the most controversial bills that has been in this House in the past two years that I’ve been a member of Parliament; a bill that is wholeheartedly opposed by hard-working Kiwis across this country, because at its core, this bill confiscates assets that should be retained and maintained in local ownership. It centralises assets; it’s mega entities, which have no democratic accountability.

And we have seen that the Minister, under urgency, has attempted to put in an entrenchment clause into that legislation which goes to the heart of attacking our democracy. That is completely unprecedented. Never in the history of this House has a Government attempted to put an entrenchment provision in for public policy.

But the reality is recorded in history. The reality is recorded and this Government have said they made a mistake. But a “mistake” assumes that you didn’t know what was going on. I think, as has been articulated by the Cabinet minute that was very clear around the entrenchment provision and the fact that there was no support for that entrenchment of the privatisation submission, then something else is at play here. And I think at the end of the day, Kiwis will be judged on that.

Tomorrow, National will reinforce our position that when we are in Government, we will repeal three waters and we will repeal the Water Services Entities Bill. And that is because that is what this country is calling for and what this country deserves.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Voting

Correction—Extended Sitting Motion

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, when the vote was announced on the extended sitting, it was incorrectly announced as 73 in favour and 40 against. The correct vote was 76 in favour and 40 against.

Bills

Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill

First Reading

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

It is a privilege to be a member of the Cawthron Institute Trust Board, as the MP for Nelson, and to bring this private bill to Parliament. My interest as one of the statutory trustees is hereby disclosed, including the proposal that all members of the trust board have their personal liability limited and indemnified by this bill.

It has been quite a journey bringing this private bill to the House and I am pleased we are finally here. I want to place on record my thanks to a number of people who have helped bring this bill to fruition. My thanks to my fellow trustees, to chair John Palmer, Sarah-Jane Weir, and Harvey Ruru for being the driving forces behind the introduction of this bill. Thank you to Cawthron Trust secretary Elizabeth Bean for keeping us all on task throughout the process. To the exceptional team in the Clerk’s Office and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, thank you for your wise advice to ensure we were compliant with the many Standing Orders that govern the introduction of a private bill. And finally, thank you to Cawthron lawyer David McLay for his patience and perseverance in getting the bill to this stage.

There is a high bar for bringing a private bill to Parliament, which is as it should be. There needs to be a very strong rationale for private organisation to use the time of the House for its private purposes. Throughout my contribution, I will explain why a private bill is needed to achieve the objects of the bill instead of seeking a judgment through the High Court. The purposes of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill are to provide for the appointment of a member of the trust board nominated by Te Tau Ihu iwi, and to clearly articulate the objects of the trust board and to specify the legal liability of the trust board members and update and modernise the governance arrangements of the trust board. In addition, there was a change made to the existing Act by the Trusts Act 2019 that was inconsistent with a previous High Court judgment. The Bill will correct this error.

But before I address the bill in some detail, I wish to provide some historical background. The Cawthron Institute is New Zealand’s largest independent science and research institute and has operated for over 100 years. It plays a special role in the life of Nelsonians in Aotearoa New Zealand and on the world stage. Cawthron Institute is a taonga and a jewel in the Crown of the Te Tau Ihu top of the South region.

The Cawthron Institute is named after its benefactor, Thomas Cawthron, a name that has resounded in Nelson for over a century. Cawthron was one of New Zealand’s earliest philanthropists and a pioneering businessman. His contributions have had a lasting impact on Aotearoa and the city of Nelson. Born in London in 1833, Cawthron lived in Nelson from 1849. He recognised the importance of enriching life with music and beauty, as demonstrated by his donations to the Nelson School of Music, Nelson’s public hospital, the chains on Rocks Road, and his gift of the granite steps leading to Nelson’s iconic Christ Church Cathedral. After his death in 1915, Cawthron’s will provided for £230,000—about $127 million in today’s terms—to establish an industrial and technical school, institute, and museum to be called the Cawthron Institute. Cawthron envisioned an education institute that would address the problems facing our agricultural industries in order to further our country’s economic, social, and environmental development. Cawthron’s will was made while he was in London in 1902 and resulted in the need for clarification of his bequest by scientific advisory committee by the then Supreme Court in 1919, and ultimately by way of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Act 1924. It wasn’t long before the institute, guided by some of the country’s leading scientists, gained a strong reputation for providing the research needed to support New Zealand’s primary industries.

Today, Cawthron is one of New Zealand’s most significant scientific organisations. Not a year goes by without reports in both mainstream and scientific media in Aotearoa and overseas, highlighting progress made by the small yet world-class scientific community. In recent years, Cawthron’s research focus has been on aquaculture, seafood safety, ocean and freshwater health, algae and bioactives, and food testing. The institute is currently investigating the potential of the native red seaweed Asparagopsis to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. The seaweed has already been proven in trials overseas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in livestock by up to 80 percent. Cawthron has recently partnered with Westpac, Port Nelson, and forestry company OneFortyOne to launch a national seagrass restoration project that aims to fight climate change and improve ecosystem health. Cawthron is also part of an international collaboration with Boston Children’s Hospital to develop the world’s first algae-based local anaesthetic using shellfish toxin: neosaxitoxin.

Last year, the Cawthron Institute celebrated its centenary, albeit with the impediment of COVID. I was proud as the MP for Nelson to mark the occasion here at Parliament and pay tribute to this world-class Nelson institution. One hundred years of Cawthron can be attributed to the many people who have worked for, guided, and supported the institution through its ups and downs, and is testimony to the pioneering vision of Thomas Cawthron.

Now, to the bill. Clause 5 of this bill is the first key provision. It will inject an objects clause that states the charitable objects of the trust board. The clause represents the objects set out in the will of Thomas Cawthron and the judgment of the then Supreme Court in 1919. The proposed wording is that the objects: “are the advancement of science to benefit Te Tauihu and Aotearoa New Zealand, with a focus on natural resources.” Clause 5 also contains an interpretation provision proposed section 2B that includes definitions of “Te Tauihu Iwi Bodies” and “Te Tauihu Iwi Chairs Forum”. Clause 6 will then provide for the appointment of “the Te Tauihu Iwi member by the Te Tauihu Iwi Chairs Forum, acting on behalf of Te Tauihu Iwi Bodies.” These two clauses will ensure that local iwi can appoint a statutory trustee to join the four existing trustees: the MP for Nelson, Mayor of Nelson, Mayor of Tasman, and Anglican Bishop of Nelson. Some might say that this could be achieved by way of an application to the High Court. However, that would not be honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the Te Tau Ihu iwi member would not then be one of the statutory trustees identified in the Thomas Cawthron Trust Act 1924. In order to create a statutory trustee, the Act must be amended, and this is what this private bill seeks to achieve.

Prior to the introduction of this bill, our trust board chair, John Palmer, has spent significant time engaging with local iwi to ensure they are supportive of the changes we are making to the bill. It is clear that Thomas Cawthron’s intention was for local community leaders to have governance oversight of the institute in order to ensure its charitable status for the good of the people of the region was maintained. The trust board is of a clear mind that adding a statutory trustee nominated by iwi is in keeping with the will and intention of Thomas Cawthron.

I now wish to highlight the recent High Court orders made under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 by what that Act terms a “charitable scheme”. In February 2003, High Court orders were made by Justice Wild that included an order that section 17 be deleted and replaced. Further orders were made in 2011. Those orders affect the trust instrument but have not been recorded in legislation. The Trusts Act 2019, the amended section of the Act rather than the Act, was changed by the court orders. In essence, the amendments to the Thomas Cawthron Act via the Trusts Act gave some of the responsibilities that the trust’s board had passed to the institute’s commercial board of directors through the 2003 High Court judgment back to the trust board. The trust board was not consulted, and the error was made that needs reversing. As I have already said, that error cannot be amended again by the High Court.

The last main change is that the liability of the trustees ought to be limited in a manner that is permitted by the Trusts Act, rather than the trustees having completely unlimited liability. This change is contained in clause 12 of the bill that will enact a new section 17A.

I thank everyone for their work in getting the bill to this stage. I am confident that members here will support this bill through to select committee where it can receive careful consideration. I commend the bill to the House.

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill in 2022. The bill has been brought to the House on behalf of the Thomas Cawthron Trust by the member for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, who’s also a statutory trustee and I’ll get into that part of it in a little while.

We don’t often get private bills through Parliament, so it’s quite interesting, and it will be very interesting to see it go to the select committee. Unfortunately, it’s not coming to the best select committee in the House; I understand it’s going elsewhere, and I don’t know what I’m doing speaking on it, but I’m here—because I really only speak on things that concern the Governance and Administration Committee, the best select committee in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps by popular demand, Mr McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When one visits Nelson, one immediately knows you’re in a place that’s different than just about anywhere else in New Zealand. I’m not going to comment on the quality of it, but it certainly is a nice place to go to. But the thing that’s so different about Nelson is that once you get past the apples, the wine, the grapes, the hops, and a little bit of dairy and sheep, you get to a lot of forestry and a lot of fishing—both topics that I’ve had interests in in my time in the House, and both very fascinating things. Certainly, Nelson was the largest fishing town—or port or city—in New Zealand and contains branches of all the largest fishing companies in New Zealand and certainly is the home base to at least two of those large fishing companies. It has by far the largest fishing fleet in New Zealand, and it’s a very important industry to Nelson—and I’ll tell you what that’s got to do with the Cawthron Trust in a minute.

A little down the road, one comes across a very special entity, the Cawthron Institute. The Cawthron Institute, as the previous speaker, Rachel Boyack, said, was started as a result of what can only be described as an extraordinarily generous gift by a benefactor of some £230,000. Now, there’s not many of us in the House that can remember pounds; I can. I’m not saying you can, Mr Speaker, but I can. And I could tell you that’s a lot of money, and that was in the year, I think, round about 1905 or something like that. It was an awful lot of money.

Chris Penk: What was that like?

IAN McKELVIE: I can’t remember that. None the less, the Cawthron Institute is a very special entity, and it was formed as a result of that gift. It was formed, really, to, I guess, help the New Zealand agriculture industry at the time and to provide scientific backing to that industry. But, of course, Nelson’s changed a lot since then, and the institute has certainly changed its emphasis too to be much more concerned with things that are connected to the Nelson community and to the Nelson population. Now, it spends a lot of its time addressing issues related to the oceans, to fishing, to the vast seafood industry that includes the salmon industry and the mussel industry. And, particularly, Cawthron’s had a great impact on the mussel industry over the years with their research into spat and things like that, so they’ve had a very significant impact in the community that they operate in. The Cawthron Institute employs some 300 scientists, and it’s really quite interesting when you look through the list of them. There’s a lot of scientists there—and I don’t know whether scientists get paid better than MPs; they probably do—so they would add a significant amount to the Nelson economy, those scientists that are employed in Nelson. No doubt there are some employed elsewhere in the country and the world as well.

So it is a very significant organisation for Nelson, and to bring a bill to the House to change an entity that has been around for over 100 years and to change it in a manner that maintains its relevance today is pretty important. One of the things that really interests me about this, reading through the notes that we were provided by Rachel, is that it has a statutory board effectively set up. It’s probably quite unusual in New Zealand, now, to have a board set up for a start with an Anglican bishop on it—sorry, Mr Speaker—but it also has the Mayor of Nelson, the local MP, and it has community leaders on that board. And whilst that trust board operates the trust, it doesn’t operate the business of Cawthron, I don’t imagine, for a minute. None the less, it sets the parameters for the CEO, and the CEO and the board operate the Cawthron Institute from there and direct what it does. So it’s probably a very stable organisation and set up very well.

And so the bills come to the House, effectively, to change some of those things that, after a hundred years, clearly need changing. And as the previous speaker said, some of those issues have been created by rulings of the courts over the years, and I think it’s typical of New Zealand and, I suppose, our penchant for trusts, because there are an awful lot of trust in New Zealand and many of them date quite quickly—in spite of the fact that we think they’re going to see us out. And so the fact that they date means they need to be resurrected and altered quite frequently. And so what this bill sets out to do is to modernise some of those issues, to ensure the stability of the Cawthron Trust, to ensure the trustees are protected within the role they’re expected to do, and also to appoint a new trustee from the Te Tauihu iwi. That just adds, I guess, another statutory trustee and gives them a place on that trust. And I understand that the chairman, John Palmer, has spent a lot of time making sure that that negotiation is satisfactory and that it works well for both parties.

And as I said before, it contains the MP for Nelson, the Mayor of Nelson, the Mayor of the Tasman District, and the Anglican Bishop of Nelson. And I think a previous Mayor of the Tasman District may also be on the board of the entity itself. So it is an interesting organisation. It’s an interesting thing that we’ve got to bring a private bill to Parliament to alter it. But, I think, when you see the magnitude of that organisation and the contribution it makes to New Zealand as well, it’s well worth this Parliament’s time, investigating further through the select committee process where it gets to and ensuring that this bill goes back in the form that both the trust, the community, and the Parliament want it to be presented back in.

I can’t resist the opportunity to talk very briefly about, I suppose, the establishment that, I think, succeeded Cawthron as an agricultural institute in New Zealand and provided the research and development for agriculture, of course, which is in the Rangitīkei electorate in the Massey University. And Massey University, of course, is a very important part of our agricultural and productive sector in New Zealand as we speak today. That was one of the reasons that Thomas Cawthron set this institute up, of course. It was to do the things that are now to some extent carried out by other entities in New Zealand. But they have found not quite a niche, because they’re pretty broadly spread and they’re even into growing such things as algae for many, many years, trying to find ways of growing algae in a more efficient manner, because algae historically has been a pretty inefficient—well, we’d imagine it’s inefficient because you need such a vast lot of water and such a vast lot of sunlight, and, of course, Nelson would tell you they have sunlight, but we have sunlight in the Manawatū too. Even in Wellington, there’s sunlight. But you need a lot of sunlight and a lot of water to grow algae effectively, and it’s, I suppose, an onerous process. They are going through that process and they’re looking at alternative forms of that, and, of course, some of those—[Baby cries] Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t know I had that effect on people!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It aroused some in the House, Mr McKelvie!

IAN McKELVIE: Obviously not everyone’s asleep. So I suppose I’ve probably got almost to the end of where I wanted to be, but I just want to talk about one or two other Nelson entities that Cawthron has a significant impact on: one of those being King Salmon. When you look around the world, the salmon industry around the world is moving at a great pace. We have some challenges in New Zealand with it because we’re, I guess, a little more challenged as to where we can locate these things from an environmental perspective. But, certainly, that company has benefited from research done by Cawthron. It certainly looks around the world for opportunity, and, again, the fishing industry as a whole, and the industries that Cawthron service, really rely on us having a decent set of environmental laws that enable people to do what they want to do.

So, from the National Party’s perspective, we totally support it. We’d be very interested to see where it gets to in the select committee. It’s a shame it’s not coming to a good select committee, but, none the less, they’ll manage it well, I’m sure. And that’s probably my lot.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill. Can I firstly acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, the wonderful MP for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, who is also a statutory trustee on the Cawthron Institute Trust Board. I thank her for her work in bringing this bill to the House and also working very closely with her fellow trust board members and wider stakeholders and advisers. I believe this a private bill, which is quite rare for this House. So Rachel has now successfully brought a member’s bill through Parliament and now she’s bringing a private bill, and, to top the trifecta off, I guess all that awaits is a local bill. So a very effective MP for Nelson and I want to acknowledge her.

This is a really important bill. As has been mentioned, the Cawthron Institute is a taonga, is a jewel in the Nelson, top of the South region. I particularly want to acknowledge, among all of the amendments that are being made to modernise the operations and the workings of the trust, the inclusion of the iwi of Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka-a-Māui.

Now, for those folks who don’t know, Te Tau Ihu means “The prow of the canoe” Te Waka-a-Māui. So Te Tau Ihu is a special name and it encompasses the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu. If the House would indulge me, I’d like to mention all of those iwi who now have a direct route through the Te Tauihu Iwi Chairs Forum to be able to appoint a representative on to this esteemed organisation. They are: Rangitāne o Wairau Settlement Trust, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust, Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Incorporated, Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust, Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust.

I know that this is a private entity, this is a private organisation, but it has deep roots into the community, it has a very proud history of over a hundred years, and to be able to have that direct connection now with the iwi of Te Tau Ihu is a wonderful action on behalf of the trust board. I especially endorse these elements of this bill.

But there’s more to it, because the Cawthron Institute is a world-class scientific organisation and the work that they do has helped lift the productivity and the profitability for our world-class industries and, in particular, in recent years, our agriculture industry, and our seafood industries. But also it goes beyond that: shellfish farming, finfish farming, and seaweed farming. And also a range of other areas: algae and bioactives, freshwater health, ocean health, and seafood safety—all of these are critical aspects in the supply chain, in product production, and also in the export and, ultimately, the trade of our goods, which is so vital for our nation but also our regions, especially the top of the South region.

So I want to commend the work that the Cawthron Institute does. In addition to the work about strengthening connections with iwi, the Cawthron Institute has a Māori team, Te Kāhui Āio, and they are doing great work building connections with Māori across all of the different work areas that they are involved in. It’s really important that research that affects Māori also benefits them, and that is a key part of what that team does.

So this is a really welcome bill. I am so pleased that we are able to modernise and update the key documents that will help the Cawthron Trust continue its great work. I want to acknowledge all those involved once again, including the member in charge, Rachel Boyack, and I commend the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee in their task ahead. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. The Green Party is pleased to support the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill. I congratulate Rachel Boyack and everyone in the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Cawthron Institute for all of the work that they have done in developing this bill.

I’m grateful to the Cawthron Institute, because I came face to face with a scampi there. One of the many aquaculture research projects that the institute has done involves being the first agency in the world to captive-rear scampi, which are a species of clawed lobster. They live in deep waters. We’ve got species that are endemic to Aotearoa. They’re quite a substantial fishery in the Southern Ocean, but the Cawthron Institute’s work here was aiming to establish captive-rearing so that scampi could be taken at peak condition and avoid pressure on the wild fishery.

As Rino Tirikatene has noted, the institute works across a range of sectors to benefit primary industries in Aotearoa, particularly in fresh water, in aquaculture, and their base at Nelson and their research facilities on the Boulder Bank does enable and make sure that they’re close to a really diverse community of interests in Nelson and Marlborough, particularly in the aquaculture space. There are more than 300 staff and I noted, too, that they’ve got quite a programme of having guest workers where they invite others from other institutes and universities to come in and do research for a period of time, and that helps encourage collaboration.

This bill is important particularly because of the provision not just for modernising the principal Act but also for enabling Te Tau Ihu to appoint a statutory trustee to Te Tau Ihu’s chairs forum, to appoint that statutory trustee to join the Mayor of Nelson, the MP for Nelson—in this case, Rachel Boyack working alongside the Hon Dr Nick Smith in his new role on the trust board. That representation for Te Tau Ihu is really important because of the increasing work which the Cawthron Institute is doing in terms of Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pākehā perspectives on issues like aquaculture.

Just some of their research projects: I discovered something called oxygen nanotechnology, which involves small bubbles of oxygen seeking to trap nutrients in the sediment of some of our eutrophic lakes. And it was the New Zealand Māori Centre for Research Excellence, Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, which commissioned the Cawthron Institute to do this research to look at how we could have other techniques other than geoengineering some of these polystyrene rafts that are being put into lakes to absorb nutrients.

And another really interesting project, which again provided that bridge between Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pākehā and māramatanga and just the Māori knowledge and more traditional knowledge, was looking at the impacts of trout and people’s different views around trout in our rivers and lakes in Aotearoa. Of course, Fish & Game has done a lot with trout advocacy, which is aimed at improving river water quality, lake water quality, and getting water conservation orders. Others perceive trout—as Tā Tipene O’Regan called them, opossums of our rivers—as a pest. So it’s how do we get some shared objectives here, and the Cawthron Institute’s research was looking at where is there a shared goal: restoring native fish habitat, removing trout where rare species are threatened.

So this bill, in modernising the work of the trust board and providing for more diverse representation, ensuring that there is a strong representative there for Te Tau Ihu iwi, will take the institute further and build on its very good work, particularly across our water spaces and the work that its staff and the board do. Kia ora.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as probably one of the first members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—a great select committee—and as its deputy chairperson to say a huge thankyou to the member for Nelson, my good colleague Rachel Boyack, for sending this bill to our select committee. We will look after it well and I’m sure that there will be lots and lots of great conversations had about this wonderful institute as we pass this bill, and it’s great to hear that there has been support garnered from both sides of the House as well.

I think—I’m just looking at the Order Paper really quickly—that there will be a bit of a theme of good governance coming through this afternoon, with lots and lots of great members from this side from electorates who are doing their thing for their communities, and this one is no exception. The Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill is looking at strengthening the constitution and, therefore, the statutory arrangements for this organisation in terms of their board and in terms of clearly articulating the objects of the institute and making sure that we have a good governance structure that honours Te Tiriti, and making sure that we have that iwi representation on that board as well.

I often say that governance is not an end in itself, or good governance or the practice of good governance, but the practice of good governance is the guardianship of the entity or the business organisation which we try to guard and make sure that it goes further on to do better things than what it was established for. Throughout today’s debate, members will have heard many, many things mentioned about the good work of the Cawthron Institute. For me, some of the things have actually been like what happened on my research trip to Australia, where we sat down in a meeting with the Aussies, and I’m trying to think—I know my good colleague here is now trying to think, as well. We had a conversation about farming and agriculture, and the minute that Rachel Boyack mentioned Asparagopsis, the Aussies across the table—their eyes lit up and they knew exactly what we were talking about. They knew that this was a Kiwi technology and innovation from the Cawthron Institute. So we really know that this institute is exporting technology ideas throughout the world, but it is also helping as we try and tackle climate change and our farting cows, as well, by lowering those emissions through, obviously, the algae which we could feed to animals.

But upon a deeper dive into the organisation, I do know that this is a wonderful organisation as well. One of the statistics that I was particularly pleasantly surprised by was the diversity of its staff. I think my good colleague Mr Ian McKelvie had already mentioned that it employs a huge workforce and the precise numbers—actually, I’m just about to say that it’s around 300 people. So over 300 people are employed in Nelson by the Cawthron Institute, and they are lots and lots of high-level or high-paying jobs as well, but they range from 35 different countries. So you will see a lot of diversity at the Cawthron Institute—people from China, Poland, the United States, France, Fiji, Australia, Germany, Sri Lanka, England, Italy, and many, many, many more.

When we see that diversity and bring that expertise into New Zealand, the fact that these people, who are leaders in our science community, actually want to come and work in New Zealand and want to contribute to tackling some of the bigger problems that we’re facing at this moment through science and innovation, I think that this institute is one that we must protect and we must support as well, and support we have. The Government has given many different funds and grants to this institute so that they can continue their research, and I know that my colleagues will pick up on that point later on as well.

When we look at gender diversity, we often know that girls are under-represented in STEM subjects. However, at the Cawthron Institute, over 53 percent of their staff are female, 1 percent is gender-diverse, and 46 percent are male. So we’ve got not only a great balance but an overrepresentation, you could almost say, of our female scientists and innovators at Cawthron. As well, they have this very young workforce, where the majority of their workforce is aged between 30 and 39, with that being one of the average age groups of those working there.

This has been a great employer within the great city and district of Nelson, with a great MP that represents that area and who is bringing this bill to this House. So, on behalf of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we look forward to shepherding this bill through the House, and we welcome all of the submitters and welcome engaging with you in the select committee process, as well.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure also to rise on behalf of ACT to take a call on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, a name which I’ve been familiar with all my life, and, unfortunately, I won’t be in the select committee that it gets sent to.

Every day, I’d have to walk past Cawthron Crescent on my way to and from primary school. The Cawthron Institute was always this mysterious, big, old building in town that, as kids, we weren’t sure what exactly went on inside, we just knew that it was good stuff that was coming out of it.

Thomas Cawthron, as was mentioned before, arrived in New Zealand when he was very young, aged 15, and went off—took off—when he was young, went over to Wellington and then over to Victoria to make some money. He came back when he was 22. When he was 23, he was involved in developing a copper mine on Dun Mountain in central Nelson and coalmining at Enner Glynn. I went to Enner Glynn School and Enner Glynn valley is just up the road. We used to spend a lot of time up there. He also developed financial skills, lending money to workmates. He was interested in Port Nelson, as well, over the coming years. He had a considerable skill as a trader, particularly in coal from Australia, but it was through his wide-ranging investments from 1960 in property, in mortgages, etc., that he made his fortune.

He was 32 when he started really spreading his wealth around: relief funds; church organisations; the Rocks Road chains, which are quite a feature still today; cathedral steps; and the Nelson School of Music, which was mentioned before. So he was quite a character. But the Cawthron Institute is how he will be remembered and, as Rachel Boyack mentioned earlier on, his will was drawn up in London, where bequeathed all of that money.

He had a hard start to life. His mother died when he was 12 years of age, and he went to a charity school in London. Through hard work and ability, he became a successful and charitable man. It is really awful to think that if he was around today, his success would be condemned.

The Thomas Cawthron Trust Act 1924 is a pretty substantial piece of legislation and has been amended a couple of times over the last 98 years. The Act explains pretty much everything you need to know: who makes up the board; what the board’s responsibilities and expectations are; what happens when a position becomes vacant; when meetings are; what contracts they’re allowed to do; additional powers, like borrowing money, lending money etc.; a guarantee to have put in balance sheets; and section 17 talks about remuneration of the board up to $6,000—I’m not sure whether I missed something because the preamble of the amendment says there was no remuneration, so I’m not sure about that one.

Then we get to the amendment bill, which, you sort of wonder if everything seems to be covered—the direction and all of those things. We wonder what the point is. There are four main objectives: clearly articulate the objects of the trust board and the powers conferred, which is pretty obvious; appointment of a member from the Te Tau Ihu iwi; specify the legal liability of the members of the trust board, which absolutely makes sense; and to modernise the governance arrangements, and from what I can read, that means changing it from board to trust board.

The Cawthron Institute has been a fantastic asset to Nelson and New Zealand for 98 years. Some of the stated objects make sense, we won’t be supporting the bill. The board don’t need to be directed to achieve the social and cultural benefits that the current CEO has mentioned.

I’d just like to end with a quote from Thomas Cawthron—it reminds me of the Labour Party—after he bequeathed all his money, he said to his sister’s friend Maria, “if the said Minnie Palmer gets married or has sexual intercourse with any man then this last payment shall … cease for ever”, which reminded me of the current entrenchment clause. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand here and support this private bill brought to us this afternoon by the MP for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, and, again, being the follow-on from my colleague Naisi Chen, being another member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can you mention the rest of the caucus?

GLEN BENNETT: We’ll work our way through over the next five minutes. So it’s a pleasure, I think, to bring this to our committee, although we’re a very busy, hard-working committee so it’s going to be a long summer without a break. But that’s OK because this is important work to be done. The Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill is something that is needed, something that the trustees themselves have worked on and are all in agreeance that this must be done and needs to be done. And so it’s disappointing to have the previous speaker, Chris Baillie, who has a wonderful, articulate history of growing up around this institute, and then choosing at the last moment to not support this piece of legislation. But that’s OK because it’s good to have the rest of the House backing what this is all about and what is going on.

Now, I was thinking about philanthropy as I was listening, which is something that I know does get thrown around occasionally, but not as much as it used to. And to think, more than 100 years ago, of this this man and this property, to actually be gifted, then the act of philanthropy is significant and something that I hope and would wish that—maybe through the course of select committees, through the course of the readings—people consider what it means to gift and to pass things on for future generations. Because as we’ve heard around the House this afternoon, the impact that this institute has, the impact that the research has, is generational, has been going for more than 100 years, or almost 100 years, and will continue to keep going.

When I look at philanthropy, it’s obviously about promoting the welfare of others. It’s around being generous in terms of whether it be giving money, giving land, giving goods for the betterment of our communities and for good causes. And so it is nice to be sitting here and reading a bit about Thomas Cawthron and the history that he brings and the fact that 100 years later we’re not only talking about him and his legacy but we’re talking about the innovation and the wonderful things that this institute and the act of philanthropy has done, not only for Nelson, not only for New Zealand, but for the rest of the world.

I’m going to look at what they’re all about. It’s interesting to see that they are New Zealand’s largest independent science organisation based in the little old Nelson. I know they’re sort of the centre of the universe, or centre of New Zealand or something like that, they’re up the hill of Nelson, but it is a lovely place. I visited there once; it was OK. I’ve been there several times, actually. But I was curious as I was looking at the achievements and the work that is done through the trust and the institute, and, you know, we look at our climate change lens in 2022, we look at our challenges within our environment, and, I think, 100 years ago they were discussing these things and they were looking at world-class research and science innovation; how do they grow the primary industries and how do they protect the marine and freshwater environment around New Zealand and the world. And the fact that it’s around producing research—around aquaculture, around seafood safety, algae, bioactivities, freshwater health, and ocean health—it is a good thing. And so that’s why it is great that we can, as a House, have this legislation, this private bill here that we can take through and ensure that the trust is set for another 100 years.

You know, when it was created back in 1924, they were different times. So to tighten the parameters in this piece, to also add iwi, which, again, all members of the current trust board wanted and have fought for, and I’m grateful that they have done that—I mean, you have a bishop there, you have a mayor or two there, you have an MP; so it’s only right to ensure that we have iwi at the table bringing their experience and history. And, as for Thomas Cawthron and the legacy and the good ancestor he is, it’s great to know that we have iwi at the table, as we move forward, because there’s another hundred years or more of this institute to go and there’s more innovation, and I am grateful to commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m just going to come right out and say it: Asparagopsis and neosaxitoxin. I will circle back around and explain, but there was a suggestion earlier today that if someone was to inculcate those two words into their contributions, they would earn a chocolate fish.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll take your word that they are parliamentary terms.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: They are parliamentary terms. And, later on, I will attempt to use them in a sentence just to shore up that chocolate fish.

But in all seriousness, it is a pleasure to take a call and make a contribution on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill at its first reading. I too, like many people, would like to commend my colleague the MP for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, for shepherding this bill through, and also acknowledge the fact that it will be the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee who will be no doubt providing a huge amount of rigour at looking at this particular bill.

When I think about everything I know about the Cawthron Trust itself, I have to acknowledge the fact that I’ve had to do a little bit of research. And it’s not for the lack of bravado or the lack of promotion that the local MP has given it, because it would be probably an exaggeration to say that she goes on and on and on about this particular trust, but she does mention it quite frequently. And it has prompted several of us, I think, to make visits, several of us to attend presentations when they’ve been here in Parliament, specifically to sort of catch up with what it is that they do. This particular bill and why we’re here today is that we need to support what is, essentially, a functional private bill, and that’s the reason that we’re here.

As my colleague Glen Bennett has just said, it’s a very straightforward way and a means by which to modernise the governance arrangements of the Cawthron Institute Trust Board and to allow for an additional trustee nominated by local iwi to join the trust board. In that sense, I think that we should follow not only the lead of the institution itself but certainly the lead of the people that advocate for that. And when we think about the Cawthron Institute, as we’ve acknowledged, it’s New Zealand’s largest independent science organisation, as we’ve heard on several occasions, not just today but over and over and over again, it’s based in Nelson, it was established about 100 years ago, and it focuses on what can only be described as world-class science that supports the growth of New Zealand’s primary industries and the protection of our marine and freshwater environments in particular. And it does that by concentrating its scientific research and its rigour and its main endeavours over five mains themes: and that’s aquaculture, seafood safety, algae and bioactive, freshwater health, and also ocean health. As we’ve also heard, Cawthron is one of Nelson’s largest employers, with a workforce of around about 300 highly skilled staff from all over the world. I think my colleague Naisi Chen listed all of the countries that many of those people are from, which goes to show that there’s a real understanding of the deep cultural significance of having a real melting pot of expertise and people, and that, no doubt, contributes to the fact that they want to make sure that their governance and relationships reflect a more modern way of thinking about that.

There are two things in particular that caught my mind when I looked up and did a bit of a Google search about what this particular institute does. And the first thing was that the Cawthron Institute—there’s a piece of media that says, “Kaimoana, but not as you know it”, 16 November 2022. The Cawthron Institute has contributed to the development of what is called a “pāua saucisson”—I’m going to call it that—in collaboration with a company called NewFish. And it caught my attention because NewFish has created this high-end product which combines Akaroa kelp—of course, Akaroa, being from the beautiful Banks Peninsula electorate, particularly caught my eye. And what they’ve done is pretty fascinating and I certainly can’t do it justice in the small amount of time I’ve got to talk today. But I would really encourage people who are interested in science and who are interested in primary industries and the future of primary industries to go and to really research what they do.

Before I finish, let me go back to Asparagopsis. Asparagopsis research—and the only sentence I can put it in is that Asparagopsis research reduces methane emissions from cattle. I’m sure someone will have a much more working knowledge of it than me, but it is one example of the pretty cool things that this institute does. So I have no hesitation to commend this to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That description of Asparagopsis was said with such ratiocination, I have to say, so I commend that member for her diligent description.

Before this bill was being discussed by Rachel Boyack in the Governance and Administration Committee sidelines, I’d never heard of Cawthron—and I feel a little bit embarrassed about that, given the journey that I’ve gone on now to see quite how much they have contributed. My friend the Hon Gerry Brownlee tells me that lovers of mussels in this country have a lot to thank Cawthron for because of their research endeavours into that and many other seafoods.

But I want to touch on something that Glen Bennett—accidentally, I think—applauded, and that is the importance of private wealth, because this fantastic institution exists because of the generosity of a gentleman who donated the equivalent of $127 million in today’s dollars for research. He didn’t steal it; he gave it away. He earned it from his own endeavours, and then he became a benefactor for a very good cause. And I think there are a number of people in this House who risk demonising success—clearly this gentleman was a very successful business person, and he turned those creative and entrepreneurial endeavours into generosity that this country benefits from over 100 years later. I think we owe a great debt to people like Mr Cawthron and many, many others, over the generations, who have made this country better for their generosity.

So, in considering this bill, a very sensible bill that is appropriate—it’s not going to the Governance and Administration Committee, is it, Ms Boyack? It’s going to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I’m sure they’ll give it due consideration. But let we not forget that enterprise, endeavour, entrepreneurialism, and professional success created the conditions for the benefit that we see over 100 years later.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Mr Speaker, kia ora. It’s my pleasure to speak on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill and I just want to thank the member for Nelson, the formidable member for Nelson with an extremely high work rate, for bringing this bill before the House and also for her work with the Cawthron Institute as a trustee on their board.

This private bill will make it easier for the Cawthron Institute to operate in a proper manner without needing High Court or parliamentary approval. It will clarify administrative and governance matters such as the responsibilities and powers of the board of directors and also remuneration. And this bill helps modernise the governance of the Cawthron Institute Trust Board so it is fit to continue its important work effectively.

A most important aspect of this bill for me is that it allows for additional representation of the iwi voice. Until now, the Thomas Cawthron Trust Act of 1924 only allowed the board to have three statutory members: the MP for Nelson, the Mayor of Nelson, and the Anglican Bishop of Nelson. To better represent and support the people of Nelson and New Zealand, it’s important that local iwi can participate in structures like the Cawthron Institute, and, with this private bill, Te Tau Ihu iwi now have a seat on this board. This will be a huge benefit to the work of this leading science institution in New Zealand.

The Cawthron Institute has been an important part of research and scientific progress in New Zealand history for more than 100 years now, and, since 1921, the institute has helped advance science to the benefit of all New Zealanders in many different fields, from agriculture and forestry to marine and freshwater systems. Recently, the member for Nelson and I, along with a couple of other colleagues, went and visited the Cawthron National Algae Centre to see some of the innovative research that they’re doing, and it was absolutely fantastic, once we could figure out how to get into the gate—we parked up there. It’s a low-lying piece of real estate. It was actually devastated by the floods, so they had to do a lot of work and remediation to sort that out. But then we went and met some people in some white coats and they were so excited about the seaweed. I only thought there were really, you know, two types of seaweed, but, funnily enough, there’s a whole lot of other different types, and they gave us the rundown on the different things and the different properties that these different bits of seaweed have.

And then also we got to see their salmon farm. They did a lot of research in the salmon space, so they can breed in warmer water and also deeper water, the help counter the effects of climate change. So the first stage of that centre was officially opened by the Prime Minister in May last year and we also were able to commit some funding—$6 million worth out of the Provincial Growth Fund—and Cawthron also contributed $2 million towards the centre. That centre will enable Cawthron researchers to build on their existing expertise to meet growing global demand for algae-based products and solutions. Seaweed—you know, the cultivation, is one of the world’s fastest growing in the aquaculture sector, with the global seaweed industry worth more than $6 billion per year. And there are many species that have the potential to be transformed into a range of commercial products, as well as offering environmental benefits to counteract climate change.

There are also other initiatives like the Cawthron New Zealand River Awards to celebrate the achievements of people committed to improving freshwater health and show the institute’s contribution to the development of healthy ecosystems in New Zealand.

This private bill will help the Cawthron Institute modernise its governance and proceed with its research to the highest international standards and advance science in New Zealand. So I look forward to the future contributions of the Cawthron Institute and I have no doubt that integrating mātauranga Māori and iwi voices will only strengthen it. I look forward to the work that the select committee will do on this bill and I look forward to how they will further integrate iwi and local voices into the structure of the Cawthron Institute Trust Board. So I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Rachel Boyack—five minutes in reply.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to take five minutes to reply to my colleagues from across the House for what I think has been a really informative debate about the role of the Cawthron Institute and the importance of this bill.

I’m just going to respond to some of the comments, and I’d like to start with my colleague Michael Woodhouse, who made a very useful observation, at the beginning of his speech, that is very important, and very important to the trust board, which is that a lot people don’t actually know about the work of Cawthron. It’s a particular issue that we at the trust board discuss at every meeting: the importance of ensuring not only does the Nelson community know about the work that we do but that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand need to know. It’s one of the reasons why, during the 100 years of Cawthron, I ensured we had a parliamentary function here so that my fellow parliamentarians could learn more about the incredible work of the Cawthron Institute.

On that note, I’m really grateful to the number of MPs from across the House, and there are MPs certainly from the Labour Party, from the Green Party, and I know, in the past, from the National Party, who visit the Cawthron Institute—they really enjoy having visitors. The most recent visitor I took through was the climate change Minister, James Shaw. They really enjoy having visitors. I would really encourage any member to reach out to me, as both the local MP and as a trustee, if they want to learn more about Cawthron or have a visit. And I’m putting that invitation first out to my colleague Mr Baillie because you and I are both from Nelson, Mr Baillie, and, I must say, I am somewhat disappointed that ACT aren’t supporting this bill through to first reading.

There’s a couple of comments I want to make on that. The first is around your reference to remuneration. Actually, currently the trust board members can’t be remunerated. The legislation has actually been updated since the legislation you referred to, and that explains exactly why we actually need a clean piece of legislation. We have multiple pieces of legislation. We had the Thomas Cawthron Trust Act made in error when it amended the principle Act, and we have two High Court judgments. So for those of us who sit around the governance table of Cawthron, for anybody seeking to interpret that for legal purposes, it’s very important that we tidy this up because currently we’re actually presenting a lot of legal risk to Cawthron. So we have met the test of the Standing Orders, as advised by the Clerk, to ensure that we can actually put this bill into the House. There is a very high threshold for having a private bill. So I am somewhat disappointed and would really welcome the opportunity to take Mr Baillie to a meeting with some fellow Cawthron trustees.

I just want to respond to my colleague Mr McKelvie. I’m very sorry that we’re not sending this to the Governance and Administration Committee, the best committee in Parliament, but we are sending it to my new, second-best committee: the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I note he made some very worthwhile contributions about the role of Cawthron’s work in researching in primary industries. The original focus was very much focused on agriculture and horticulture. We still do a lot of that, but, in today’s climate—“climate” is probably the appropriate word—a lot of the focus is now on aquaculture, on seafood, on oceans, on water, on climate change, and on soil research, which is incredibly important.

So, as my colleague Dan Rosewarne noted, one of the organisations that we do research for is King Salmon, and some of that research has been very important. King Salmon locally, in Nelson, has lost a lot of money because of fish death, because of warming waters. It’s a very significant and serious issue for one of the largest companies in my electorate. So one of the things that Cawthron have been doing is stress testing particular genetic lines of salmon to see which ones can survive in warmer waters. It’s important that we do that work so that King Salmon can continue to provide some of the best protein to the world and provide a large number of good quality jobs in Nelson.

My last thanks is to my colleague Rino Tirikatene, who’s worked closely with me on this bill. There’s one particular piece that the select committee will need to look at, and that is the spelling of Te Tau Ihu. Te Tauihu Iwi Chairs want it to be two words, and I know there are some who would like three words. While it might seem like a small issue, it will be something important for the select committee to grapple with. I wish them well; I look forward to joining them at committee for considering the bill. Finally, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Ayes 104

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

Noes 50

Abstentions 1

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the

Motion agreed to.

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

Bills

New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill

First Reading

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I move, That the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider this bill.

The New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill protects one of New Plymouth District’s key financial assets: the Perpetual Investment Fund—or as we locally call it, PIF, which I will refer to it as from now on. The protections in the bill ensure the perpetual nature of this fund continues for benefit of the New Plymouth district community into the future. This is about generational investment.

I want to acknowledge the New Plymouth District Council, particularly Mayor Neil Holdom and his team, who have brought this bill to Parliament today. I also want to acknowledge the people of the New Plymouth district, and thank those who have already engaged on this so that we can be here today in this first reading.

Now, the background of this bill shows why the council is asking that this Parliament puts in place a more sustainable legal arrangement for our PIF. The PIF was formed back in 2004—I remember it well—when the council sold off its share in Powerco. The initial value that we received was $259 million. The PIF was formed as a more diversified investment, with an active investment approach taken.

Now, the global financial crisis of 2007-2008 hit the PIF hard, as it did many other large investment funds around the world. The value of the PIF decreased. However, the council of the day was concerned about maintaining the release, and it took from the PIF to subsidise rates to avoid a large shock to ratepayers. What this meant, though, was that the PIF continued to drop in its value. It was not until 2011 that the council began a programme to reduce the release to a more sustainable level without causing too great of a shock to ratepayers of New Plymouth.

Now, the council finished its programme in 2015, and, in the following year, put in place a new governance model to a more sustainable management of the PIF. This included establishing the New Plymouth PIF Guardians Limited—get my tongue around that one—to set the investment principles around its annual release, rather than the council doing this. This insulates the PIF from direct political pressure, which is good. The council and the PIF Guardians also have a governance deed that clearly outlines their role. This governance deed is embedded through requiring a 75 percent majority vote by councillors in order to amend, terminate, or waiver it. This sets a high political threshold and requires a degree of political consensus.

As history shows, New Plymouth District Council has had some hard lessons on how to ensure that PIF is used in a sustainable manner. The council has already put in place a range of measures for this, particularly with the PIF Guardian mode and model, which follows best practice. The PIF Guardians provide well-diversified investment strategy. The release to the council each year is set at a sustainable level and has been growing slowly. This financial year, the release was $10.4 million and will reduce the average residential rates by $163. However, the balance, as of 30 June 2020, was $339 million—about $50 million below the inflation-adjusted opening balance.

While the council has done what it can to protect the PIF, the council could only go so far on its own. The council has asked this Parliament to put in place a more enduring legal arrangement that will ensure the mahi will not be undone by a short-sighted future council. To do this, the bill will ensure that the council always considers the long-term nature of the PIF whenever it makes decisions. It ensures that the council is always seeking to maintain or increase the real value of the PIF’s capital. While there is an exception provided for this, it is deliberately set high so that it only applies in things such as natural disasters or other crises, when sufficient funding may be required to rebuild the district.

Now, the bill also has the exemption, which works alongside existing protections that the council has put in place. It does not replace the 75 percent majority requirement in council’s standing orders to amend the PIF governance deed. Instead, it sets out a legal test that must meet before council can begin the process.

The bill also sets out some requirements for investment decisions that help to future embed the PIF as a long-term investment for the community. Investments need to be made independently from the elected council, just as things we have in this House—such as the Superannuation Fund and ACC investments, which are made separately, independently—so this will happen for our PIF in New Plymouth. Investment decisions will need to be made on a prudent commercial basis that maximises return without undue risks.

The council is also seeking a small exemption from the standard Local Government Act 2002 obligations so that the PIF can be invested into any listed airport or port within New Zealand without having to go through long-term plan processes. Now, this isn’t around seeking a loophole for the council to purchase assets to gain control, because, as I said moments ago, the bill requires decisions to be made independently of the elected council.

Now, the future aspect of this bill, and looking further at this bill, is that it sets in stone that the PIF is only to be used for the benefit of the New Plymouth district community as it exists today. This means that the beneficiary that benefits from the community of the PIF remains and begins as being the same community that is which contributed to its establishment all those years ago.

Now, this has been done before. An example of that is not far from home for me, in South Taranaki. They took a very similar approach back in 1999, where they created the South Taranaki District Council, had their long-term investment fund through their 1999 local Act, and therefore provides balance to the two big local government investment funds in Taranaki.

Ultimately, this bill is about assisting New Plymouth District Council to help protect its Perpetual Investment Fund from short-term thinking, which is important, and, therefore, ensuring that this fund continues to benefit the district’s community well into the future. This is a long-term plan. The bill permanently etches into the council’s legal obligations many of the principles that sit behind its current arrangements. This allows the council to change the arrangements if this Parliament changes the Local Government Act to allow new organisations to be formed and other options, while ensuring that any changes still meet the fundamental objectives of a long-term fund that looks beyond the current political issues. This is a long-term investment.

This bill is the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle to ensure that the Perpetual Investment Fund can achieve its name for the New Plymouth district community. This is a Perpetual Investment Fund. This is looking long-term. This is ensuring that ratepayers and members within the New Plymouth district have certainty and security into the future. On that, I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill first reading. I want to acknowledge the member of Parliament for New Plymouth, Glen Bennett, who has brought this bill to the House on behalf of the New Plymouth District Council. National will be supporting this bill through to the select committee process.

As the member Glen Bennett has noted, I also want to recognise Mayor Neil Holdom for his contribution, along with his deputy mayor and councillors in regards to this process. What we are dealing with here is a bill and a local bill that, in effect, provides additional protections to protect a capital fund that results from the sale of Powerco, a power entity, by this community in the past. This perpetual fund has grown in size from around $249 million to now in the region of $346 million. And that fund provides revenue which is used to mitigate the costs that are incurred by that local council and, in effect, provide a revenue stream to maintain rates at a level of which is appropriate for that community. It’s a really good example of local communities taking responsibility for local issues, and that is a principle that on this side of the House we very much support, and hence why we are supporting this bill.

What has been done here by New Plymouth District Council in the past was to create this fund and there were, as the member articulated, some challenges and issues, post the 2008 global financial crisis, in which the way in which the fund was managed would lead to the fact that the capital amount did drop to levels that were deemed unsustainable. As a result of changes within that council, that amount of investment fund has now been rebuilt and built back up to the amount that it is today. I think no one can underestimate the scale of that investment fund and the benefits that are at play. It’s also good to see that this Government are supporting asset recycling and the concept of recycling of assets and using that capital investment in order to benefit local communities. Because, in effect, this is what this investment fund does. The provisions around the changes in this bill, ring-fencing it to ensure that it stays very much in the bounds of the boundary of the New Plymouth community, is one that is sensible—it is their asset and that asset should remain in community control.

The other changes that have been outlined in the bill, I think, in particular, are reasonably administrative. But in terms of the concept, in terms of supporting that capital for the New Plymouth community into the future, it is something that we very much support and we look forward to this going through the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. Can I begin by just commending my colleague Glen Bennett. We often have a little bit of healthy competition between ourselves around sunshine—it looks like Marlborough, close to Nelson, is doing quite well this year, so I might claim that. But, look, I just want to congratulate the member because it’s been a useful day today; we’ve got three private and local bills coming before the House which is very unusual on a members’ day. I do want to acknowledge that for the three of us who have had bills today, it means that members’ bills that would otherwise have been towards the top of the Order Paper do get bumped down a little. I do want to acknowledge that for those members, it must be somewhat frustrating. But there is an important process in these bills—for local bills, it’s very important that councils are able to come to the Parliament and have legislation put through that is going to improve their communities in a way that they may not be able to do through their own policies.

So I thank the member Glen Bennett for the explanation of what has come about, what has led to this bill, and also the PIF fund—the Perpetual Investment Fund—as he called it. It’s always good to have a good acronym for a financial mechanism; one of my favourite things is to have a good acronym.

So Mr Bennett has explained that, a while ago, the council chose to sell its shareholdings in Powerco and that the intention of doing that was to be able to bring down the rates that people in New Plymouth pay to the council, and that the fund was supposed to be sustainable and be able to last in perpetuity so that it wouldn’t run down. And we can see that that is not what occurred and that there was a time when the fund dropped down to quite seriously low levels and the council has had to do a very good rescue job, I must say, of getting that back up to the levels that it is today—but still lower than where it would be if it had been inflation adjusted.

So what I think is good about this bill, and where I do commend the council, is putting in place a process to come to Parliament so that that fund can be treated in a sustainable way. It’s important that, with governance, part of good governance is ensuring that when people change roles—when you have people elected into new roles—that you don’t necessarily lose the important principles that you’ve placed around a fund such as this. And I think what is very, very sensible is to ensure that, through this bill, the council will be able to satisfy the need for this fund to be used in a sustainable way. I note that, in the past, it’s been used for a couple of particular purposes. One is, as I mentioned, to reduce rates for ratepayers, but, also, the potential to invest in community assets and funding for the development of things like walkways, things that are going to benefit the New Plymouth community.

As the previous speaker, Mr Watts, noted, the bill also does another very good thing, which is to ring-fence this for the local community should there be an amalgamation at some point in the future. I’m not aware of what the discussions are in the area about potential amalgamations—I know in my area we sometimes have those conversations—but it is important that an asset that has been built up by those people will be able to be ring-fenced for that purpose, and so I can see that being a very good part of the bill.

I do note that the council has also gone through the process of considering some other options, and I think that’s wise before bringing something to the Parliament to see whether there is something else that can be done. So one of the things was to do nothing and retain the status quo or an enhanced version, by taking measures such as listing the PIF as a strategic asset, or to establish an entire new trust. Having said that, the council determined that they would proceed with a bill before Parliament. I think this is a good local bill that will go before the scrutiny of a select committee, which is where it will get further consideration, and I commend it to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. The Green Party is pleased to support the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill, and congratulates Glen Bennett for his work with the council and others on bringing it to the House. As others have said—and I won’t take a long call—this bill is because of the issues during the global financial crisis, when the money that the fund paid to the council to offset against rates and reduce the rates cost was too much, given the returns that the fund was making, and so it didn’t continue to grow the capital of the fund. So the bill seeks to redress that, and it is certainly also ensuring that any of the benefits of the spending of the money is ring-fenced.

I notice that the council did do community consultation and has invited people to have their say on what was being planned, and there has been some debate locally, because at the moment the fund does help the council reduce its rates, but it does mean that renters and others potentially don’t get benefits from the fund revenue and the way that it is invested. So there was a strong call for things like social housing to be invested in by the council to ensure that the wider community benefits. The bill is good because in terms of the purposes for which the funds can be applied for, it does provide for “the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of current and future communities of the New Plymouth District.”

I think there will also be a debate, potentially, in submissions about some wanting any depletion of the fund below what is provided in investment revenue to only be in emergencies. The bill provides a more generous ground where the council “considers, on reasonable grounds,” that it will benefit the wellbeing of current and future communities more than “maintaining the real value of the capital”.

So, obviously, submissions on that may improve the bill, but it does seem to have been through quite a thorough process by the New Plymouth District Council in looking out for the welfare of its current and future communities in how these funds, which resulted from the sale of its shareholding in Powerco back in 2004, are best invested. The Greens are pleased to support it.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise and take a call on this wonderful bill shepherded to this House by a wonderful MP for New Plymouth, my good colleague Glen Bennett. It’s great to have an equally good select committee—the Governance and Administration Committee—to have this bill come through our select committee as well.

When I first started reading the background notes to the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF) for the New Plymouth District Council, I was brought back to my days when I sat on the board of Foundation North. Of course, spot the similarities, I guess, as both of these organisations administer what we call a perpetual investment fund. So in terms of perpetuality when we talk about investment funds, it’s making sure that the earnings that we get, we don’t just spend it, we don’t spend the base money, but we also invest it back into the fund so that that money can be reinvested. We used to use financial instruments like the stock exchange, we used to go on to Wall Street and buy all the shares, and any sort of way that we can get profit from, we get it back into the actual starting pot of the money so that there is actually money for the future. And that’s actually geared for inflation as well so that inflation doesn’t rot into the actual value of the starting-out fund.

So being able to responsibly look after the money that is on behalf of the benefactors—in this case, it’s the people in the New Plymouth district, and so it’s really important. I’m really pleased that this bill actually safeguards a lot of the perimeters that we have in that respect in just making sure that all the fund that is gained from PIF is actually used for current and future communities of New Plymouth as defined by the actual physical boundaries, but also making sure that the financial managers, which they can, from time to time or continuously, engage with, actually have best-practice investment decisions. So making sure that there is due diligence being done on those who actually manage the fund, those who do the investment, and the way that they actually look after the money is all in the best interests of the people of New Plymouth.

It’s really great to also see just once again that good governance theme come through this afternoon in making sure not only is the money there, and it was through the sale of Powerco, but also making sure that those who look after it go through the right steps. So we’ve strengthened it through this bill, but also making sure that in the future, as people come in as guardianship of this pūtea, that they will continue to enable this pūtea to do good things for their communities and for the purpose in which this fund was set up.

I was also just reading a little bit more into the organisation and I guess you could say the ambition that the New Plymouth District Council had for this fund. Not only can we see that it’s already benefited the taxpayers by forking up a percentage of their taxpayers’ bill, but also making sure that if in the future they want to look at other different projects, to invest in the community, to make sure that it truly delivers for the region around New Plymouth and making sure that there are actually benefits, tangible benefits, that this fund will bring. In order for the people of New Plymouth to actually enjoy these tangible benefits, we have to make sure it’s a long-term focus—that it’s a future-looking fund as well.

So today, here in this House, we set strengthened the perimeters of those rules in making sure that we prevent from things like the global financial crisis (GFC)—and reading back into the history of this fund, we know that there were a couple of tricky years in the GFC where investments were being sold off and the actual the pot of money was being slowly eroded away. I think back once again to my days on the Foundation North board as well, where we were told to sit tight. So good financial advisers will give you great strategy to weather those storms in the financial market. And so by having the strength that we have right now in this bill—that will no doubt come into force, because I think we’ve got the support of both sides of the House—we’ll be able to ride those storms and we’ll be able to see that future generations all benefit from this pūtea.

So, once again, congratulations to my colleague Glen Bennett for bringing this bill to the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Look, it gives me great pleasure to let the House know, to let the people of New Plymouth know, and the New Plymouth District Council know, that the ACT Party will support this bill, because the ACT Party believes that local government, councils like the New Plymouth District Council, should be able to say what happens to their assets, they should be able to control them, they should be able to decide whether they sell them, how they use them, what dividends they seek to recover, and so on. Imagine that: local government gets to decide whether they sell their assets and put the money into an investment fund—that’s what New Plymouth District Council did with Powerco all those years ago. They sold their electricity infrastructure assets—the local lines company—because they thought they’d be able to do something better with the money. And what they did was they invested in this capitalist concept called equities and stocks, which the fund trades on stock markets, long-term institutional investments. That’s a concept which might be alien to our comrades in the Labour Party, that if you invest money wisely in things that produce a profit, then that profit can be used to do other things with—that’s right.

So the ACT Party supports the concept behind this bill that councils should be able to use their assets or dispose of them as long as they have a democratic mandate to do so—that’s right. They don’t want their assets flogged by central government like the three waters assets will be flogged—those billions and billions of dollars’ worth of assets that we’ve heard that Minister Nanaia Mahuta believes should actually sit with a State corporation rather than local government. They don’t want Governments to tell them what they should and shouldn’t be allowed to sell.

So the ACT Party will support this bill. We think that the New Plymouth District Council, through its proposed amendment to the deed, to the guardianship of these assets in the fund, actually, is setting itself up for a successful future, because there was a problem when successive councils decided to draw down heavily on the fund’s capital, rather than rely solely on the profits of the fund to fund the things that council wanted to do. And that shows you, actually, some of the problems that Governments that spend beyond their means can get into, like this current lot—this current Labour Government: spending, spending, spending beyond their means; borrowing, borrowing, borrowing to hand out cash like a drunken—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member will come back to this bill.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your direction. So it shows you that if you spend unwisely, if you draw down the capital of your fund faster than it can be replenished, then in the end you’ll have less money at the end to make a profit from. So what New Plymouth District Council have worked out is that if they maintain the fund, if they keep money in it, it keeps generating profits; if they keep investing in things that make a profit, then they will have more money to allocate back to the people of New Plymouth. So the ACT Party thinks that’s a great idea, but there are certainly lessons to be learnt. I hope that the member sponsoring this bill, Glen Bennett from New Plymouth, advocates strongly for the position that the New Plymouth District Council has taken with respect to their assets—capitalism, investing in things that make a profit—with his caucus and with the Ministers who are responsible: say, the Minister of Finance, who’s responsible for working out how much Government should spend; or the Minister of Revenue, David Parker, how much the Government needs to take in tax—I’ll say the Minister of Transport, Michael Wood, who’s responsible for working out how much needs to be spent on the roads in New Zealand, including in New Plymouth and Taranaki, which are full of potholes, versus how much revenue is collected from different revenue streams like fuel excise duty and road-user charges.

So lots of valuable lessons in this bill for this Labour Government, and particularly for the Labour caucus when they go back into caucus to work out how they’re going to come up with the money for all of next year’s election promises. The New Plymouth District Council doesn’t have that problem because they’re taking a responsible attitude to managing their assets for the greater good of their people. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill. I’m really pleased that I’m able to make a contribution, and I want to acknowledge my colleague—member Glen Bennett—for bringing this private bill to the House and specifically to highlight the importance of this bill for the residents, current and future, living in the New Plymouth district, and the Perpetual Investment Fund, and why it is important that there is protection and preservation of this Perpetual Investment Fund. So I’ll just call it PIF, because it’s a little bit of a long term.

I’m really pleased that across the House other representatives can see the benefit of the PIF for the community that it has been derived from. We know that as a result of investment decisions back in the 1980s and the closing of the Powerco company, there was the enablement and the commencement of the New Plymouth PIF Guardians, in terms of securing in the continuity of the benefit in the New Plymouth District Council.

I just want to quickly highlight in my contribution that the principles for this fund are really important: that the community have got the supports, because these funds are for local ratepayers and local purpose of community activities. You could somewhat call it a nest egg, in that the current residents in the New Plymouth district know that the guardians that are appointed to the governance of the group know the local residents understand the local community and can also weigh up in their governance decisions why this fund is protected and preserved for that.

So just as I wrap up: it provides the sustainable future, good principles on collaboration, the understanding of the council to the local New Plymouth PIF Guardians who will make good decisions. It is important that when you do have a governance group who very quickly do understand local activity and local communities, that they see the benefit for future populations. I commend this bill to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. I have sat through the debate. I want to also congratulate my colleague Glen Bennett who has introduced this bill—is sponsoring this local bill—and for him giving some background to why we have this here today. As somebody who doesn’t come from that area, it was really helpful for me to know, and I was actually thinking about how, unfortunately, I think, in my area we don’t have something like this. So how fortunate the residents and ratepayers of New Plymouth are to have this fund. You can see why it is that they have brought the bill here, the remedy that they are seeking, and this being the avenue to be able to provide them with the ability to do the things that it is that they want to do.

What I wanted to particularly highlight this afternoon was that the council considered a number of options, but the points that I wanted to raise were really about having considered all of its options, including its experience with the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Act 2018. The council resolved on 8 March to develop this draft and draft this local bill and use the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act to engage with its communities on the draft local bill. So they’ve already done some consultation around this. It is being referred to a select committee to hear further submissions and do further work on it. But through that process, through the community consultation, which opened on 13 May and closed on 17 June, 52 submissions were received. Following consideration of the written submissions, the council determined on 26 July 2022 to proceed with a local bill to regulate the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF). When I was listening to “PIF” I was thinking of “TIF” which is another fund which we do benefit from up north, that is the Tourism Infrastructure Fund, but that is not what this is; this is the PIF and it is specifically for New Plymouth.

And so the council considered that the draft bill should require the council to consider the following principles when dealing with the PIF: that it should be used in a perpetual manner; that the capital base may be used if circumstances arise warranting it; and that investments should be independently managed, on a prudent commercial basis, and to avoid prejudicing the council’s reputation.

So I want to commend the council for going through that process and then bringing it here, also to the member Glen Bennett who has brought it here this afternoon, and I wish the select committee well in working through their submission process and coming back with the legislation in the best form that it can be. And with that, I commend the bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party is supporting this bill, the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill, in its first reading today. The National Party recognises that the shares that were sold that have built up this fund are tagged for the benefit of the New Plymouth ratepayers and the New Plymouth District Council boundaries, and understands the need to ring-fence that and futureproof it in case of any further or future amalgamations.

The National Party is very keen to see the assets that belong to ratepayers secured for those ratepayers if it is a perpetual fund like this or their water assets. The National Party believes they should stay in ratepayer control and ownership and so the benefit of that fund is also, by the virtue of this bill, secured for the people of New Plymouth. So we support the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of this bill, and I again congratulate my friend and colleague Glen Bennett for bringing the bill.

I just wanted to comment briefly on the comments made by my friend in ACT Simon Court because from that recount, one listening at home would think that this was an enormous success. Powerco was one of the groups that bought up a whole lot of council assets when they were sold, and, as a consequence the Queensland Government, now own Powerco; alongside AMP Limited. So the Australians now own our major asset, in that way—and that’s a really sad thing from my point of view. Nevertheless, we are here to make things as right as we can, and this bill seems to be doing exactly that. This bill will actually support the investment, in this community, of the money that came out of that; after what sounds like a very rocky time with that money. So it’s a way of securing it for that community. And thus, I am commending this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much to all members and parties that have contributed this afternoon to this debate. I’m glad—well, hopeful. Promises have been made that everybody supports it. I look forward to the vote and it making it to select committee.

Well, I actually want to follow on from what my colleague Helen White said around the fund, because if we look back even before Powerco, it was the energy reforms of the 1990s that basically started the chain reaction to Powerco being sold off to an Australian company. It was the Taranaki Electric Power Board, which was owned, obviously, by the council. Then, obviously reform happened and the assets were sold off, but, that’s right, let’s not talk about protecting the assets, because that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

I just want to say thank you to everyone this afternoon for your contribution and also for the fact that I don’t know how many times I’ve heard PIF said in this House before, but it was a lot. I also want to say that for some of you who were far more elegant than me, my PIFs were sort of pff whereas, actually, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, I think, had the most elegant and articulate PIF, which I won’t even be able to articulate as she did. But obviously it is the Perpetual Investment Fund, and I’m grateful that we will be supporting it this afternoon. I want to acknowledge my Green Party colleague the Hon Eugenie Sage, who talks about the New Plymouth District Council and their due diligence and also the concerns, because there are some concerns that were raised in that process in the due jiligence—do jili—do—

Hon Members: Due diligence.

GLEN BENNETT: Due diligence. It’s all the Ps and the Ds.

I hear that and have had conversations back in the electorate of New Plymouth about that. So that’s why going to select committee and having those conversations and having more submissions made on this will be helpful.

I also would like to acknowledge Simon Watts in terms of him talking about the additional protections, which is why we’re here today, because the council is asking for those additional protections around this piece of legislation. I am grateful that people are supporting this. This bill is about paying it forward. This bill is around legacy work in terms of looking to the future. It’s around making sure that the benefits received today from our history are passed on to our future. It’s providing an intergenerational equity, ensuring that future generations do not lose out on the benefits due to short-term thinking.

So this piece of legislation is important, and I know that the New Plymouth District Council is looking forward to it’s going through all stages in this House and to help the council to be able to continue to run services. You know, we mentioned earlier, my colleague Rachel Boyack, around things like the Festival of Lights and investing in new services, such as the extension of our coastal walkway all the way to Waitara, but ensuring that investment into our rates to ensure that people can live, yes, in the sunniest city in New Zealand—it’s a true story; three years in a row, I believe. I’m sorry, Rachel Boyack, it’s not Nelson. I am grateful that we are here about to vote, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill

First Reading

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) on behalf of the Hon Meka Whaitiri (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move, That the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 11 April 2023.

I am presenting this on behalf of my colleague Meka Whaitiri, who is attending her son’s graduation. This is her speech.

This is a simple and practical piece of legislation which will enable the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Association to sell its interests in the Tomoana Showgrounds without being required to invest the money from the sale in the purchase of other land. The society has entered into an unconditional agreement to sell the showgrounds to Hastings District Council under arrangements which will give the grounds reserve status, ensuring it is protected for the community. The council also has plans to prepare a reserve management plan and, with the community, to determine how the showgrounds are looked after and create opportunities for events in the years to come.

Importantly, this will still allow the society 10 days of annual fee use of the showgrounds in perpetuity, which means it can continue to host four key regional events: the annual Hawke’s Bay A & P show, horticultural field days, the Hawke’s Bay Wine Awards, and the Primary Sector Awards, which celebrate the region’s food and fibre industries.

I grew up in Whakatū, a short drive from the Tomoana Showgrounds, and can remember attending field days and the A & P show when I was younger. Only a few weeks ago, I was there at the Hawke’s Bay anniversary day, along with colleagues Stuart Nash and myself—Anna Lorck—enjoying the latest edition of the Hawke’s Bay show and chatting with locals. These are crucial events for the local economy, great fun for families, and the key thing is it will not change under this bill.

The reason the bill is needed is because currently the provisions of the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Act 1908 require the Hawke’s Bay A & P Society to invest the money received from the sale of land in purchasing other land suitable for the purchasers of the society. The Act controls how the sales must be handled and what can be done with the proceeds, but this may not be the best financial use for the society. The society is seeking to change these requirements as it considers they prevent it from achieving optimal profit in the short and long term, whether that be through term deposit, investment, land purchase, or other means.

Amending the bill will allow the society to achieve optimal profit to continue promoting its primary sector to a wide audience, facilitating events, acknowledging local history and heritage, developing educational programmes, awarding scholarships, and helping its sector and region to continue to develop, grow, and prosper. To achieve the purpose of allowing the society to apply the money received from the sale of land towards the purposes that are consistent with the objectives of the society, the bill treats certain provisions of the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Act 1908, the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Amendment Act 1912, and the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Amendment Act 1920 as never having applied to the society.

If the land was sold, the society must apply the money received from the sale towards the purposes that are consistent with the objects of the society. It is important to note that under the agreements of their sale to the Hastings District Council, the society is still able to host all their key events at Tomoana Showgrounds. They do not need to purchase additional land to do so.

As mentioned in my opening remarks, the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill is a simple and practical piece of legislation that would allow the society to sell its interests in Tomoana Showgrounds without being required to invest the money from the sale in the purchase of other land, and it will ensure these fantastic events will continue at the Hawke’s Bay Showgrounds. It is preferable that this bill is passed in time for the settlement of the sale on 31 March 2023. But in light of the tight time frames at hand, there is some flexibility with both the Hawke’s Bay A & P Society and the Hastings District Council, who are two parties to the sale.

As mentioned earlier, the intention of Meka Whaitiri is for the bill to spend four months in select committee and she has spoken with the chair and deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, who are happy to take this bill on board.

I can assure members that this bill has strong community support. Hastings District Council, which is purchasing the showgrounds, have written a letter of support, as has Waipatu Marae. Society members voted in favour of the sale. I am also grateful for the interest and support of the member for Taranaki - King Country, Barbara Kuriger. The society has also fulfilled all of its requirements under Appendix C, including advertising notices of the proposed bill in local newspapers in Hawke’s Bay and each of the other cities in Aotearoa, being Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin.

It might also be helpful for members to know that this is not the first time a bill of this kind has gone through the House. The Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill was passed in 2006, which empowered the association to sell its fee simple and lease interests in the Invercargill Showgrounds and any other land it may require, without having to apply the money received from the sale to purchase other land suitable for the purposes of the society, as required by the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Act 1908. On that occasion, there was less than five weeks between the bill’s first reading in the House and its passing a third reading. I note my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor was amongst those to speak in support of that bill during the House debate some 16 years ago.

This bill enables a sensible and practical outcome for the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society and means our region will be able to continue celebrating and promoting the successes of our local food and fibre sector. It is supported by the local community and I look forward to the House expediting this bill at its earliest opportunity. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

This debate is interrupted until after the dinner break at 7 p.m., when I will resume the Chair. Ka kite anō.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to open this debate on behalf of the National Party. For those of you who have just tuned in, this is the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill in the first reading. It is a private bill that is very much focused on the showgrounds in Hawke’s Bay, and it is in the name of the Hon Meka Whaitiri. This is a piece of legislation that National will, of course, be supporting.

I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to spend a reasonable amount of time in the Hawke’s Bay over the last couple of years, and attending, actually, the A & P show recently just reminds us how important these A & P societies are, but also how different times are from the original legislation, or the legislation that currently guides the sale and use of any proceeds, because it goes back to 1908. So, of course, the activity of the society is very different, and what we don’t want to see is the proceeds of the agreed sale of the 42.8 hectares—or under agreement, I should say, to the Hastings District Council; that’s an unconditional sale—being restricted so it can only be used for another land purchase, as that doesn’t make sense in this day and age. Instead, the society need to have the opportunity to use those proceeds for other purposes that mean the society is able to function, and function well, in the modern environment.

Of course, part of the legislation or the agreement would protect 10 days of use of the land for the A & P society for four very significant shows—of course, the annual A & P show, which I was fortunate to take leader Christopher Luxon to recently, and I think it’s always fantastic to see that our rural communities are in very strong heart. Of course, I saw parliamentary colleagues from across the House. Everybody recognises how fundamental A & P societies are and how important those major agricultural events are to our communities. Actually, I look at other parts of New Zealand where they have disappeared, so it is really important that we are able to do our bit through legislation to enable them, and this is absolutely enabling legislation.

I just want to backtrack through some of the history to make sure that those listening to this debate understand there is widespread agreement to this piece of legislation. When the Hastings District Council first proposed this arrangement, ahead of the $7.5 million unconditional purchase price, they did go out to the community, and 93 percent of the submitters were supportive. So, yes, this piece of legislation will go through a full select committee process. I’d encourage anyone who has a view—for, against, or indifferent—to submit. That’s a really important way of the community being satisfied that it is with their wishes. The member who led off the first reading on behalf of the Hon Meka Whaitiri did indicate that it would be a shorter report back, but it is not a truncated process in terms of triggering certain procedures. So we are anticipating there’ll be submissions, but because the Hastings District Council have already done a significant amount of consultation with 93 percent in support, I don’t expect that there’ll be much contention as it works its way through the select committee process.

National members will, of course, be supportive of progressing this legislation, just as we did with the most similar example to this in Southland back in 2006. There was a similar piece of legislation back then that was in the name of National MP Eric Roy, the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. This is mirroring it very, very closely. National members don’t have any concerns about it. We want to make sure that the proceeds of the sale are able to be used more flexibly for the society to make sure that the advantages—and they can proceed with ensuring that the purposes and objectives of the society are met without the constraint that the proceeds have to mean purchasing land.

Of course, the land that is going to be transferred into the ownership of the Hastings District Council, the 40 hectares, will be then converted into a reserve and managed like every other council reserve under a reserves management plan. Of course, the community will be consulted on that. The other party that will be involved with that will be the Waipatu Marae, and they have, of course, written supporting letters in support of this legislation, which is really important. So the letters of support that accompany this bill are from the society themselves, from the Hastings District Council, and from Waipatu Marae, as I said.

So National’s very happy to support this legislation to enable the society to fulfil its purposes and functions, but recognise in this day and age it doesn’t need the land holding that it has currently and it can use the proceeds for other purposes. So I’m pleased to support this bill and indicate National’s support in its first reading.

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

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill. Can I first of all acknowledge my colleagues who hail from the region; the sponsor of the bill, the Hon Meka Whaitiri; and also my colleagues Anna Lorck and Stuart Nash, who I know will have a lot of interest in this bill.

As previous members have talked about, the bill is a private bill taken on behalf of the Hawkes Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society (A & P society), and it specifically allows the society to use the proceeds of the sale of land for purposes that are in line with the objects of the society and its charitable status. There has been a lot of history around this particular piece of land. Having spoken briefly to my colleague Anna Lorck about this, there was a proposal at one point for the land to be sold for housing, but there was some pushback from the community about that because it is land that has the ability to be very productive. That is an issue that has actually cropped up around the country, including in my own electorate, where housing has been built on productive land—

Dr Duncan Webb: What’s your electorate?

RACHEL BOYACK: My electorate of Nelson. So in the suburb of Richmond, there has been a lot of housing built on productive land, and it’s challenging at times when it’s difficult to acquire the amount of land that we do need for housing. One of the things this Government has done is put legislation in place to ensure that that is done in a much more careful way to ensure we protect the land.

One of the things I really like about this bill on reading about it is that the council has agreed a sale and purchase agreement with the society, and the land can continue to be used by the A & P Society for the purpose of events and running its show. We all know the importance of—well, certainly those of us who are in provincial and rural and regional parts of New Zealand understand the importance of A & P shows for bringing people together. We’ve finally been able to hold ours in Nelson recently. Unfortunately, we had a bit of rain on the second day, but it was very wonderful to be able to have everyone back together. The shows do a significant amount in promoting the work of our rural communities in allowing people who live in the towns and cities nearby who interact with those communities to be able to work together and learn about each other. I always really enjoy going to our local show.

So I was very pleased to see that the council will, as part of this agreement—and it will, I’m sure, be referenced in this bill—allow the possibility for the A & P society to continue to run their shows, because it obviously wouldn’t be good for that to not continue in the mighty Hawke’s Bay region.

One of the reasons why this bill is needed is, as previous speakers have mentioned, that the current arrangements would require the A & P society to have to purchase land, and that actually doesn’t help the society to achieve the objectives of selling the land in the first place. I think this is a very practical solution to bring this bill to the Parliament so that the A & P society can actually move forward, can receive the funds from the sale, and can actually then invest it in ensuring that it can continue to achieve its objectives for the community. And I think that that is a very wise and practical suggestion. And, actually, just a shout-out to Mark Cameron from the ACT Party, who came to the Nelson A & P show—just to give you a shout-out, it was good to see you there.

But what I’m really pleased about as well is that this bill will come to the select committee I sit on: the Governance and Administration Committee. And I know there has been, I think, a few members from around the House who are disappointed I didn’t send my bill to the mighty Governance and Administration Committee, but this bill will be going to our committee. It does look like the council and the society have done a significant amount of work leading up to the bill. And I think that whenever we do see private and local bills coming forward, it is always really helpful when that work has gone on ahead; it makes the work of the select committee far more straightforward in terms of hearing submitters. So I do encourage people to submit to us. We’ll be very interested to hear submissions from people. This is an excellent piece of work. I do commend my colleague Meka Whaitiri for bringing this bill to the House and I look forward to seeing it progress. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill.

Previous speakers have explained very clearly what the bill does. The Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society (A & P society), owns showgrounds. They want to be able to sell the property without being required to acquire other land, so this bill makes a lot of sense. Obviously, this provision goes way, way back, and it does limit some of the activities that the society is able to invest in in order to achieve the objectives that are set out as a charitable society.

The objectives to promote agricultural, pastoral, horticulture, viticulture, forestry resources through its various channels are not too dissimilar to the objectives that sit alongside the Green Party’s agriculture and rural affairs policy. Very similar points—probably with the Green Party having a slightly bigger focus on environmental protection and regenerative practice, but still very much aligned.

The showgrounds are to be sold to the Hastings District Council, so will stay in public ownership designated as a reserve to be managed by a trust with representatives of the A & P society, the council and the nearby marae, which is obviously an excellent outcome—but only if this bill passes. It sounds like it’s not going to have any difficulty passing.

So, yep. There’s not that much more to say about it. The Green Party supports the bill.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t quite prepared for the Green Party to take such a short call on this bill.

This is a great bill. Honestly, it’s great to see our colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri bring such a good bill. Today, we’re debating the content of this bill, which is just, I think, a very simple change to the legislation that governs the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society. It’s just making sure that once they sell their piece of land—right now, they don’t have to reinvest the money, and I’ll speak a little bit more on that further on into my speech.

I know that when this bill first came to this House—actually, before it arrived at this House—the Hon Meka Whaitiri, along with her colleagues in the Hawke’s Bay Region, Anna Lorck and the Hon Stuart Nash, had done a lot of work in that region in terms of getting support, getting it to where it is, and making sure that everyone in the Hawke’s Bay region is happy and satisfied with the current arrangements.

I started today’s contribution—and I think three is the lucky number for me today—thinking that this would be an afternoon and evening of themes around governance. I think this is probably another one where we’re looking at the funds of a sale of a piece of land—this time, the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society’s piece of land, namely the Tomoana Showgrounds—and the proceeds of that and how that could actually be better used to fulfil the purpose for which the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society has been established, and how it fulfils its vision and mission statement, which is, I think—I had read somewhere—is it to bring town and rural together?

Hon Member: Town and country.

NAISI CHEN: Town and country. Sorry—town and country, I had read that somewhere in my notes, and I think that’s a great mission statement to have. I think for those of us who have grown up in urban areas, events such as A & P shows, such as Fieldays, which I have just been to over the last week, have actually been really, really interesting and formative, and for me, as an MP as well, allowed me to gain that actual full understanding of what is really the foundation and a really strong pillar of our New Zealand economy. I’m sure that Hawke’s Bay Agriculture and Pastoral Society does exactly that.

We’ve talked about, even in the last bill that had come to the House, investing in different types of financial instruments, different ways of investing, whether it’s with shares or it’s with other ways—that, actually, there are better ways than just investing in land, I guess, more productive ways than just investing in land, to make sure that the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society actually gets the benefit of the cash and the equity they had realised from selling their land and making sure that that cash and equity actually is put and injected into their day-to-day running, into their business, into making sure that they actually can deliver the projects that they want to for their members, for their local community, and for New Zealanders in general as well.

So I love how we’ve talked about having that long-term perspective in terms of that financial planning. This bill will just empower and enable them just to do exactly that in terms of making sure they have the freedom to plan according to the market conditions, according to the market price of land at the current time, and also relative price to other things such as I’ve mentioned, shares and bonds and all of the other financial instruments, which they can perhaps get a better income or get a better dividend from, but also things that will help them to weather storms as well. We all know that the market goes up and it goes down. So if we’re ever faced with another—God forbid—financial crisis, like the global financial crisis we saw earlier on, then at least they would have a diverse investment portfolio to actually help them get through.

But what I’m also really pleased to see is that they’ve negotiated the use of the showgrounds, even after selling it. I think there must have been some really smart negotiations in the process, so I commend them for that result as well. As we’ve already traversed, this will come to another great select committee—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That’s right.

NAISI CHEN: —yes; I see my good colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse over there—the Governance and Administration Committee. We do look forward to shepherding this bill through the process, and we do look forward to hearing some submissions—show and tell, please. We’d love to see some of the products that you guys offer as well.

So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker—

Chris Bishop: This will be a cracker.

MARK CAMERON: I’m sure it will be! Thank you very much. As you well know, I’m a farmer, and I absolutely love going to A & P shows. I have been going to them for almost 30 years—absolutely love them. It’s all things rural, and it’s all things rural community—and the A & P shows that I have been to just this year alone speak to this very reality. I’ve been to the Hawke’s Bay—the Napier—A & P show, I’ve been to the Waimate North A & P show, Manawatū, and the list goes on. This is so rural New Zealand; this is a really cool story and it’s a great piece of legislation. It speaks to the Hawke’s Bay region having certainty about not only the history but taking their A & P further by virtue of this legislation, and how the legal framework will give them certainty in terms of the liquidation of the land—but equally, the continuation of the use of the land for A & P shows.

This is an integral part of what we do in rural New Zealand—it brings communities together. And there are a couple of anecdotes I just wanted to share with the House, because it’s been well canvassed this evening about the importance of this legislation to give the community certainty. The A & P society, it says, will retain ownership of the Tomoana Showgrounds until 31 March 2023. From 1 April 2023 on, 40 hectares of the Tomoana Showgrounds will move to the Hastings District Council. Still great outcomes—the land gets sold, but the use has been well articulated, for that 10-day period can speak to all things rural and the coming together—the previous speaker, Naisi Chen, spoke on it—the coming together of rural and urban New Zealand at an A & P show.

Some of the other anecdotes that were shared about how this would actually give the community—and this was well encapsulated by the Hastings mayor, Sandra Hazlehurst. She says, “truly fantastic for our community”. All things community; what a wonderful, quick summation of the certainty that this piece of legislation will give to the community. The council will immediately start the process and have the showgrounds vested as a reserve. A great outcome for iwi, for community, and for the continuation of the A & P. The 40 hectares will move over to the Hastings District Council—good outcomes for everyone.

I know there’s a propensity for politicians to pontificate for the sake of hearing their own voice, and I certainly won’t. This is a great piece of legislation. We absolutely support this and look forward to the Governance and Administration Committee reconciling the small amount of controversy that it may bring; although I don’t think it will do. Thank you very much.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this private bill. I think perhaps—I haven’t double-checked this—it’s possibly the first private bill that I have had the pleasure of speaking on in this House.

Chris Bishop: Oh, the first of many.

CAMILLA BELICH: Perhaps. Anyway, I found this matter particularly interesting as someone who doesn’t live in Hawke’s Bay, and I wanted to pay tribute to Meka Whaitiri, the member who has brought this bill to the House, and also to Anna Lorck, who introduced the bill today. We also have other members in our caucus with connections to Hawke’s Bay: Stuart Nash, who’s the member for Napier, which is also in Hawke’s Bay; and Shanan Halbert is also a son of Hawke’s Bay, now living in Northcote.

This is a very interesting piece of legislation, and I thought I would go through exactly how I have understood that it works, for the benefit of anyone watching at home. As I understand it, this bill will allow the Hawke’s Bay A & P Society to sell the Tomoana Showgrounds. Now, the Tomoana Showgrounds—I have actually been to the Tomoana Showgrounds many times, mainly to attend the very, very good farmers markets that they have at the Tomoana Showgrounds. I do believe I heard a previous speaker state that they were one of the largest farmers markets in New Zealand. They’re certainly very, very good for bringing town and country together, which, as my colleague Naisi Chen has said, is one of the objectives of the Hawke’s Bay A & P Society, which is the subject of this bill. The other things that they have at the Tomoana Showgrounds are the Fiesta of Lights and, interestingly, the Land Rover Horse of the Year competition.

Now, it’s my understanding that these excellent community activities will continue once this land is sold to the Hastings District Council, and I think that the sale is due to go through on 31 March next year. It’s kind of a win-win situation, really. The council gets to allow the Hawke’s Bay A & P Society to continue with its good work and the events that it holds, including the very popular show that they do, the first of which I understand was in 1863, some years after the society was first established in 1858. That is 164 years ago, so it’s certainly a responsible society, which I think this House can trust with the ability to sell their own land and invest the money that they’ll gain from the sale of that land into responsible endeavours.

Now, this bill does allow, as I said, the sale of land. It is subject to some conditions. The conditions are outlined in Part 2 of the bill, in clause 5(2), and you can see those listed out there. Obviously, it has to be advantageous to the society, two-thirds of the members have to agree to the sale, and they have to have a general meeting with sufficient notice as well.

But that is not all: once the sale has gone through, the money then has to be—as with most other societies—used for the purposes and objectives of that society, and you might ask and wonder what the purposes and objectives of the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society are. I did google this prior to coming to the House, and I can inform the House that the Hawke’s Bay A & P Society is paving the way for initiatives and forward thinking in the rural sector. They have several objectives: to advance the primary sector, promote growth, celebrate excellence, provide educational opportunities, highlight careers across the primary sector, and honour the heritage and continue the legacy of the foundation members.

So I think that this bill, as I’ve said, seems to be a win-win situation. The wonderful showgrounds that we have there in Hastings can continue to be used. The money can go to these excellent causes, which I have just read out, of a very well-thought-of society that has very, very positive and community-minded objectives. So I commend this bill to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great privilege to rise as a member of the House who lives in a rural community to support the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill.

As we’ve already heard, this is an enabling bill that will support the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society to remain flexible, nimble, and responsive—and progressive, which is why it’s been around for more than 150 years.

We’ve heard about the intent of the society to bring town and country together—a very wonderful ambition that hasn’t changed in 150 years. But time has moved on and the ability of the society to succeed in its endeavours it believes, of course, is hampered by the fact that until, hopefully, this bill gets passed, they will be able to do other things with their capital assets.

I have yet to take up Anna Lorck’s generous invitation to attend the prestigious event that is the Hawke’s Bay show. I will obviously have to do it soon, but—maybe it’s because I’ve been very satisfied what happens down the road from my place in Stratford. I suspect there may be a little bit more rain at ours, but I know from our magnificent Stratford Agricultural and Pastoral Society show that this is an event where deals are made, townies get educated, rural living and the rural economy is celebrated, and there is a little bit of joy—and that makes me happy.

I’ve heard that they have 30,000 visitors to the show and we know what happens—the same things as the A & P shows around the country: we get to educate those townies. I can remember queuing up for tickets a while ago in Stratford and somebody was going—they must have come from New Plymouth; you know, the big smoke—“The A & P. What does the A & P stand for?” “Oh, it stands for agriculture and produce.” So, you know, luckily we got to correct them on that one.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Pastoral!

ANGELA ROBERTS: I know that, but they didn’t. So there was a good learning opportunity there for the townies.

It’s a great chance to go and kick some tractor tires and watch the kids having conversations with their dads about whether or not they’re allowed to buy a new tractor—especially interesting when they do live in town.

We know that there’s fantastic livestock events and equestrian events, and it is a place where we grow world-class livestock and shearers and wood choppers—and actually world champion livestock and shearers and wood choppers. Just need to do a little shout-out to our world champion timber man, the wonderful Jack Jordan, who attended Stratford High School—just saying—and a brilliant young leader internationally. I spent many years watching that young man chop wood at the Stratford show.

So we know it’s a magnificent event around the country, and it’s great to know that the Hawke’s Bay A & P Society will be able to continue with that work. The A & P show, of course, is all about fun as well. And fun is a serious thing.

So there’s the Ferris wheel; I’m sure that they have the equivalent of McDonald’s farm—the petting zoo—over in Hawke’s Bay, but there is nothing quite like sitting around on the hay bales and making sure that your toddlers learn to gently pick up a chick without squishing it. And again, educating our own children and the townies. But having fun is really important for our rural communities, because it helps us to connect with each other and it’s so good for our wellbeing.

It’s a really important occasion for us to come together and to feel really good about the places that we live in, and remind the rest of the country that rural New Zealand is such an important part of our economy and a really important community to support.

This bill will enable the very progressive society in Hawke’s Bay to continue with their innovations such as scholarships and things that will support innovation and investment. It’s a really exciting bill, it’s a simple bill, and it’s wonderful to see something so sensible and practical passing through this House that does something very real to support our rural communities around the country. We know it’s happened before, and it will happen again if necessary, and it is because of this that I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to add a small contribution in support of the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill. I say to Angela Roberts, if she wants to go to the Hastings A & P show, don’t wait till 2024 if she wants to be there as a Labour MP. So I think Anna Lorck should extend the invitation with all haste.

Now, I have now got over the crushing disappointment of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill not going to the Governance and Administration Committee, the best and most collegial committee of all of them, with due deference to my colleagues, and I have every confidence that the Governance and Administration Committee will discharge its duties well on this bill.

I love getting a little bit of the history of how some of these pieces of land are vested, and I was interested to learn that this was actually initially owned by Robert Wellwood, who was Hastings’ first mayor. The land around what is being considered here was actually a boiling down plant—which is a rendering plant—a railway siding, and a number of other things. When the railway siding went in the railway authority gave it the name of Karamū, but local iwi decided that they didn’t like that name, good old Ngāti Kahungunu I would expect, and a week later they took that sign down and put the sign Tomoana up, after which the Hawke’s Bay Herald reported that the board intimated as much to passengers that it would be Karamū but “the board remained for some days when the Māoris took it down and put up another name bearing the name of Tomoana. And Tomoana it remains.”

So there’s a fascinating sort of local history of this, and there’s a real provenance around a lot of our A & P show land which for very good reason cannot be divested without a legislative oversight. But that said, this is a good thing to do, the proceeds will remain with the trust for the discharging of similar benefits, and I know the Governance and Administration Committee will do a good job. I commend the bill.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, thank you. There is only one original agricultural and pastoral society, and it’s the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association, which held its first meeting in 1852 in Hagley Park, right at the heart of Christchurch Central. However, I will not hold that against the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society, who needs a hand to get around what is, it must be said if you look at the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Act of 1908, a relatively arcane piece of legislation. It may well be that in the next term or the term after that the Labour Government will have a look at updating that legislation to make it a little bit more amenable to the kind of innovative things that the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society are looking to do in this empowering bill.

It’s a funny thing that agricultural and pastoral societies are, in fact, incorporated not by registration but by incorporation by Order in Council by the Governor-General. So it’s a somewhat different arrangement. And to find the constitution of the association, we need to go actually to the Gazette to find its incorporating documents there.

But this is a sensible piece of legislation because section 7 of the original Act constrains the society to only apply the proceeds of any sale of land to other land which is suitable for the purchasers of the society. And we know in today’s age, we can be a bit more flexible with land holdings. It is perhaps a little unusual to own a large piece of land for 365 days a year, simply to conduct a show for five or six days a year. So it’s entirely reasonable for this transaction to be entered into.

I understand that there’s been a fair bit of discussion in Hawke’s Bay, as they’re wont to do over in that part of the country, around the proper use of the land. But I understand that the parties have come to an agreement that the land itself will be held in perpetuity as a reserve but that the society will still be able to use the land for A & P shows into the future. And that seems to be a pretty good solution to me, because we do know—and I do accept that the land, which I understand is situated at the heart of the Tukituki electorate—that the show’s quite an event. It’s something where town and country come together, and, in fact, it’s really quite a fantastic event that people from around the country go to to enjoy the hospitality and produce of the Hawke’s Bay, and, of course, to see the fine pastoral animals that are produced there, and no doubt to take them back to Canterbury, where they can eat proper grass and grow even larger and flourish better.

I do note, though, that it appears from the Agricultural and Pastoral Societies Act 1908 that the lands held by most A & P societies were held by Crown grant. So it is important, I think, to note that the funds do need to stay within the purview of these societies, because, essentially, these are lands and now assets held in trust for the purposes of agricultural and pastoral societies. I do want to just pause on that and recognise the really important part that agricultural and pastoral societies play, not only as a festival, not only as a kind of industrial show where people in the industry can go and look at new machinery or innovations, but also in actually bringing parties together so that townies can go and have a look at animals, go and see the sheep, pet the ducks, whatever you want to do, and understand that what goes on in our rural communities is an important part of New Zealand society. And I know that the catchcry of bringing town and country together of the Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society is actually exactly what they should be doing, so that we are one society, we understand each other, we understand the roles we have to play, and so that we build a stronger community together and recognise the important place that both agricultural and pastoral farming play in New Zealand’s society.

So this is an absolutely fantastic bill. Perhaps could do with a tidy up of those old Acts in the long run, but at the time this is a really good piece of legislation to take it forward. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to do a closing speech on the Hawke’s Bay Agriculture and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill. Can I just acknowledge the member, the local member for Tukituki, for introducing the bill. Alternatively, I would have done it, but I know she’s done a fine job—living not far from the very grounds that we are talking about here, and me living not very far from where she’s living. It is a local bill. Thank you to all the members who have got up in support of what is just a straightforward bill. I have nothing more to add other than to acknowledge those that have contributed tonight.

I want to acknowledge all our graduates around the country. And that’s where I’ve been—my own son has graduated tonight as part of the Māori graduation at Michael Fowler so, as you do, you’ve got to be in two places at once. So I just want to send congratulations, not just to him but to all the recipients in honouring them tonight.

But back to the bill, all those that have spoken, and my connection to Tomoana Showgrounds. Not only is it the place of the best farmers markets in New Zealand and not only is it the place where we have one of the best A & P shows but it’s also one of the places that we first welcomed the Queen, the late Queen, and her husband Prince Philip, back in the early 1970s. And we had over 2,500 Kahungunu warriors that participated in that po’hiri at the very ground that we’re talking about here. So it is embedded not only in the Hastings psyche but it’s built in the Hawke’s Bay and wider region, this Tomoana Showground and what it means for our community.

So it is a straightforward bill. I do appreciate those members that have taken a call on it, and I am looking forward to it going to the Governance and Administration Committee. I hear it’s a very hard-working select committee, very collegial. This bill, like we’ve all said, is non-controversial, but it does enable the A & P society to not just sell the land and get the proceeds—and that may be something at select committee, in my support of this bill, that we need to be very clear on the society’s objectives, so that people have confidence that once the land is sold they know that those funds are going to be used again for the purposes behind the society and the trust.

But what’s exciting is that the Hastings District Council has put up their hand to not only buy the land but also ensure that its use continues, because it’s an important part of the Hawke’s Bay fabric and society. But what excites me, yet again, about this bill is the involvement of the local marae, Waipatu, which is just seriously a stone’s throw across from the Tomoana Showgrounds. In fact, the name comes from the very descendants—Hēnare Tomoana, right up to the Tomoana whānau today, who very much live around that marae.

So I know that this purchase, or this bill, will usher not only the sale to the council but it will enable the Hastings District Council to have a very close relationship with the marae and the whakapapa that connects this particular ground to that Waipatu marae, Ngāti Hāwea, and also the Tomoana whānau. So, Mr Speaker, with those few words, thank you again for this opportunity to speak to this motion. Thank you to all the members who have spoken in support. I look forward to it going and getting properly scrutinised through the select committee, and its ushering back so we can allow that trust and the society to carry on, and for that land to stay in public hands in Hastings, Hawke’s Bay. Kia ora koutou.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the Hawke’s Bay Agriculture and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Instruction to Governance and Administration Committee

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move, That Hawke’s Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill be reported to the House by 11 April 2023.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come first to the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and we begin with the debate on clause 1.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, I didn’t want to interrupt, but I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to take a short call just to outline where this bill got to at select committee, and also where we’ve arrived in terms of trying to crystallise the law in this area. The law in terms of, particularly, child grooming and child sex offences is a complex area. It’s one that is carried in a number of different pieces of legislation. What this bill has attempted to achieve is to bring things into one place and to also acknowledge the fact that the grooming of children happens both online and in real life as well, and sometimes those two instances can be occurring simultaneously.

So, in the past, we had one offence that sat in the Crimes Act, and that required the perpetrator to travel to and to meet up at a designated location in order for it to qualify in the Crimes Act as sexual grooming. There needed to be a travelling to a point, which seemed quite antiquated. The other part of legislation was in the digital harms space when there was posting of online content, and so what this bill does is it brings together both the online offences and also the in-real-life offences into one space to say that if there are actions from someone over the age of 18 towards someone under the age of 16 that are sexual in their intent and there is harm in that intent and it can be proved before a court of law, then that is a simpler way of trying to describe what is going on as sexual grooming. The intent here is to make it more straightforward to bring a prosecution if possible, and in saying so, it’ll always need to be proven in a court of law for that to take place.

The submissions we heard on this bill changed the direction of the bill quite significantly. When we heard from those non-governmental organisations who work at the coalface of dealing with child sexual abuse, a lot of their comments in the submissions were that the bill needed to change in order to respond to the fact that grooming happened in real life and, more often than not, from those known to the child—known to the victim. So this bill has taken on board all of those submissions. We have taken advice from officials from the Ministry of Justice, and we have also worked collegially across all those members in the committee—who I’d like to thank for their contribution—to arrive at a bill that we hope strengthens the law and, hopefully, makes our country safer for young people.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I’m happy to take a short call. Can I start, if I might, by acknowledging the member who is in the chair. Ginny Andersen has done, actually, a really sterling job of ushering this through. It is, I think, a good policy intention. Also, as she acknowledged, it has changed quite a bit, and those who look at the bill will see that, actually, a good part of it has been struck out—but I think it might be a mistake, and the member in the chair is welcome to comment on this—but even though a vast majority of the bill has been struck out, the core intention remains.

So my questions to the member are relatively simple. It’s just really seeking an opportunity for her to respond to what this is able to give, this particular bill—what’s it adding on top of existing legislation, because a lot of what we heard was that the likes of the digital harm and harmful communications bill covered a lot of this, and other elements of our criminal Acts. I would appreciate it if she would be able to just elaborate a little bit about what this is achieving beyond what we already have within existing legislation.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Madam Chair. The new section 126B would make it an offence for someone over the age of 18 to digitally communicate with a person under the age of 16, intending to cause harm to the young person or being reckless as to whether the young person is harmed—so it replaces that.

In the past, in the previous offence that sat in the Crimes Act, there was an explicit requirement in the Crimes Act for the perpetrator to travel to, and so it, basically, excluded any ability for online harm to be included and it also made it really difficult for a prosecution to be brought when there was an ongoing relationship with the child and the perpetrator. So if they had not made arrangements to travel to an area but yet there was still sexual grooming occurring, that—from police information that was provided to the committee—made it quite difficult to demonstrate before a court of law that there had been sexual grooming. So I think the most significant change that this bill does is it brings both online and in real life into the same space, and it removes that requirement for travelling to a point or a place or a park in order for sexual grooming to be deemed to have occurred.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to just say a few words on this bill, which, as the member in charge, Ginny Andersen, acknowledges, is a modest bill in the sense that it makes a small change to an area which is of obviously great concern to, particularly, parents of teenage children, fearful of the possibility of harm being done to them online and through grooming. Ultimately, after going around and around a bit through the select committee process, we’ve landed on this area where it removes the requirement just to actually physically meet, but it still has an offence in terms of online grooming, and in so far as that may make it easier for the police to deal with people who have evil intent in this area—to hold them to account and to keep people safe—we support it in that respect.

The only point I would make is that there is some irony, I suppose, where we are contemplating a bill which relates to child exploitation offences and introduces penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment for doing this, and I think a lot of us will be conscious of the fact that this year a young man was convicted of four rapes against young women and ended up with nine months’ home detention. So I suppose there are broader issues around child exploitation and crimes against young children in the sexual sense in the justice system that I don’t think we manage effectively and the justice system doesn’t manage effectively, in coming up with what we would think would be perverse outcomes as a justice system in that respect, where those convicted of heinous crimes are ending up with very modest sentences, yet at the same time we’re passing a bill introducing two-year prison sentences for grooming activity.

My only question, I suppose, I have to the member is—she clearly sees the significance of the crime involved in this legislation and seeks to denounce that act through this legislation. I suppose the only point is what reflections, if any, she has on the broader context of our justice system, and does it send an equally clear message for more serious sexual crimes as well? It’s certainly our view on this side of the House that we do need to send a clearer message—

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s a members’ day.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and get that through, and I think it is relevant in the context of this debate to make that point, Mr Webb. So, with those final thoughts, I will end my contribution.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much to the member Paul Goldsmith for that substantial contribution, which I will try to respond to. Look, I don’t take lightly at all the seriousness of online harm to young children. As a parent, I am fearful for my own children in terms of what they are exposed to online.

We know for a fact that paedophiles and that predators prey online and impersonate other children in order to gain access to communicating with our children. If we can strengthen our law, if we can increase penalties, and if we can make it incredibly clear that there will be police who will be watching and looking to make sure our online spaces are as safe as possible, that’s got to be a good thing for our general justice system. The more that we see the prevalence of different online platforms popping up, and how difficult it is to monitor what type of communication and how we can make sure that children remain safe when they’re communicating when they think it’s with people who they can trust, I think it’s incredibly important that we consistently review our legislation and make sure that it’s robust enough to act, where possible, as a deterrent to those who seek to prey upon the vulnerable in our society.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, a very quick question. Again, I think the member responsible has done a very good bill, a good tweak. At the moment, there’s a lot of discussion, broader than this bill, around age—18, 17, 16—for various jurisdictions. I just wonder if the member might like to comment that if there were changes to the likes of—I don’t know—the voting age to 16—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, actually, it is relevant to what—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, no—oh, unless the member can convince me.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Absolutely, because in clause 4, new section 131AB, “Grooming for sexual conduct with young person”, states in subclause (1) that “A person aged 18 years or over is liable”. The question following is whether or not we see change to ages such as the voting age—will that change consequently? It is a stretch at one level, Madam Chair, I’d acknowledge, but, actually, it is just trying to get a bit of an indication of whether the member would see some wider changes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah, yeah, thank you. Before I go on, thank you for that. I think it’s on the margins, but if the member in charge of the bill wishes to reply, then it is up to her.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Well, I probably would say that if the member had been paying attention in committee, he might have known the answer to that, but I recall that we were having quite a good discussion around what we wanted to capture and where to set those ages. So the idea would be that we didn’t want to capture, essentially—and this was after, I remember, Louisa Wall’s bill, where we discussed the same issue—young people exchanging nude photographs with each other, which occurs quite frequently, so I’m told. If you had everything at 16, you would then be potentially criminalising that.

There was a discussion, I remember, that we wanted to set the bar where there was a clear difference. If someone over 18 was having an ongoing communication with someone under 16 and there was sexual content, then those would be the grounds or the sphere to take a look at whether there was inappropriate conduct going on in that space. So that was my recollection of that discussion as to where to set those ages, and I would not see the voting age having an impact upon that. Maybe the change for lawful sex, which is 16—if you wanted to talk about changing that, that may have an impact, but I couldn’t see how the voting age would have an impact upon those ages.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I thank the member in the chair, Ginny Andersen, for that. I would just like to put on the record that I do have an excellent recollection; I just don’t have a recollection—which is now, happily, on Hansard—where both of us can agree on what was discussed. Thank you very much.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

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

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on clause 1, with clause 1 being the title of the bill. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move that the debate be heard as one part.

Hon Member: One question.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, that the question should be considered as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule stand part.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Madam Chair, if I may, I begin with my thanks to Mr Goldsmith. Just a few remarks to start the discussion: the object of this bill is to extend the time in which a person may make a personal grievance claim in respect of sexual harassment from 90 days to a year, so it extends the time in which the person can make the claim. The reason for doing this is because of the nature of sexual harassment. It is the sort of offence that can floor a person. It can render them unable to act. It can put them in such a position that they really don’t feel capable of facing, in this instance, their employer, so it can take longer than 90 days to have the capacity to make a complaint of sexual harassment. That is why we have asked for the time to be extended to one year.

Now, the bill has come back from the select committee virtually unchanged in its essence, so that central premise of the bill remains as is—the extension from 90 days to a whole year. The changes that members will see in the bill as it has come back from the committee are matters of clarification, or matters where they are ensuring that the bill stacks up with other parts of the Employment Relations Act, just to make sure that there’s no confusion. So the original premise of the bill is unamended by the select committee, but there are matters of clarification. However, I’m happy to speak to those matters of clarification and the matters where we’re linking the bill up with other parts of the Act.

But just before I sit down, I do just want to take this opportunity to thank the submitters on the bill, and the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for their extensive knowledge and expertise. My thanks go to the Education and Workforce Committee, ably chaired by Marja Lubeck; my intern from Victoria University of Wellington, Rowan Selwood-Isles, who helped with this bill; and lawyer Zoë Lawton, who raised the matter in the first place. And one slightly unusual last thank-you—that’s to my dad, who rang me today to say, “Deborah, your bill is up today, isn’t it?”, and I said, “Well, yes, it is.” He said, “I’ll be watching.” So, Dad, thank you for your support.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No pressure!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and to Deborah Russell, who has brought in this bill, and to her parents. One can always rely on the support of one’s parents, hopefully, and that’s good to know.

I suppose the basic question that we had—the National Party supports this bill, focused, as it is, on extending the period for raising personal grievances only to matters which relate to sexual harassment. People might ask, “Well, why do you limit it to 90 days in the first place?”, and that is because the vast majority of businesses in this country are small businesses. They have maybe five or three or eight or 12 employees, and the uncertainty that’s created by having an extended period where general personal grievances can be held and then raised with the employers 11 months later would create a very difficult situation, particularly for small businesses. So that’s why it’s limited to 90 days. But the argument put forward by the member in this bill is that sexual harassment is of a different category because of the impact that it has on those who are affected by it and the fact that it sometimes takes quite a long period of time for people to come to terms with it, in so far as they would raise it.

There’s no question that sexual harassment has been for a very long time and will continue to be and it is currently an issue that can have enormous impact on the lives of workers up and down the country, and many of us will have experienced it or would have known people who have experienced it, and so we were supportive of that.

But the thing that I want to clarify from the member responsible for the bill is this. I want to clarify on the record here in Hansard that it is clearly her intention that it is only personal grievances relating to sexual harassment that will be given this extended period and not other sorts of personal grievances, and that by doing this, she isn’t sort of trying to create some sort of loophole for the system that a personal grievance that may have a tangential element of it that may—well, I suppose that’s the question I have for her: how is it that she is going to ensure that this isn’t used as a way to extend virtually all personal grievances to 12 months, which would have a very different impact on the working environment, particularly for those small businesses that are affected? So the first question is: can she reassure the committee that it is her intention that this should be focused purely on those matters which are particularly sexual harassment claims?

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you. I want to take a call on this because I wanted to ask you about quite similar things to my friend across the floor. I want to know a little bit more about what the submitters said in terms of their experience of sexual harassment and that necessary time.

In my practice I had, often, young women who were not necessarily identifying this behaviour as being as problematic as it was and minimising it, and that does tend to be a feature of it. I note that people could take such matters under the Human Rights Act. Can you tell me about the actual experiences that you’ve heard about that prompted—sorry, Madam Chair—the experiences that the member Dr Russell heard about that made her consider it appropriate to look at a different time frame, and what kinds of people may access this system, and, particularly, the Employment Relations Authority rather than the Human Rights Commission as a result.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to ask the member in charge of this bill a few questions about it at this committee stage. I was delighted to be part of the select committee that considered this bill and has now reported it back to the House with, as the member has said, not a great deal of amendment but, I would say from the select committee side, some valuable clarifications in terms of the way that this bill works.

The matters that I really wanted to ask the member in charge about are the key changes that did come up at the Education and Workforce Committee. There’s a clear part where it’s made very clear that this bill is not retrospective, so it only has effect from when it comes into force in relation to the longer period, which is, obviously, 90 days to one year.

I wanted to also just note, as some members have around the Chamber, that this bill would make sexual harassment complaint time frames consistent in the Human Rights Commission jurisdiction and also in the employment relations jurisdiction. I just wanted to ask her about the benefits, perhaps, of that simplicity in relation to human rights claims and employment relations claims, and how that might make the choice of jurisdiction in which to take a sexual harassment claim somewhat simpler by not having that longer period of time in one jurisdiction. I think that, in the past, it might have been the case that people were perhaps forced to choose the area with the longer jurisdiction.

I also wanted to just touch on something that was said by a colleague across the Chamber in relation to the narrow nature of this bill, and how the select committee did, in fact, look at making sure that this only relates to personal grievances for sexual harassment and not other personal grievances. It was something specifically that was looked at in select committee: whether it would be possible to subsequently extend additional claims. Those of us who’ve practiced in employment law and discrimination law know that often it’s not just one grievance that people bring up; it’s perhaps a few different grievances. So the work that the select committee did and the clarification which is now in the bill before the committee is to ensure that it is a narrow bill that affects the particular grievance of sexual harassment and the clarity that brings. So I’d be grateful if the member could elucidate some thoughts on that.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): If I may, I’ll just deal with the three speakers and respond to each of them in turn. So thank you for the questions.

The Hon Paul Goldsmith talked about the uncertainty for small employers and small business. I agree that that 90-day period does raise a period of uncertainty for employers, and that can be very difficult for small businesses in particular. The cheap answer to this, we’ll say, is don’t engage in sexual harassment then—all right? So that’s the cheap answer.

I think the rather better answer is to say that this does create an opportunity to ensure that those businesses do have good policies and practices in place. It’s always possible, if an employee comes with a claim of sexual harassment, to actually deal with it properly. So that would obviate the need for a grievance in the first place, and, of course, if the employer themselves is committing the sexual harassment, I’m not quite sure why they should be relieved of responsibility for that after a mere 90 days.

So I see an opportunity sitting in there as well for small business, because it should, I hope, prompt the need to put in place good policies and to put in place good workplace procedures, so that it does actually assist businesses to develop those really good workplaces. So there is that.

Mr Goldsmith spoke of—and my colleague Camilla Belich also mentioned this—whether or not the extension of time related only to sexual harassment, or whether someone could perhaps take the one-year period to make a claim of sexual harassment and then use that to pull other matters into contention as well. As Ms Belich said, that was discussed by the Education and Workforce Committee, and it has been explicitly dealt with in new section 114(7) in clause 6 of the bill, where there have been a couple of clauses introduced which very specifically name section 103(1)(d) of the Employment Relations Act. Now, that is the clause that specifies that someone may bring a claim of sexual harassment. So you’ll see there’s subclause (7)(a) and (b) and it says that for a personal grievance under section 103(1)(d), it’s a period of one year, and in respect of any other personal grievance, the claim has to be brought within 90 days. So that is dealt with.

Though I agree it’s a very important matter to deal with, when I said that this bill is very narrow, it is indeed very narrow, and I think we need to keep it that way. There are certainly other areas that could be considered for an extended time, but perhaps in the subject of a separate bill rather than doing it in this particular bill.

Chris Bishop: What areas in particular?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, for example, perhaps we might consider bullying or something like that. But I would like it be considered under a separate bill where the issues could be discussed separately.

My colleague Helen White wanted to know about some of the submissions on the bill. I haven’t brought them with me, unfortunately, or I could have read some of them to you, though we have traversed them at some stages. But I was rereading some of them today. They came from a law blog set up by Zoë Lawton, called under the influence of the—oh, I can’t remember what it’s called.

Helen White: The Me Too movement.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah, the Me Too movement. I was going to say the “What, me?” movement, but it’s the Me Too movement—thank you. Under that, a number of the submitters there talked about the experiences they’d had in law firms of senior employees pressuring them of them being pressured to drink and to engage in various activities which then led to sexual harassment, and the impact that it had on their careers. However, I think the one that I read just today was a different one. It came in as an anonymous submission to the committee and was accepted, and it was from a person who had worked in the hospitality industry for a long time.

In the hospitality industry, employees—waiters, wait staff, bar staff—are routinely subjected to sexual harassment from customers, so not just from their employers and not just from their fellow employees but from customers who think it’s quite OK to pat a waitress’ bottom or to pinch her or to make a sexual suggestion. Frankly, people should be do their jobs without having to be sexually harassed, and she talked of the impact that that had had on her. So this is going to be an interesting problem, too, or it should be an interesting problem within the hospitality industry, as to how to ensure that customers behave appropriately as well.

Thank you—we’ve addressed the idea of retrospectivity, but Ms Belich wanted to have a little bit of a think about the consistency with the Human Rights Act. Under the Human Rights Act, of course, a person can bring a claim for gender discrimination. Sexual harassment is one of those things sitting in that space, and it is a 365-day period. So, yes, this 365-day period does now align with the procedures that are available under the Human Rights Act. I think it is good to align the two, and, again, it does raise the issue as to whether there should be other matters that should be extended out to this 365-day period to enable that consistency.

I think it is useful that an employee can go to the most obvious solution for an employee in respect of sexual harassment, and that is the Employment Relations Act, because that’s the context in which it has occurred. I don’t know that I had that intention with this bill, but it turns out to be one of the happy accidents that make it a better bill for that matter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I just want to offer my congratulations to Dr Deborah Russell for what is a good bill, and it was a good process and it was good being on the select committee that scrutinised the bill.

I just want to talk about retrospectivity as well, and ask the member in charge of the bill if she thinks there might be a potential grey area or problem in the way that we have set out this retrospectivity clause, where we say that the sexual harassment action had to have occurred after the commencement of this bill, or it had to come to the notice of the person who was enduring the sexual harassment. Now, the reason I ask this is because there is a potential situation where someone has been sexually harassed for some time before the commencement of this bill and then again after the commencement of this bill, and that person could argue that it only came to their attention because they only realised that it was sexual harassment after the commencement of the bill to bring into line so that they could then work around the retrospectivity clause.

Look, it may happen or it may not happen, but I’m just wanting to know whether or not the member in charge of the bill had thought about that, and whether or not, taking that a step further, it’s potentially something for the employer to use against the person to say, “Well, actually, the victim is claiming that this happened before. Therefore, she knew it was before, therefore it is retrospective and, therefore, the claim can’t be brought.”, and potentially use that as a way out. Has the member thought about that? Is there a potential grey area, and are there potential problems? Has she thought that through, and how does she think that that might play out?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank her for the questions. They’re really good ones, and they’re interesting issues to grapple with. There’s a couple of sorts of retrospectivity that the member Erica Stanford has sort of covered in what she’s asked. The first is where there is a pattern of behaviour—so, a series of events, with some of them occurring before the date of the commencement of this bill, and some of them occurring afterwards. Now, in terms of sexual harassment—claiming and then proving sexual harassment—if there was an incident that happened after the commencement of the bill, then that would constitute sexual harassment. The previous events before the commencement of the bill might be evidence to support the claim, but the claim itself comes from the very last incident of sexual harassment. So that’s the first sort.

But the next sort of retrospectivity that might be problematic is where the sexual harassment comes to the notice of a person. This is interesting, because we’ve talked about how with sexual harassment, it might sometimes be the case that a person only realises later that it was sexual harassment, and it’s contemplated in the 365-day nature of this that the pattern really does matter. That’s where one off-colour joke probably doesn’t matter too much, but an off-colour joke every day possibly does, or an off-colour joke consistently all the time might constitute sexual harassment of a person—you know, it’s that sort of thing. The pattern of behaviour does matter, and we’ve talked about how someone can be subject to a pattern of behaviour that they only realise with the passage of time constitutes sexual harassment.

But that’s not what coming to the notice of a person means—all right? It’s not that someone has a road to Damascus moment and suddenly realises that it was sexual harassment. Coming to the notice of a person is when a person is made aware that this sexual harassment has been occurring. I know that that sounds a little odd, but think about it this way. It turns out that a person’s fellow employees have been sending emails to each other on an ongoing basis discussing the size of her breasts, the nature of the clothes she’s wearing, or whether or not she would be good in bed—all those sorts of things that are sexual harassment. The employee might know that she’s terribly uncomfortable in the workplace, but not really know why until later it comes to her notice that this series of emails was being passed about.

So that’s what coming to the notice of a person means. It doesn’t mean that they suddenly understand it; it means that the actual events are brought to their attention. So that’s the sort of retrospectivity there.

In that case, they’ve got to make the complaint within 365 days of when it came to their notice. So that would be perhaps—and I can see how this might happen, and it will be for the Employment Relations Authority to sort it out, I suppose. But I can see how it could be the case that a person might have been deeply uncomfortable at work and didn’t understand what was going on, couldn’t quite cope, left, and, a while later, one of her fellow employees—ex-employees now—contacted her and said, “Did you know that there was this series of emails?” That’s coming to their notice, and that would constitute the sexual harassment that sort of kicked off a series of events. But I’m sure that that’s the sort of thing—if that’s what’s intended—that coming to the notice of a person means.

So you can see the two different sorts of retrospectivity and how the bill tries to deal with them. Just in terms of the retrospectivity too, we’ve tried to be very, very careful with specifying in the Schedule to the Act as to exactly when the Act takes effect. So it is sexual harassment that occurs or is brought to the notice of a person after the commencement of the Act.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I just want to follow up on that. The act that has to happen, or the sexual harassment act that needs to occur after the bill has come into force—if it is a relatively minor offence and then the worker, say, quits, but all of the sexual harassment up until the point that the bill has passed was very serious, is it the same, bar for that one act after the bill has passed?

What I’m trying to explain is that if the act is relatively minor, is it exactly the same test as to whether or not that is sexual harassment, or will they take into account all of the events prior to the bill commencing, which may have been far more serious? Or is it just the same test as it always is to ascertain whether or not that one act did constitute sexual harassment, or will there be a different test for that, given that there were a lot more serious acts going on beforehand?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Chair. That will, in part, be something for the Employment Relations Authority to sort out, based on their previous judgments that they’ve made around what constitutes sexual harassment and what doesn’t. But I can understand the point the member is making, which is: serious event, serious event, serious event, serious event—

Erica Stanford: Bill passes.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —the bill passes, not so serious event, out of the door. That one not so serious event perhaps might not be so serious in itself, but, as we’ve discussed previously—and I can’t tell how the Employment Relations Authority will take this. But the previous events can constitute a pattern of behaviour which would go to the evidence to support that that last event was itself an act of sexual harassment as well. However, that would also be a matter for the Employment Relations Authority to sort out.

Clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule 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 Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) on behalf of Ian McKelvie (National—Rangitīkei): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill in the name of my colleague and friend Ian McKelvie, and I’m pleased to take the first call in the second reading on his behalf. The bill amends section 235 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

When this bill was considered at first reading it was deemed to be a conscience issue and therefore there was a personal vote. I know Mr McKelvie was pleased that the bill did pass that first reading in order that the Governance and Administration Committee could have a good look at it. While the committee in its report back did not make a recommendation that the bill proceed, because it was a conscience vote, I hope I’m able through this contribution to convince those that were confident enough at first reading that the bill should pass through further stages. And I’ll explain what the committee heard and did as a consequence of that deliberation.

Now, section 235 is the “Use of unlicensed premises as place of resort for [the] consumption of alcohol”; drinking dens, effectively, although “place of resort” isn’t defined further in the Act. The need for this bill arose because a number of small race meetings that have been a great tradition of New Zealand—often, summer—life were perceived to be under threat because of the way police and the licensing authorities were deeming them, relative to section 235.

Simon Court: Wowsers!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, you may very well say that, Mr Court, but I wouldn’t possibly comment. We heard 22 submissions, and they were pretty much divided between the sort of alcohol health watch - type authorities who were opposed to this bill, and people in the local communities and the racing industry who supported the bill. Now, I want to say from the outset that those who opposed the bill—I and other members of the committee absolutely agree with them that there is a risk of harm from inappropriate and excessive consumption of alcohol. But I submit that in order to reduce that harm one needs to make sure that the risk is managed where it occurs. And my interpretation of the submissions that we heard in support of this bill was that wherever that risk may occur, it is not at our country race meetings.

Now, ever since I was a child—certainly for most of the last 20 years—I’ve been a regular attender at the Central Otago Trotting Club’s annual race meeting in the beautiful town of Ōmākau in the Matakanui Valley. Now, Ōmākau only has about 250 people but the population swells to about 7,000 on the day of the trotting meeting. I go every year with my family, we sit under a tree with a picnic blanket, chairs, and a chilly bin, a couple of beers, you know, a wine or two, and we catch up with friends and family. The racing is almost incidental. Certainly having a glass of wine with our lunch is incidental. And for nearly 100 years, that went without a hitch, until about 2016 in the wake of a court case around place of resort definition that had nothing to do with racing. But as a consequence, the police then started to become more active in opposing licences where BYO at race meetings would be enabled. And it really was prompted by the Central Otago Trotting Club and others like it that Mr McKelvie introduced this bill. So I want to commend them and Graham Sinnamon, who came to present on the bill.

I want to just elaborate on harm or the absence of it at the race meeting that I attend and love every January. The trotting club provided evidence from St John and the local GP practice of the typical event. I was there in January 2016 where St John, at the event, recorded six casualties, amongst which were two headaches, one sunburn, two other skin injuries, and one fainting. The local GP practice reported seeing 27 patients on that day, none of which presented after having been at the Ōmākau races. Centennial Health in Tarbert St in Alexandra also saw a number of patients that day, one of which came from the Ōmākau races, and that was a muscle strain in a lady who raced in the family fun race day. Now, police also told me when I was the Minister of Police in 2015 that in the 15 years since they have had alcohol breath testing, screening testing at the exit to the Ōmākau races, in those 15 years with, who knows, maybe 50,000 cars having gone through breath tests, one failed. There was no conviction because it was actually tested on a private part of the land and therefore wasn’t on a public road at the time. It was more a prevention issue. One failure out of 50,000 cars in 15 years. That says to me that BYO at small races is not a problem.

Now, there was an element of the bill that did need tightening up because the way the bill was introduced, it had a much broader definition of a race meeting than the Governance and Administration Committee were comfortable with. So in essence we’d be giving a pass to the Riccartons and the Addingtons, and so on. That was not the intention. The intention was to enable BYO at the smaller race meetings, so we’ve changed the definition to make it very clear that what we’re talking about is race meetings. I think there has to be no more than three a year at the club, and that’s appropriate because it’s not broader than that. That’s not the problem we’re trying to solve.

Now, police were very helpful and provided good testimony about how they determine a place of resort. And on their website, they have three features that need to exist, all three of which need to exist in order for place of resort to be considered. They are people gathering specifically to drink, rather than just incidental; drinking that reaches a certain threshold of intensity involving more than isolated or casual consumption; and the BYO aspect being “actively facilitated.” Now, all three of those things need to be present, according to police, before they would take action or oppose a licence application. Unfortunately, that’s not been—well, the submissions that we got from racing clubs suggested that what police were doing seemed to be at odds with their own guidance on place of resort. And I’m not being critical of police. They are taking a harm minimisation approach and I understand that. But the important thing, as I see it, is to make sure that risk is managed where it occurs. It’s not occurring at the Ōmākau or Wairoa or Mataura or Roxburgh racing clubs and therefore this very, very longstanding tradition of summer carnival races where people go along to go in the family fun race, to do the fashion in the field and the other—you know, the tombola and the rides around the volunteer fire engine that the kids will do, and maybe have a glass of wine under the tree with their lunch—should continue because that is not where the harm occurs.

So, despite my support for this concept, I did take an objective look at the risk to make sure that we weren’t creating unintended consequences. And with the exception of the definition of which race meetings we were talking about, which we fixed, I’m satisfied that this bill can proceed without there being an increase in harm from alcohol consumption. And I think it behoves us as a House to make sure that we do put our efforts towards identifying that risk and reducing it where it occurs. This is not where it occurs. So I’m glad that those members of the House took the step to refer this bill to the select committee. I want to give them the confidence that the committee, having considered it carefully, was satisfied that the risks of harm are low and that there is merit in the bill proceeding so that this summer, and every summer, we can continue—those who do—to enjoy our summer carnivals under the tree in those beautiful spots right around the country, and have a glass of wine or a beer incidental to our picnic, as we always have.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the select committee that considered the bill, and I do want to acknowledge my colleague Ian McKelvie, who is a very fair chair of our committee, and whose bill this is. And so I do want to acknowledge him and the work that he has done on the bill, and we did consider it throughout the select committee process.

The Labour Party is treating this bill as a conscience issue and just as we did in the first reading, members will be exercising their vote according to their conscience. I voted in favour of the bill going to the select committee. I wanted to hear submissions and advice from officials before making a decision on whether I would support it further. And before I make some comments on how I’ll be voting tonight, I wanted to make some comments about the Governance and Administration Committee report that I felt was quite important we put on the record tonight in this second reading, because it actually speaks more broadly to conscience issues and the role of the select committee in that process.

When it came to the time of adopting our report, we actually had some to-ing and fro-ing as a committee in terms of what we would put into the bill about a recommendation. When select committees consider bills, one of the requirements of the committee is to consider and make a recommendation about whether the bill should pass. We had quite a conversation about this at select committee because a number of us felt very strongly that it wasn’t necessarily the role of the select committee to make a recommendation to the House about how the House should treat a bill, given that it was a matter of conscience. So in the end we elected—and I might just read out what we wrote into the commentary. The five of us that sit on this committee were all of a shared view, the National and Labour members on the committee. What we noted here was: “We note that the vote on the first reading of the bill was treated as a conscience issue. We have therefore made recommendations for amendments to improve the bill’s workability, but leave broader consideration of the bill’s merits to the full membership of the House. We do not consider that it is appropriate for us to make a recommendation to the House about the bill passing, given the bill is a conscience issue. We encourage all members of the House to consider the bill, and our amendments, and form their own conclusions about the bill’s passing.”

On that note, we have also written to the Standing Orders Committee, as a select committee, about this issue more generally. So I did want to give that explanation to the House tonight as to why we hadn’t got to a point of making a recommendation in the select committee report. It is ultimately up to members.

So I’ll just talk a little bit about some of the work that we did do, and what we did hear while considering this bill. Mr Woodhouse has already made some comments about restricting some of the work that we did do, and that we did hear while considering this bill, and Mr Woodhouse has already made some comments about restricting the clubs that this applies to, to those that have three or more—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Fewer.

RACHEL BOYACK: Three or fewer! Thank you, Mr Woodhouse—three or fewer race meetings a year, and that we use the definition of “small racing club”. One of the questions I had during this process is that a club may be small by that definition of the Act in terms of the number of meetings it holds a year, but those meetings in and of themselves may be large in number, in the number of people who attend, and therefore there is the ability for there to be harm caused by alcohol. Because if you have a very large number of people at an event, the potential for harm to be caused does start to be increased somewhat. And so we did ask officials about whether this was an issue that we could rectify, but we were having to work within the definitions of the Act and, unfortunately, we would probably need to have done some further amendments to the Act around the size of the event as well, and that proved somewhat difficult at select committee.

That is one of the reasons that I won’t be able to support this bill further. I want to note that I have, in my time, attended racing events, and do enjoy the social aspect of attending racing events. But for me, I’m not convinced—having sat in the select committee—that this bill is actually needed. Clubs that are looking to have a bring-your-own alcohol element are able to apply for a licence for that purpose, so there is already a process existing within the law that allows for that. We did hear from the Police and from the Ministry of Health, and my understanding is that there are concerns about the potential for more alcohol harm to be caused from allowing people to bring their own alcohol without having some level of oversight in place through the provision of a special licence.

I also note that some of the clubs have also told us that they actually rely on bar sales in order to make revenue at their events, and that they would be concerned at revenue loss if they saw some form of bring-your-own without that oversight. So I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate tonight, and I have enjoyed hearing submissions on this bill, I’ve enjoyed working alongside my colleagues on the Governance and Administration Committee—we did give this bill due consideration and, as I note, the committee did get to a point where we felt it was up to the House to make the final decision on whether this bill should proceed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this matter, and it’s my first call on a conscience vote. I thought very, very carefully about this bill, and I wasn’t at all decided at the beginning, because things do pull in different directions. I’d probably be what Mr Woodhouse called an alcohol watch - type, but I’m going to vote in support of the bill, and I’d just like to explain why.

I think that alcohol does an enormous amount of harm, but I have real issues with prohibition of any of these substances, and I voted for the legalisation of marijuana because I don’t think that these kinds of prohibitions work. I think that Government has a really strong role, but it should focus on things where it can—by evidence—actually reduce harm. And I think that’s an incredibly important principle in this area. So I want the law to have a light touch. I’m not at all convinced there won’t be people who drink to excess at such events, and I’m not actually a particular fan of gambling, either. But I do appreciate that the problem of alcohol can live in your own home, it can live absolutely everywhere, and that it’s not particularly associated with picnics at racing events.

I think that it’s really important that we do simplify people’s lives as much as we can. So I don’t think it’s been that hard to make a decision in support of this bill. I think it’s important that these local events are encouraged. I don’t particularly want bars to make money out of such events, and I really do want those events to happen, because we have been a little disconnected over the last couple of years, and it would be nice if we can be reconnected. I hope that isn’t through alcohol, but I don’t think that that’s the purpose of the bill.

So I’m going to vote in support of this bill, and I’m going to vote in support of Chlöe Swarbrick’s bill later when it comes up, because I see that bill as very much targeted at where the harm is occurring with alcohol. So I hope that the consistency of that position can be seen by the explanation I’ve given now. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the ACT Party will support Mr McKelvie’s proposal. We believe that people attending race meetings in their communities should have the right to responsibly drink with friends, with family, with club members. And that’s because the ACT Party trusts New Zealanders; we believe in personal responsibility; we believe that Kiwis should be trusted to take a beer, a bottle of wine, a cider, even—if it was a race meeting in West Auckland—a four-pack of Woodstock (Woodies) and drink that out of the back of the ute while they wait for the horse race to start.

Now, apart from the Avondale Racecourse, which is more than likely to end up becoming a property development than seeing another horse race any time soon—I’m not sure where in West Auckland that’s likely to happen. But when we’re thinking about it means to live in a small community, to not have all of those country pubs, all of those cosmopolitan clubs that we used to have in New Zealand, because as New Zealanders are drinking much, much less than they used to—both in volume and in concentration—the sale of alcohol through retail premises has actually declined significantly in the past few decades.

Now, when I was at university, it was common for a beer tanker to be driven onto the university campus and for all the students to grab a milkshake cup which had a giraffe on the side of it, and that said “The longest drink in town”, and to drink as many of those cups as they could until they drank the tanker dry. And that was a great fund-raising activity for the student union.

Now, some people these days might think that’s irresponsible drinking. But when I was a student, and many of the students of that time—including no doubt Young Labour, Young Nationals; can’t remember Young Greens being there—would have enjoyed a “longest drink in town” to drink the tanker dry.

But that’s not common these days; New Zealanders drink far less and they tend to drink far higher-quality drinks, such as all of those fantastic craft beers brewed by micro brewers in places like Wellington, Auckland, and around the country.

So if we’re thinking about what it means to drive—because it’s unlikely there’s public transport to a lot of these small rural race meets, simply because it’s not possible to deliver public transport services to every small town in every region, all of the time—it’s more than likely that the people going to these events will have a driver. I’m sure they will nominate a sober driver.

I’m sure they’ll take food—a picnic—because they’ll be going for the day. So not only will they have a sober driver, but a picnic, lots of things to eat, probably a range of non-alcoholic drinks, bottled water, dare I say. They’ll have a few beers, wines, ciders, or—if this was that mythical race meeting in West Auckland—some Woodies, some pre-mixed bourbon and colas.

And I trust the Kiwis going to that race meeting—that they will drink responsibly, they will pick up their cans and bottles, they’ll put them in the recycling, and that at the end of the day, when the race meeting’s over, the carpark or the grass parking area will be left clean and tidy and that everybody who leaves there will go home, cared for by a sober driver—and that the chance of harm coming to Kiwis going to this kind of thing is very, very minimal.

And yet, we have heard members, including the fearful Rachel Boyack—who’s heard from different health groups and others that this could cause alcohol harm—that that member is so fearful of this risk of people drinking a couple of ciders or a craft beer and harm might come to a group of people. So as a result, that member’s stated that she will exercise her conscience and vote against the bill.

Now, what has New Zealand come to, where we can’t accept, or some of us can’t accept, the small risk that somebody might make a mistake and they might drink a little bit too much and then, I don’t know, they might say something to a family member or they might say something to a friend that they regret in the morning—or who knows? They might decide that, actually, they don’t like racing after all and they’d rather be at a motor sport event. Who knows what kind of mistake they might make?

But thinking this is only exempting small racing clubs and that, as introduced, the bill would provide for all racing clubs to be exempted—but not all racing clubs need or want the exemption. That’s because larger clubs often have the resources and staff to provide hospitality services and do not want attendees to bring alcohol on to the premises. So the recommendation back from the committee is that this exemption for race meetings really should only apply to small clubs.

So then we’re thinking about how much harm could possibly be caused by allowing for this exemption. Yet, apparently, for some members of this House, they are afraid of any harm. And isn’t it that “afraid of any harm” approach which has really led New Zealand to where we are today—where, for over 104 days in Auckland last year, the city was locked down after one case of COVID was reported; one case.

Simeon Brown: How much harm was caused by that?

SIMON COURT: The harm from COVID became the one thing that this Government was worried about. When for Aucklanders—

Simeon Brown: My daughter is still afraid of talking to other people. It’s terrible what the lockdown did.

SIMON COURT: —that’s right—for 1.7 million Aucklanders, the harm we were worried about was the fact that people who were stuck at home were young people locked out of education, and then having police sent to the regional border to check truck drivers’ papers, that there might be this other harm called out-of-control crime. But apparently, the harm that a couple of people might accidentally do to themselves in the carpark of a small horse racing club in a small town is so significant that some members believe they should vote against the bill.

Well, the ACT Party says, “We trust Kiwis.” We think that Kiwis should be able to make the odd mistake and that if they trip over on the wet grass at the racing club or at the trotting club after having an accidental tip over—and whether that’s because the ground was slippery and there was no warning sign to say, “Be careful, slippery wet grass”—

Simeon Brown: Where was the road cone?

SIMON COURT: Or, as the member said, there were no road cones there to identify where the pothole was in the carpark—or potentially they drank one too many Woodies and then they fell over! Well, the ACT Party says that the risk of that kind of harm happening is so minimal that the members of this House should all unilaterally support this wonderful exemption that would allow small racing clubs to sell and supply alcohol to members and visitors—those attending race days. It’s part of our culture. We are responsible people in New Zealand; we are responsible drinkers, far more responsible than we used to be.

In fact, some of us consider that we’re responsible enough that Kiwis should also even be allowed to smoke cannabis, for example, which is why I personally voted “Yes” in that referendum. Because personal responsibility should extend to all aspects of our life. So I do appreciate the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick’s offer to take her call on this bill because she felt that her contribution would be made at the time of voting.

But as an ACT member representing New Zealanders up and down the country, people who like to have a drink, go to the horse racing, and trust someone to get them home safely afterwards—ACT says, “We’ll be supporting this bill and we urge all the other members of the House to get up and do so.”

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am glad to be able to take a short call on this bill tonight—

Simeon Brown: We’re all merry—a very merry Christmas!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —you’re feeling very merry about it, Simeon Brown—and part of the reason for that is actually just to address the actual content of the legislation, which pertains to the ability to bring your own, not, as the previous speaker, Simon Court, was referring to, with regard to sale and supply. It is, of course, an amendment to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, but it does not enable more sale and supply at the place that these horse racing events are occurring; it enables people to bring their own alcohol.

So, in a nutshell, as was already expressed by the member for Nelson very ably, in canvassing the select committee process here, a licensing regime for events like this already exists. And it was really fascinating just listening to the contribution before and some of the heckling that was going back and forth. The speaker prior to me, Simon Court, was saying that people should be able to make a mistake, and the same member, who is now heckling, was saying that that’s a revolutionary notion.

We were also hearing from the speaker prior about the equivalence between alcohol and cannabis. So let’s talk about those equivalences, because, if we were to take the same logically consistent approach to cannabis as we do to alcohol, for example—as was proposed in the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill—we would be looking at placing far more restrictions on the way that we currently offer the sale and supply of alcohol in this country. I’d ask the member heckling before, Simeon Brown, whether he’s comfortable with those 120,000 New Zealanders who made the mistake of personally possessing cannabis—

Simeon Brown: Where’s the member’s consistency?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —who went on to get convictions, since the 1980s. The consistency, Simeon Brown, has been laid out for you many times before, including when I offered to meet with you about this many times, which is that there is a spectrum of approaches that we can take to substances in this country, whether they be alcohol or tobacco or cannabis.

Mr Speaker, if I may, we have heard wide-ranging debate on the equivalence of cannabis, prior, from other speakers, and I think that it’s really important that we do address this, because we are talking about consistency of approaches to drug-harm reduction. Alcohol, of course, is the drug which has the highest amount of macro harm in this country. A quarter of New Zealanders who engage in drinking do so to harmful ends.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And let’s just do it in the context of the bill, which other speakers have done.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yes, and so have I, Mr Speaker. A licensing regime already exists—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you haven’t.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: This bill is therefore not necessary.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the contribution from my colleague. The crux of the matter of this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill—and I like the collegial nature of the debate. I live in rural New Zealand, and this speaks to all things rural. And we’ve canvassed it previously tonight. Going to enjoy the carnival reality of small races in and around provincial New Zealand—it happens all the time, although it’s a diminishing reality—and sharing in a lovely meal, a lunchtime meal, and perhaps a bottle of wine with family and maybe one or two beers; this is not an environment that perhaps the previous member articulated, which is an environment that would purport to create an environment of binge drinking.

I’ve been to several race meetings in my 30-plus years living in rural New Zealand. These are usually small gatherings, and this bill has spoken to that very reality by virtue of putting a caveat in it, which said that this applies to the small race meetings in these venues that gather no more than three times per year. I mean, suffice it to say—and I think we’ve got to just go over this—this is another slow decline or degradation of rural New Zealand. This is not just an environment you give a whole lot of country people an excuse to drink. This is a simple reality that people go to rural New Zealand events. Somebody in the country happens to be horse racing, why shouldn’t they enjoy in a licensed environment the ability to share one or two beers with a few friends and drink?

Hon Member: They can.

MARK CAMERON: No, not in this instance, they can’t, and this is the point. This is the point. This creates an environment—I’m sorry to the member over there. I’m not sure if she actually lives in a rural community like I do, but it is a reality that without BYO, a lot of these people and their patrons don’t attend.

And in the free marketplace of ideas and debate which is this House, I’m sorry to the member on the other side of the House. You’ve actually got it fundamentally wrong. This bill seeks to balance that reality. The ACT Party does support that rationale. And to the previous member of the ACT Party that spoke this evening, New Zealanders are becoming more conscious of alcohol and the potential harm and abuse that it can cause in urban and rural New Zealand. That notwithstanding, New Zealanders are now much more cognisant of it. We see routinely young people more cognisant of the damage that’s happening to themselves and their surrounding persons and community. We maintain this is a balanced view. It balances up the wellbeing of small rural communities and those that go to race meetings and the potentiality for any harm. We support this legislation. Thanks very much.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh look, it would be lacking if an O’Connor didn’t stand up and actually speak on an alcohol bill. I probably just impugned a pile of O’Connors across the country, but anyway.

Look, I’m actually happy to support this. I think, whenever there are competing issues, rights, goods, values, whatever you want to say, there’s always a bit of a competition. And some of the debate and discussion rightly tonight is on alcohol harm. It’s one of, if not the worst drug, if you will, that exists in this country, and causes enormous, enormous amounts of harm. I suppose the counterfactual is that it’s something that’s been socialised into human history for at least 6,000 years of recorded history, which for me begins to knock out a whole lot of the other drugs which people try to compare things with. Tonight’s not for us to discuss, I would say, everything from fentanyl to methamphetamine—get my tongue around that—through to cannabis and others, which is just a new harm. We’ve got the smarter approach.

So, really, just what I want to draw attention to is this is a very good particular bill. I think Ian McKelvie, as an electorate member of this House, is responding to a need which he has seen in his community and across New Zealand, which is ultimately that small racing clubs with moderate means are just wanting a little bit of flexibility around alcohol laws. And understandably, when this Parliament passes the overarching laws which we do around, well, anything to be honest, but in this case alcohol, it doesn’t always fit every circumstance. We try as best we can, but it doesn’t always fit. And so this is just a very simple tweak tonight.

Others have referenced why there’s a difference between, say, small and large racing facilities. Quite simply, the larger ones—in the likes of my electorate—they are well managed, they are huge, large incomes, they’ve got plenty of staff, it’s easy to manage in this space. Much, much smaller racecourses struggle. So I think this is, for me, quite sensible. But I think, again, it’s prudent that there’s discussion and debate around harm. But personally, as someone who has gone to the races, as an Irish Catholic family, it’s very much part of our—I don’t know what you’d call it—tradition. By and large, if not most of the time—I’m not talking about my family here—for those going to the races, it’s well respectful for what they’re doing. I’m not actually particularly worried about any particular harm or harms that is going to come from this. I think it’s a sensible move. I think it’s a good, proactive—actually, it’s not proactive; it’s a reactive move, strictly. As I say, Ian McKelvie is responding to what he’s heard from his constituents. And if our Parliament is to do anything proper and right, it is to respond to the people on the ground saying, “Hey, we want this law change.”

Look, it’s clear, listening to the contributions tonight and reading the select committee report, there’s been a lot of discussion and debate around how this could be improved or changed—is it necessary or not? Again, I’ll be supporting this time, because I think it is in the right space. And look, I can’t speak—I come from the great electorate of Tāmaki in the heart of urban Auckland. We’ve got the likes of the Ellerslie Racecourse there and just across the ball at Alexandra Park. It’s not going to affect these guys. They already do an amazing job. But when I think of some of the smaller racecourses that I visited over the years, and different members will have gone around—I think my dad, if he goes up to the likes of, I don’t know, Dargaville or Ruakākā, they need a little bit more help and support.

So I think this is a sensible move. Look, for those who are concerned—and rightly so. I think there’s been discussion and debate tonight. I don’t think anyone’s actually wrong. This is the nature of any of these sorts of conscience votes—anything that’s particularly ethical. I don’t think anyone’s wrong. If, for some reason, we find in six months or six years that this change in legislation has increased harm, I’ll be one of the first to stand in support to repeal it—to pull it back. But I think this is quite sensible. And realistically, it’s very particular and also it’s relying on Kiwis, particularly those that we know in the rural provincial areas, who actually are quite responsible. That’s a really important starting point.

The next point I want to make is there’s always a lot of debate, and I’m sure we’ll have it later in the House or in the coming weeks—it’s always around the phrase “harm minimisation”. And it’s an appropriate phrase to use. But as I pointed out before to media and other outlets or other points of debate: where do you want to put the emphasis on that little phrase—harm minimisation? Some people will always put their focus on the word “minimisation”; that’s fine. I put the focus on harm. Ultimately, I don’t think this is going to create the wave of harm which some are concerned about. But I just again want to stress, for those who vote against this bill, it’s the absolute, for them, right thing to do, and I think there’s a nuance in this debate. I think it’s one of those little ethical issues which is not, if you will, black and white.

And on that, I want to finish with one thought coming out of this second reading, and it’s related to this bill specifically, but it’s also broader. I am concerned with this House that we’re having select committee reports coming back from, well, strangely enough, the select committee that do not take positions, and I think that’s unfortunate. I want to be really, really clear to the select committee responsible for this that I do understand. I’ve sat on many select committees—arguably a select committee that’s dealt with probably the most contentious, or, actually, one of the most contentious issues, and it too chose to go down the route of “We as a select committee should not give an opinion.” I think that’s a valid argument. I think the idea of the select committee taking a fairly neutral approach, reporting back to the House, allowing this whole Chamber to make a decision, is a consistent position, but I don’t think it’s the right one.

For me personally, I actually trust my colleagues across the House. It doesn’t matter if you’re left, right, blue, green, red, it doesn’t really matter. When we send these bills to the select committee, I’m wanting my colleagues, as with this bill, to examine it and to tell me what their conscience, what their beliefs, what their mind thinks. I’m grown up enough, old enough, grumpy enough to be able to—I was hoping, actually, someone would call me out there to say I’d misled the House, but anyway. I am grumpy enough that I can actually look at what other people say and make my own decisions.

So I suppose what I’m trying to say, and in closing, is I really hope that select committees, including the ones that I am on, for conscience votes and for personal votes to be strictly correct in the future, do actually make an opinion, like they should have on this Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill. Use their reason, use their conscience, use their beliefs, and report that back to the House. I actually think that’s going to enrich the debate when we see the different views, because, actually, all 119 of us currently can exercise our judgments. We’re not going to be misled, misguided in any way when we get to a second reading. So it’s just a plea from me to have that happen. I think it’s becoming a little bit of an unfortunate norm in this House that we come back with these, “Oh, we can’t really say much about the bill. We’ll just leave it to the whole House.” No. Guide us. Give us your thoughts, give us your opinions.

In fact, the more robust that the report could have been out of the select committee on this Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill, that will actually spur thought. And in a bizarre way, this is happening now tonight. This has actually been one of the better debates, personally, all day. As different people have shared their thoughts and nuances, it’s created reactions and counter-reactions—that’s a great thing. And I personally feel, had we got to this second reading with a better report, a more personal conscience-led report from the select committee, we’d be in a better place. But I do want to finish by saying this: this is no reflection on that particular committee or the work that’s been done. I’ve sat on many committees that have come to a similar position, and I think that’s not quite the right space.

But anyway, as I say, I will be supporting this bill tonight. I am looking forward—I think one person mentioned earlier that this could be their first conscience or personal vote. Fantastic. It’s a great moment. Make sure you point very clearly at your name as you move on through. It’s a great moment. It’ll confuse a number of our colleagues that the bells keep ringing before 10 o’clock, but, actually, these are important moments.

Anyway, I’m just going to pause because I suspect someone else who’s probably quite important around this bill might want to take a call, not only because he’s here, it’s also because his wife, I suspect, is in the gallery. And it’ll be really important for him to take a call at some point. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just indicate to members at the moment that there are now five speaking slots left, and that they will be allocated by way of calls, since we actually seem to be out of proportionality right now.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): OK, Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to take a short call to go on record just to put my own local racing club, which I imagine that my friend and colleague Ian McKelvie was actually considering when he put this bill together—small-country racing clubs that are the heart of some little communities, and especially in the racing circuit.

I was the clerk of scales for many years on the West Coast, and I did the whole West Coast circuit over the summer. I can tell you that those little community events are very important to community connectedness. They’re run by volunteers who work all year to provide a day out for one or maybe two days a year.

They’ve gone through some hard times in the past. A lot of them are aged facilities so they rely on fund-raising and they rely on the income that they derive from their race meetings to maintain those facilities and keep up with the constant changes of rules, health and safety regulations, etc. that they have to implement on the day.

Security has played a big part in sucking some of the revenue out of those small organisations. The last thing we need is the fun police to come along and shut down one of the main sources of income on race day. I can tell you that the security is so tight that if you trip over a rock, the police will deem you intoxicated and remove you from the track. There is no way that people are going to be able to abuse the system on race days because of the tight rules that are now around, in terms of security and watching for people who do abuse the alcohol intake.

I’m standing in support of this piece of legislation that I hope will go through tonight, or at least—yes, it is its third reading tonight, because I think it’s really sensible that we include small race meetings in a different category than we do to others. I totally commend my colleague Ian McKelvie for raising this issue in defence of these small clubs around New Zealand. We’ve even lost clubs on the West Coast due to some of the retrenchment that happened under the former Labour coalition Government. That was a real disaster for some of our small clubs that have been around for over 100 years, and now those places are abandoned. It’s a real tragedy and a dishonour to the people who maintained them for many, many years. So I speak in support of this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just indicate there are two five-minute calls available in call nine.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): May I take both of them, Mr Speaker? It’s been an interesting conversation this evening, and also an interesting evening when we have two bills around alcohol: the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill and, of course, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill. As I listened intently—mostly—this evening, I feel like there’s sort of a “we’re responsible drinkers” and “she’ll be right” and, you know, we’re going to be party poopers and that type of thing for those of us who voted against this. I mean, personally, I know I’d love to have a greater conversation around the review of looking at the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, but that’s not for tonight’s debate—that is around the exemption for race meetings.

I just find it interesting that we would pick a certain sector, and then also that we would pick a certain sector and say if we don’t do this—some of the bits I picked up this evening—it’s all going to shut down. It’s these small, rural clubs, which I have in my own electorate—you know, I’m part of that rural community. If they’re going to close down because they can’t drink alcohol there, then so be it. I mean, it’s around the racing, right? It’s around the experience. So it really does surprise me that people feel that if we can’t have a drink—I really question that.

Simon O’Connor: No one said that.

GLEN BENNETT: I’ve heard comments along those lines. If this is the reason—if you can go to the races and not have a drink and you can go to the races and there are no drinks provided, then that’s OK, or you can go to those bigger events.

But when I look and listen and, again, think, as Simon O’Connor said in this conversation often, around harm minimisation—but there are some real issues, and for me, when I’m at home and I get an opportunity on a Wednesday night, which isn’t often, because I’m here regularly, I will go to the Salvation Army Bridge programme on a Wednesday night and be part of their recovery programme. I’ve been an attender of that for many, many years, and to sit there and to listen to stories, that I can’t disclose in this space, but to listen and hear the impacts and effects—and I know that, you know, people say, “Well, it’s just one drink.” or that everyone’s responsible in these spaces. That can be true, but also that can be not true, as well. If you look at the fact that in New Zealand we are a heavy drinking society—we are a heavy drinking society. So, for me, I will do all I can to ensure that we do ensure that our communities are kept safe.

When I look at the numbers, they say around—and they can’t identify it completely, but the average number they say is around 600 to 800 people a year die of alcohol-related impacts. So when we look at this and the exemption for race meetings, again, I come back to: what harm would be done if—for example, the police have obviously been participating and have been turning up to race meetings, and they don’t just turn up for the sake of it; they have a role to play and something to do. I look in terms of what is through the select committee process and I look at the Ministry of Justice as they considered the bill; I look also at the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Police and the Health Promotion Agency, who all advised that it’s likely that there is potential harm that is caused in these spaces.

Also, I come back to the fact that they talked about the context in the relation of a wider review. So, again, I find it interesting that we’re talking on this bill right now and shortly we’re talking on harm minimisation when it comes to the sale and supply of alcohol. I’m really open and I really want to listen and understand, and I have, but I come back to the people that I know. Yes, maybe everyone in this House are responsible drinkers. Does that mean that we have to shut it down for those who aren’t? Well, I don’t know, but I know I want to make sure that I keep my community safe. I know that I want to make sure that we live in a country that is empowering and open but also is responsible and is to care for all people and to make sure that we do the right thing. So I won’t be supporting the bill, but I have appreciated the debate this evening.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Noting that this is a five-minute call, I’ll take this in the hope that Mr McKelvie, as the person whose name this bill is in, may wish to speak a little bit longer than five minutes. So can I, firstly, acknowledge my parliamentary neighbour Mr McKelvie, in terms of him having the bill drawn and working through the select committee process, along with the members of the Governance and Administration Committee.

I probably adopt a different view to that of Mr O’Connor in terms of the report that has come back to the House, because I think what the select committee has done—and I know the Governance and Administration Committee is a hard-working one—is that they have made the bill, in their mind, a more workable one. And given that this is a matter of conscience, they’ve landed at a point where they have sent it back to the House so that members can continue to exercise their own conscience without having a particular view expressed. So, having said that, that is a point of difference between myself and Mr O’Connor.

I probably, in terms of my experience, have a bob each way on this. I spent four or five years as a deputy chair of my local district licensing committee, so I know the elements of risk, the various statutory reports that medical officers of health, that liquor licensing inspectors, and that the police do as part of that process. But I also spent more than 10 years working for the Judicial Control Authority for Racing, which meant that I basically have visited every single racecourse throughout New Zealand including, actually, Maureen Pugh’s one on the West Coast in Kūmara, alongside Gore, Winton, Waimate—

Maureen Pugh: Waimate?

TANGI UTIKERE: Waimate—well, I did see Ms Pugh at the Kūmara races when I was there—not as clerk of the scales, however, I think. But it means that I am familiar with a number of our rural and country racecourses. I think of places like Wairoa and Gisborne, Waipukurau, Gore, and others, and when I look at the submitters that have submitted in support, I note that it also includes my own local harness racing club, that of Manawatū.

So this bill, as I understand it, makes clear that the clubs that would be eligible for this discretion to be exercised are not the intended target of section 235 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and that while these changes may not be necessarily welcomed by metropolitan clubs such as the Race Group, which, as Mr McKelvie knows, represents a number of different clubs from Ashhurst Pohangina through to Fielding, Manawatū, and Marton, and actually Wellington here at Trentham, the changes that the select committee have put forward do limit it quite significantly, in my mind, to the number that is at a singular level. And so I don’t see this as a move around the degradation of rural New Zealand. I see it as an acknowledgment that rural communities can come together and that race meetings are community opportunities for those communities to come together.

So like my colleague Helen White, this is my first contribution within a conscience debate. And having considered all of those factors, I intend to support this bill this evening, because I do know that rural communities who are involved in the running of race meetings up and down this country, in my mind, go a little bit the extra mile in terms of making sure that the arrangements are safe, making sure that things are all sorted, as opposed to metropolitan clubs who often they do a good job, but they don’t rely on that element of goodwill of volunteers. A number of the individuals are often paid, so that is a point of difference.

So I congratulate Mr McKelvie and I’m happy, having considered all those things, to lend my support to the bill.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want to thank the House for their tolerance tonight. Interestingly, I had my whole team in Parliament today, and we’d decided we’d have our Christmas party tonight, so that’s why I was absent at the beginning of it, and I felt that my team are more important than my bill. But, none the less, this piece of legislation is a very important bill.

It’s a pleasure to take a call late in the debate on what I think is quite a good little bill. I want to thank Michael Woodhouse in particular for leading the debate, on my behalf, on this bill. He also sat on the Governance and Administration Committee, as did a number of other people in the House, Rachel Boyack in particular, who’s the deputy chair of the select committee that heard this bill.

The bill came about as a result of a discussion the Rt Hon Winston Peters was having with himself one day, as he often did, and Chris Bishop happened to overhear it. He then drew this bill up, actually, as a result of the comments that Mr Peters had made about the fact that he felt the racing industry was, to some extent, I guess, being victimised by the way the licences were interpreted, and particularly relating to what’s turned out now to be the small racing clubs in New Zealand. When the bill was entered in the ballot, it didn’t relate to the small racing clubs; it related to all racing clubs. I think the select committee have done a very good job of tidying that bit of it up.

I guess that my point with this bill was that, and I go back quite a long way, when I started off going to the races when I was extremely young, we used to go along in the back of the car and sit around the racecourse and have a nice time—actually, picking up the wasted tickets a lot and seeing if we couldn’t find a ticket that was still live, and sometimes we did, and cashing them in. But, besides that, it was a family outing, basically, and, I think, for a lot of people, it still is a family outing, but only once or twice a year. So that’s what appealed to me about this bill.

As we discussed in the select committee, quite a lot of issues arose with respect to—we had submitters who talked a lot about the damage that alcohol does. I think we all accept that excesses of everything do damage. This bill’s not actually about the consumption of alcohol; this bill is about getting people to race meetings, particularly in our small rural areas, enabling us to have a nice day out, and go home at night safe and having had a rewarding day.

So, in my view, there’s a big difference between what the alcohol watch groups and those people concerned with alcohol consumption—there’s a lot of them, and I’ve got no problem with them—felt was a challenge and what the bill was designed to deal with, which was nothing to do with the consumption of large amounts of alcohol.

So, having got through that point, we had quite a number of submissions from small racing clubs who really felt the bill, in the form we introduced it, would add quite a lot of value to their opportunity to, I guess, make things easier for them, to enable them to do what they wanted to do with their race days without having to provide a massive facility to achieve it. The problem with the facility is that to achieve alcohol licences, there’s quite a lot of facilities required. Many of these small racing clubs don’t have those facilities and aren’t able to provide them, so to be able to offer a BYO opportunity at the races is quite a significant advantage to them.

So I’ve talked about the submissions from the smaller racing clubs who were extremely supportive of it. What I found very disappointing was there were two submissions, one from New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing and one from the Waikato Racing Club, opposing the bill. I must say, I wondered what they were thinking, because they both occupy very important spaces in the racing industry—an industry that’s struggling for owners, for jockeys, for participants, and for support. I think that, historically, that support has come from rural New Zealand. Rural and provincial New Zealand have provided a large number of race horse owners, a large number of jockeys, a large number of trainers, and a large number of people interested in the industry. Many of them have come out of small towns. I myself would probably have never got in the racing industry if I hadn’t been involved at a very young age with a two licence-day racing club, where I later trained horses. And today, I still race a quite a number of horses.

And I think I’m an example of someone who may never have gotten involved in racing if it hadn’t been for those small racing clubs—those small, isolated, to some extent, racing clubs—and Tangi Utikere talked about the race clubs, and the club I was part of was one of those: the Rangitikei Racing Club. It hosts two race meetings a year—it wouldn’t qualify for this because it’s part of the race group. But there’s a large number of small clubs, particularly in the South Island, that will qualify for this, and I think will be very interested in the potential to use this bill to enable them to run a race meeting in a much easier form than they otherwise could’ve.

I just wanted to turn to the select committee report—and I heard some discussion, I think, from Rachel Boyack particularly on this, earlier on. We had quite a debate on this issue in the select committee, because I think we all felt—and an interesting point about this: all of the select committee, interestingly, voted for this bill to go to select committee, which is quite interesting. So we all voted for it to go to select committee, and we didn’t feel it was our role to then recommend a course of action to the House. We felt, despite our own feelings, that our role was to put this bill in as good of a space as we could and send it back to the House for a debate to be taken by the Parliament as a whole. And that’s where we got to as a select committee. As a consequence of that, we’ve written to the Standing Orders Committee and suggested that they change the rules, with respect to these sorts of members’ bills, and bills that relate to conscience. I think there’s been about three or four of them, in my time in the House, that have come back, and they have, with one exception, had recommendations back to the House. The one exception was the euthanasia bill; it had some special conditions around it and so I’d be interested to see where we get to with respect to the Standing Orders Committee and what they recommend back to the House.

So we made three very small changes to the bill: we updated references to the Racing Industry Act 2020, as when the bill was written, it referred to the Racing Act 2003. We amended Section 235A(1)(a) to insert the word “small” into the bill to ensure the bill would only apply to those clubs described as small in the Racing Industry Act 2020, so the effect of the definition comes from the Racing Act 2020, and I think it’s most appropriate. We also recommended replacing “racing club” with “small racing club” and proposed Section 235A(2)(b).

This industry has struggled in New Zealand in recent years, and any little glimmer of hope that we can give it by making things easier for our small racing clubs to involve local people in an industry that, ah—whatever we think of it, contributes significantly to the New Zealand economy and contributes significantly to rural and provincial New Zealand. Whatever glimmer of hope we can give them, in the course of that, I think is of huge value to the industry.

So I think we’ve got this bill in as good of a space as we can; I’d urge members to support the bill at second reading, and hope that we can make some progress, and obviously if we get through second reading we can sort out any further issues that members have with respect to the bill in the committee stage. But I do want to thank the select committee for the work they’ve put into it; I want to thank all the members of the House, really, for the consideration they’ve given me tonight, and also, I guess, to a large extent at first reading, and we’ll see where it gets to tonight.

So that’s probably all I need to say; I think everything’s been said by the many members who have spoken on it, so thank you for the opportunity; and obviously I commend this bill to the House and hope that it gets some support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know that there are members who want a personal vote, and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we are going to follow: I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 61, Noes 49, Abstentions 1.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

And a timely bill it is. We would not be here without advocates and organisers like Hāpai te Hauora’s Selah Hart or Alcohol Healthwatch’s indomitable Dr Nicki Jackson. We wouldn’t be here without the community leaders and organisations who fought these battles street corner by street corner: our Māori Wardens and battlers like Communities Against Alcohol Harm. We wouldn’t be here without the researchers like Dr Tim Chambers and Dr Louise Signal. We wouldn’t be here without the leadership of councils up and down this country.

But here we are. What if I told you that we’ve identified a drug that is the leading cause of preventable death and morbidity globally and here in Aotearoa? Leading economists estimate that this drug’s harm costs our country up to $7.85 billion annually. It features significantly in emergency services callouts, often where violence and aggression are found. It’s a leading cause of car crashes. It’s a group 1 carcinogen, substantially increasing the risk of cancer. But we shouldn’t prohibit this drug, because prohibition would not get rid of it. Prohibition has failed miserably at getting rid of any drug, tending only to make those drugs and their consumption far more harmful. Whether it is an unfettered legal free market or criminal prohibition, you’ve got either corporations or criminal organisations doing their best to shift as much of their product as possible, largely comfortable exploiting vulnerable communities to make a fortune.

This drug, our nation’s most harmful, is, of course, alcohol. Like cannabis, it will exist, regardless of whether it is legal or not. It always has. The question before us is whether we want to deal with the evidence sensibly to reduce that harm. Throughout the cannabis referendum debate, opponents told me that alcohol was a failure of drug regulation and that we couldn’t risk dragging another drug out of the shadows and into regulation because alcohol was so poorly regulated. I found, though, that they never really actually wanted to talk about regulating alcohol better, prompting the question of whether those opponents to evidence-based drug regulation actually cared about drug-harm reduction in the first place or just whataboutism.

That whataboutism ends today. We have forced the uncomfortable debate. More than that, evidence is starting to win it. That uncomfortable debate is about how we treat and think about our country’s favourite drug. Alcohol is consumed by around 80 percent of New Zealanders. And of the adults who drank last year, 25.4 percent of us did so hazardously. That is 825,000 New Zealanders drinking harmfully. This isn’t just an issue of physical health but also one of profound mental health. Otago University researchers scoured coronial data from 2007 to 2020, finding that in Aotearoa New Zealand, 26 percent of deaths by suicide involved alcohol.

We drafted this bill to reduce that drug harm. The bill does that with mechanisms long researched and recommended to Governments of both stripes over the past 10 years. Firstly, the bill seeks to restore local democracy to the local alcohol policy process by removing the special appeals process. This process, unique to alcohol regulation alone, has been abused by corporations to steamroll over communities and enable the mushrooming of bottle shops—particularly in our poorer and more structurally marginalised communities.

Around six weeks ago now, four months after this alcohol harm minimisation bill was drawn, the Government announced that it was introducing its own, adopting the first half of this bill. And the Greens are not precious about this stuff. If it takes the Government picking up this as their idea to get it through, we will back it.

I want to acknowledge Minister Kiritapu Allan for her ongoing collaboration on this kaupapa. The Minister fully understands, and, I daresay, expects me to continue to hold her and the Government to account on the second critical part of this alcohol harm minimisation bill, which the Government has not yet adopted.

Part 2 of this bill seeks to tackle the strong tie between alcohol and sports in this country. It does so by implementing three of the many and numerous recommendations of the 2014 ministerial forum, commissioned by the former National Government and chaired by none other than Sir Graham Lowe. It was, however, subsequently ignored.

While the forum ultimately recommended ending all alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sports, I recognised when drafting this member’s bill that the best that we could hope for was the thin end of the wedge. As we all know here, a member’s bill can only hope to do so much.

So I chose to do what I thought would be the last controversial components of that report: namely, ending product-only advertising and sponsorship of alcohol in broadcast sports. Our kids are exposed to alcohol marketing 1.4 times per day via sports sponsorship. Obviously, that’s not just when they are watching the games; it’s the logos on their posters and clothing. Alcohol marketing can be found in classrooms and bedrooms and playgrounds across this country.

Watching broadcast sports, though, viewers are exposed to alcohol marketing between 1.6 and 3.8 times per minute. The alcohol industry gets all of this exposure, all of this saturation of our environment, all of this normalisation and glamorisation for, at 2014 estimates, just $20.1 million a year.

Now, I tried to get the most up-to-date figures from the alcohol industry, from the advertising industry, and even from the sports sector, but they tell me that they cannot—and perhaps it’s simply a matter of they will not—provide that new estimate. Of those who were willing to engage in the conversation, however, they say it’s now worth a lot less than that $20 million.

Regardless, we’ve known how to fill that funding gap since Sir Graham Lowe and his ministerial forum told us to do so in 2014. We did it back in 1990s with the Smokefree transition fund for our sporting clubs. Other researchers have pointed to the pre-existing levy on alcohol, which could be ratcheted up a whole 2c on a can of beer to end alcohol sponsorship and advertising in sports overnight.

Now, the National Party argue that their opposition to this bill is that we won’t extend this to arts and cultural events, which, of course, we could if we wanted to—the Hon Paul Goldsmith—but they don’t, so this is not a good-faith nor a logical argument. If the National Party do want logically consistent, evidence-based policy approaches to drugs, they, of course, are always welcome to nick Green Party policy.

My final remarks tonight are for the Government. I know that with the Minister’s announcement to see the adoption of the first part of this bill, many Labour members, now, have decided to change their vote to oppose the progress of this law. I don’t believe that those who have decided to shift their votes have done so in bad faith; in fact, I believe it is completely in good faith and believing the Government’s publicly committed to a work programme to address marketing in the second tranche of reforms, and, indeed, we are working on that.

But what worries me in this potential, in this good faith, is that best intentions can result in some déjà vu. Back in my first months in this place, five years ago, I’d inherited a medicinal cannabis bill from the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who couldn’t progress the member’s bill, of course, as a Minister. This bill sought to put in place a green card type of system which would standardise and professionalise the pre-existing green fairy network and end the persecution of the quarter of a million medicinal cannabis users in this country. But the Government decided to draft their own bill, far narrower, and as a result, we ended up with a situation where too many Labour members ended up voting against the Greens’ medicinal cannabis bill, banking on the promises of that Government bill. Five years on, as warned then, 94 percent of medicinal cannabis users continue to be made criminals, forced to get their medicine from the black market.

We cannot risk the same intractable mess by turning down the opportunity presented with this bill—to vote for something that is immediately in front of us, not to wait in hope. We have wasted decades waiting in hope, kicking the can proverbially—and literally—down the road. We will hold the Government to account, as I actually hope my Labour colleagues will as well, and the opportunity our 1½-year campaign with this bill has presented. The Government can tackle alcohol marketing, like we did with tobacco 30 years ago.

I’d encourage the Government to just copy and paste section 35(1) of the cannabis legalisation and control bill, exchanging that drug’s name for this one: alcohol. That would be a logically consistent approach to drug harm in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Debate interrupted.

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

Sitting suspended from 10.01 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2022

(continued on Thursday, 8 December 2022)

Bills

Water Services Entities Bill

Third Reading

SPEAKER: Ata mārie. The House is resumed for the extended sitting.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Entities Bill.

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

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Water Services Entities Bill be now read a third time.

Ka tū he manawa ā-rangi, ka tū he manawa ā-whenua, ka tū he manawa a ngā wai katoa hei ākina kumu mō Hine-Tapu-i-te-Papa. Awhitia paitia ia, āwhitia purutia te mana, te mauri, te tapu, haumi e, hui e, taiki e.

[A spring in the sky, a spring on earth, indeed there is spring of all water that acts as a seat for The Sacred-Maiden-of-the-Land. Care for her, and care for the mana, the mauri, the tapu, bind it tightly. All in agreeance.]

I am pleased to reach this point in a significant set of decisions that will prepare New Zealand for a better future for looking after our most precious resource, ngā wai—water—people, communities and our environment. We cannot have a future in a country like ours where boil water notices in communities like Te Kao happen; where no swim notices at local beach spots, like Auckland, happen; where burst pipes, like what we’ve seen in our capital city, happen; where seeping sewage into our pristine lakes, like Lake Taupō, happens; and where waste-water spills are frequently experienced after heavy weather events across many communities—it plagues our headlines.

In a country like ours, this is just not good enough, so we’re going to take action, do the right thing, and fix a problem that has been left to languish for the last two decades. New Zealand is facing a cost of living crisis. It is vital that we keep a lid on rates rises. The approach we’re taking will make a more affordable solution for ratepayers going forward into the future to support the financing of water infrastructure and improve water services.

I find it disingenuous of the Opposition to talk about a cost of living crisis and in the same breath promise to repeal this legislation. We know that if we do nothing, the significant cost of fixing this mess of water infrastructure will fall on future ratepayers—our kids, your kids, and the next generation. We know that New Zealanders can’t afford that. I want the burden to fall on our kids. Do you?

This is the third time I’ve stood to support this bill in this House, and yet I don’t find myself short of statistics backing up the need to significantly change the way that water is managed in New Zealand. Just this morning, we heard of the water contamination issues in Waimate. Just last week in the Matamata-Piako district, we heard of a community on a boil water notice, and they are not isolated events. But, sadly, no one is outraged because it’s a common experience and all communities want the problem to be fixed. In one six-week period, Taumata Arowai received 209 notifications from water suppliers that their water was not, or may not be, compliant with the drinking-water standards, including from 31 different councils.

Now, I understand that there are those who want to believe nothing is wrong with our water network, but, sadly, all too often—because we’re talking for the most part about pipes under the ground—this critical infrastructure is out of sight and out of mind. It is not until something goes wrong that people realise just how big the problem is. Pipes across the country are in such bad condition that in 2020 and 2021 over 107 million cubic metres of water was lost due to pipe leaks. That is more than a fifth of all water supplied in New Zealand and is equivalent to the volume of water supplied to Hamilton, Rotorua, Dunedin, and Christchurch combined. Climate change forces us to treat water as a precious resource. We cannot waste it.

I have not spoken about how, following its 2016-17 local government audits, the Office of the Auditor-General reported that relevant and reliable information about water assets was a challenge for territorial authorities, and that 45 percent of potable and waste water networks and 52 percent of stormwater networks are categorised as ungraded. In a country like ours, how can that be? In other words, there is a lot we do not know about the quality of our water infrastructure in this country, but what we do know makes for some dire reading. Unlike the Opposition, we will not bury our heads in the sand or kick the can down the road. Their alternative is to repeal the most viable solution on the table, and, quite frankly, we don’t need National and ACT to gaslight issues like co-governance—which, in this instance, is really about joint decision-making—or whitewashing issues such as ownership when they know very well that councils will continue to collectively own water assets under this model. The Opposition want to repeal the only solution on the table and take New Zealand back to the status quo, which is not a solution. In fact, repeal, repeal, repeal is not a solution.

In the time since I introduced this bill into the House, the situation has changed. I want to take some time to address the concerns people have about this bill. People have said that having a few large entities inevitably mean less community voice and influence over water services, but we know that having any more entities will result in unequitable outcomes for ratepayers, and increased costs. Four entities will ensure that costs and levels of service are equitable across the country. I don’t want to see residents in Northland, the West Coast, Otago, and Southland paying significantly more for their water services while receiving, actually, the worst service under the current model. But that is what the modelling shows will happen if we have more than four entities, which is what that side of the House wants.

To address concerns about the loss of community voice, we established a working group on representation, governance, and accountability. They did a significant amount of work to improve local voice, and this was strengthened through the select committee process, and I thank the members on the committee. I make this promise to New Zealanders: public ownership is and remains a bottom line for the Government, and you will still have the same influence over your water services once this bill passes.

There was some concern the entities would be less accountable to the public than local government. My officials undertook significant work with the Office of the Auditor-General during the select committee process to improve the accountability mechanisms in the bill. The Auditor-General has confirmed that the current bill will provide for stronger and more effective public accountability over water services delivered to New Zealanders than when the bill was introduced. I want to thank the Office of the Auditor-General for their constructive contribution to this work.

Another claim is that the reform will lead to higher costs for consumers. This is unsubstantiated and, quite frankly, untrue. We know that if we do not proceed with this reform, costs will go up to levels that are unsustainable for New Zealanders. We know this because extensive economic modelling has been undertaken and peer-reviewed by world-leading experts. Ours is a Government that will not watch rates spiral out of control when we know something can be done, and we’re going to do it.

There have been claims that the Government is stealing assets, but assets will continue to be owned by the communities who currently own them. We have ensured their continued public ownership by embedding significant protections against privatisation in this bill, unlike the Opposition or the ACT Party. We don’t need to look very far into the past to understand why protections are so important. The previous National-ACT Government sold off and privatised many publicly owned assets. This Government is 100 percent committed to ensuring our water assets—

SPEAKER: Order! I don’t want to hear applause. The volume of interjections is far too loud and I want—

Matt Doocey: Clapping was a good joke.

SPEAKER: I’m on my feet, so Matt Doocey will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I say, this Government is 100 percent committed to ensuring our water assets remain in public ownership, and we call on the Opposition to make the same commitment to New Zealanders. [Interruption] Oh, they will not. I would like to thank everyone that has engaged in the passage of this bill—the submitters, councils, mana whenua across the country, the Finance and Expenditure Committee members, amongst others, and also officials from the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Your contributions have resulted in significant improvements to this bill.

The Opposition likes to stand in this House and ask Ministers whether we stand by our statements and actions. I do—every one of them. I stand by the decision to undertake this reform. I stand by the financial modelling which has led us to this point. I stand by the entities this bill establishes. I stand by the fact that we are looking for solutions, not a repeal, cancel culture. I stand by all those things because I will not stand by and watch New Zealanders face thousands of dollars in rates hikes if we do nothing. I will not stand by while New Zealanders continue to get sick from drinking tap water—tap water—and our tamariki cannot safely swim at their local beach, rivers, or lakes. I will not stand by and see our cities and towns stall because they cannot pay for vital infrastructure that they require to grow.

This is a Government that will not stand by and let this problem languish. It’s been kicked down the road by the other side for far too long. We’ve got to do something about it, and this bill will improve the future. I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of the National Party as the member of Parliament for North Shore and their local government spokesperson, at the third reading of the Water Services Entities Bill. National strongly opposes this bill. National will repeal and replace this bill if elected in 2023.

The bill gives effect to the Government’s three-waters reforms and establishes the four-entities model for water services management. This is part of a series of bills of which we will see economic regulation and asset transfer bills follow through and introduced in 2023. Be under no illusion: this is not the last time you will hear of three waters. Today, the Government, unless they make a mistake, will use its majority to pass this bill, one of the most controversial aspects of public policy in this term of Government—controversial because over 88,000 people made a submission on this bill, the majority in opposition. This overwhelming opposition is further evidenced by multiple public polls. The latest published poll, just a few weeks ago, said 60 percent of Kiwis are opposed, while less than one in five—just 19 percent—supports it.

It is important to acknowledge that most mayors and councils across this country support the need for reform, to improve water infrastructure, but strongly oppose this bill as a means to achieve those ends. National believes, alongside our local communities, that water services in New Zealand should be safe, resilient, reliable, and customer responsive at least cost. This will lead to, and we need to focus on, fixing problems where they exist. This is what a National-led Government will do and deliver for New Zealanders. The National Party has developed an alternative solution and will continue to develop this New Zealand water infrastructure solution. It will replace this bill. Our solution will achieve the desired outcomes for our communities without the loss of control and complexity that this Labour water services entities model brings.

The Government has engaged in a deceptive media campaign that has blamed local councils for the issues with New Zealand’s water quality, spending millions of dollars of taxpayer funds on spin and nothing on delivery. Water assets should remain in local community control and ownership, and governed by democratically accountable individuals. This is a bottom line for National. Under these reforms, communities will no longer own their assets. As detailed in clause 166, territorial authorities possess none of their usual rights and responsibilities associated with ownership of assets. This lack of ownership is particularly concerning for communities that have paid for their assets over generations and generations and prefer the ownership to be vested in democratically accountable authorities.

Water assets should, also, not be subject to 50:50 co-governance. Removal of co-governance from public services is a bottom line for National. The bill contains co-governance at every level of representation—both representative boards and regional authority groups—which have equal sets of mana whenua and territorial authorities around the table. The National Party believes that co-governance of public services like water does not improve service delivery and cannot be justified otherwise. National recognises the role of mana whenua as a group alongside others with views on water, and with some interests in cultural assets previously expressed in the Treaty settlement process.

Submitters provided a number of viable alternative models. Communities 4 Local Democracy, a group that represents over 30 councils, presented an independently reviewed alternative model. The mayors of Auckland, Christchurch, and Waimakariri have presented an alternative model. Auckland has the Watercare council-controlled organisation (CCO) model, and some councils, including Hawke’s Bay, have tabled alternative CCO models. These models show you can match the capital expenditure of Labour’s reforms and keep assets in local ownership without raising water prices and council debt limits. Still, the Government has ignored, and continues to ignore, this and says that no alternative options or models exist. This is simply not accurate. The shape of the bill and the bottom lines of this Government, which restricted it to four co-governed mega entities, have meant that consideration of alternative models has not been possible during the committee stage.

This bill now also includes five waters—geothermal and coastal waters—for the purpose of Te Mana o te Wai, giving iwi binding powers over these waters, through the water services entities; iwi alone. This was a late amendment and was not part of the select committee process, in which public submissions could have been received on that aspect. That is another example of this Government ramming through amendments at a late stage and not listening to New Zealanders. The National Party had tabled an amendment to have these provisions for Te Mana o te Wai extended to all New Zealanders, yet these were voted down by Labour in the committee of the whole House stage.

And, in the last week, Labour was caught red-handed trying to entrench part of the bill, which has forced them as a party into an embarrassing backtrack. This was supported by Labour and the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, despite Cabinet agreeing on 30 May that no part of the bill would be entrenched and knowing this amendment would be “a novel approach” and not meeting—and I quote—“constitutional thresholds”. This action has given insight into the inner thinking of parts of the Labour caucus: a willingness to dangerously try to change our democracy for their own means. National has called for the Prime Minister to remove her local government Minister for this deliberate violation of the Cabinet Manual. “Who is running the Labour Cabinet?”, you may ask. The Prime Minister refused to go into how this has happened. That leaves her and the Government wide open to accusations that this was a deliberate move—that they wanted to undertake this entrenchment, that they got found out, and that this mistake was not a policy mistake, it was a political one.

The three waters reform assumes that the new mega entities will be able to achieve 62 percent operational efficiency, without any reduction in headcount, and a 50 percent capital spend efficiency compared to existing systems. This is not possible. Independent assessments have noted the economies of scale and capital spend are not available in New Zealand water services. There are issues with water infrastructure management that this bill has said it is going to try to attempt. Given the existence of Taumata Arowai as the water quality regulator, which has already been established, it is our belief that a number of issues around water quality will be resolved through this governance model—in addition, with appropriately targeted funding and financing mechanisms. Three waters has attracted a storm of controversy because this bill, right from the start, was dead in the water. Before it even started, this Government set out, right from the outset, with bottom lines within this reform that they did not have a willingness to change.

I want to speak directly to all those people who work in local government across this country who are involved with the delivery of water infrastructure. The next 12 months will be unsettling and challenging but be forewarned: National will repeal this bill, undo the other statutory amendments, and dissolve any obligations created by this bill in regards to employment funding and financing. National will work with you, not against you, to implement a sustainable water model—

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I deliberately waited to the end of the speech out of courtesy to the member, but I just wanted to ask for clarification around Speakers’ Ruling 128/5 and the definition of a passing reference to debate on Supplementary Order Papers which were resolved the committee stage.

SPEAKER: I contemplated interrupting the member—actually, not particularly on that. Members can mention that in passing, but that was quite a detailed passing comment is what I’d say. The issue that I was going to raise was the inferences made from it. In the end, I decided not to, but it’s a general warning. I know this is a controversial issue, and I will listen very carefully. I’m obviously going to give some latitude on the extensive debate so far, but that’s not a licence for members to break the rules.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s not going away, Kieran.

SPEAKER: Who was that? No. One could describe that immediately after a ruling as a comment on the ruling. You shouldn’t do it.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Water Services Entities Bill. There are many times in this House where one prepares a speech, and this is one of the times where I didn’t prepare a speech. It is easy for me to be able to sit at my desk, write a 10-minute speech, have a good read of it, and basically push out the slogans that we’ve heard time and time and time again in this House in relation to this bill. But I’m not going to be speaking about the slogans that are being sent from across the other side of the House. Instead, I’m going to stand here and go back to why we need this bill.

I was speaking to the chairman of our local iwi, who was basically talking about how the nannies used to be able to go down to our local harbour, used to be able to pick pipis, used to be able to fish, used to be able to swim in those waters. I talk a lot within my local community about, only 500 metres from my home, a local beach which has regular discharge of sewage—regular discharge of sewage. That CEO and chairman of that iwi sent me a text and said to me to go hard in relation to this bill. He said, “Just remember: it’s not just about assets; it’s about people.” And that’s exactly what this bill is about—it’s about providing our children and our children’s children an ability to go down to their local harbour, to pick pipis from the harbour, to fish in it, and to be able to swim.

The member from the opposite side of the House, Simon Watts, represents the North Shore, the area that I was brought up in. You can’t even go down to the local beach to swim in those beaches. And what do you say is the solution to your local community in Takapuna? What is the solution? Went through one solution from the communities for local democracy, went through another solution from another local council, went through a solution from the Auckland City Council and a couple of other mayors. Talked about a solution on the other side of the House, but there was still no alternative from the other side of the House. There was nothing in that speech that actually committed to what they were going to do other than to repeal a bill, which leaves them with absolutely nothing.

Now, I want to go to the people. The health of our people is so important. So, Mr Speaker, if you’ll indulge me, I want to quote a really important article from the New Zealand Medical Journal that was released last week. It says, “In 2016, drinking water contaminated with animal faeces made much of an entire town sick … with 58 hospitalisations and four deaths, costing an estimated NZ$21 million.” The outbreak was an outcome of systematic flaws in Aotearoa New Zealand’s regulatory system for drinking water, which were highlighted in the ensuing Government inquiry.

Now, these medical professionals conclude this very detailed New Zealand Medical Journal article by saying that “Good quality drinking water that is free of hazardous contaminants is a fundamental human right and a key element of the Sustainable Development Goals. … Water contamination in New Zealand has had severe consequences for human health and is an ongoing public health threat. … Consequences are borne disproportionately by smaller and the most deprived communities, with Māori disproportionately comprising the latter. The current regulatory arrangements for water services are inadequate, are economically unsustainable, and are inefficient. The amalgamation proposed in the Water Services Entities Bill provides an opportunity to resolve previous systemic flaws outlined in the Government Inquiry into Havelock North and to future proof the country’s Three Waters. Most importantly, the proposed new legislation is likely to more robustly, and efficiently, improve the protection of public health and uphold the right to clean, safe water.”

The other side of the House may not agree with those medical experts, but councils across the country absolutely agree there is a problem that needs to be solved. We have a solution on this side of the House that is in the bill, which provides for new entities that are still owned by the taxpayers of New Zealand—still owned by the taxpayers of New Zealand, with some safeguards in there to ensure that if, for any reason, these entities decide to sell them overseas, there are strong safeguards in that bill. They’re the same safeguards that apply today to local government assets. Anybody who picks up that bill and actually reads it—takes the time to go through it clause by clause, as the Finance and Expenditure Committee members from the Labour Party and the Green Party did—will understand why you have to support this bill. Because, again, the bottom line is the health of the people of our country. We cannot kick this problem down to future generations. We cannot let our children have to have higher rates as a result of doing nothing.

We heard a number of submitters, and, yes, a number of them were not in agreement with the bill in the way that it was structured. However, the experts said that if we don’t do anything about this, the increases in rates were disproportionate. It was already disproportionate in how much people were paying in rates for the water services that we were receiving. But what was going to happen was a $185 billion problem, and, if you kick that problem down the road, who is going to pay for it? Again, it is our future generations.

Members across the House might want to be able to interject and provide different options to that—take a speech, take your time, but, actually, maybe use your speeches for what the solution is that you’d actually provide, other than repealing this bill. Provide the solution, but, in the meantime, this is a Government that is making hard decisions for the future of our children and our children’s children. We want our children to be able to go down to the local harbour to pick pipis and fish. We want them to be able to walk along the beach and have a swim in the sea. We want them to be able to turn on the tap water and be able to drink from it. Too many boil notices, and too many sewage discharges—unaffordable. That is basically what this bill is trying to address. I want to leave the House with one last quote from a submitter who came to Hawke’s Bay, who actually experienced the Hawke’s Bay contamination. She said, “The Three Waters’ reform is looking to do the right thing for communities. It’s looking at health and science, and putting it in the hands of experts. It’s taking it out of the hands of the politicians. We have a problem, New Zealand, and this bill is going to solve it.”

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This Water Services Entities Bill has been a debacle for the Government from start to finish. I want to make very clear for the House that the National Party will campaign at the next election in a year or so’s time on repealing and replacing this legislation, and if we win the election we will consider ourselves to have a mandate to repeal and replace, and we will do so forthwith. Because the Government’s position is that it’s their way or the highway; that there’s a problem with water infrastructure in New Zealand and they’ve got the solution. And right the way through they have been unwilling to listen to the voices of communities around the country, the voices of local councils, the voices of local authorities, the voices of local ratepayers who’ve said, “Yep, we acknowledge there’s a problem, we’re up for a solution, we just don’t like what you as a Government are proposing.” There’s no dispute that we need to upgrade water infrastructure in this country. There’s no disagreement about that. What there is a disagreement about is this legislated all-in solution that confiscates local assets and puts them into four unaccountable mega-entities with 50:50 co-governance that gives extraordinary powers to mana whenua through Te Mana o te Wai statements to control those entities.

And right from the start the Government has been unwilling to buckle on its bottom lines. They’ve been unwilling to change their minds about the four mega-entities, they’ve been unwilling to change their minds about the 50:50 co-governance proposals, and they’ve been unwilling to change their mind about local accountably. Because this is the tragedy of the whole situation—there’s a third way through here. It does not need to be the Government’s dumb solution. There is a pathway here. There are people of good faith in local communities around the country, people of good conscience and good faith who want to do the right thing for New Zealand. And, actually, I believe there’s a consensus in the Parliament around that. But the Government has used its arrogant, absolute majority gifted to them in the 2020 election to ram this through.

Let’s run through the stuff-up. First of all, the media campaign right from the start—what a shemozzle. The Government spent all its time telling local councils they were useless. That led to an upsurge of anger in local communities. Then we had the voluntary option: councils thought they were going to be able to come to some sort of consensus with the Government. In fact, some still hold that hope, and we had to go through the charade of the Government saying, “Yep, we’re open to that”, and as it turned out they had already agreed, as my colleague Simon Watts found out and demonstrated to the House—in October 2021 the Government said, “No, no, it has to be mandatory. We have to legislate. We have to go all in”. Councils felt betrayed. Communities felt betrayed, because they thought they were dealing with a Government that was open to change and open to some form of consensus. Turns out they weren’t. Then we had the refusal to listen: 88,000 people submitted to the select committee process. Just 227 submissions were heard—

Maureen Pugh: Selected.

CHRIS BISHOP: Selected to be heard. Now, I sat on the Justice Committee when we did the euthanasia legislation, the End of Life Choice Bill—equally highly contentious. We went up and down the country. I went to Gisborne—oh, not Gisborne, sorry, I went to Napier, I went to Blenheim, I went to Whanganui, I went all over the show, and we went around the country to try and listen to people, let them ventilate their concerns. And I actually think that helped navigate the Parliament through a very contentious process. But no, no, no, the Finance and Expenditure Committee did not do that. I think that was a mistake. And then we get to the entrenchment debacle of last week, of which no more need be said. But what a shambles.

What are the five objectionable bits in this legislation? First of all is the confiscation of local assets, and the Government scoffs and says “Oh no, no, no”, but that is just the reality. There is no getting around that. It’s in the legislation. The legislation takes assets that have been built up by ratepayers over many years, takes them off local council hands, and gives them to these new four water service entities, which are a new creation. The legislation creates these new bodies. These are bodies that have not been seen in legislation before. They are created by the bill. They’re a completely new corporate entity—and I use corporate in its most general sense—created by the legislation. These are new entities and they will own the water assets; that is as simple as that. And the traditional rights of ownership—as has been extensively ventilated in the public commentary and in this House—do not go with local councils. It is a Claytons form of ownership: it is not ownership. So it is a confiscation, and that is how local councils and local communities see it, and they are right.

The second point: the accountability of these new entities, these new water service entities, four of them—just four—around the country, they will be less accountable than what we have now. And again, it is very difficult to dispute this because the Auditor-General—who doesn’t have a dog in this fight; he’s the independent officer of Parliament whose job it is to examine these things, turned up at the committee and gave a scathing submission to the Water Services Entities Bill about how they will be unaccountable. And the select committee has made no substantive changes to fix that lack of accountability, and, again, communities around the country know this.

Thirdly, 50:50 co-governance. The community has made it clear what they think about this and they have rejected it. But the Government refuses to buckle. Now—

Hon Peeni Henare: Māori are part of the community.

CHRIS BISHOP: Māori, of course, are part of the community, and I’m just about to say, the Hon Peeni Henare, do Māori have rights and interests in water? Absolutely they do. The Crown accepted that in the Supreme Court case that led to the mixed-ownership model. There was a judicial review, there was a court case to try and stymie that, and the Crown accepted and it’s in accordance with longstanding policy that Māori have rights and interests in water. That was the position of the last National Government 10 years ago, and it remains the position of the National Party today. But does the acceptance that Māori have rights and interests in water—legitimate rights and interests—mean that we have to have a 50:50 co-governance proposal? It does not. Does it mean that only mana whenua can issue Te Mana o te Wai statements that the water services entities have to give effect to? In our considered view, that is not what that acceptance of Māori rights and interests requires. Our view is that it will lead to discord and disharmony and you are seeing that in communities around the country.

So that’s the third objectionable proposal, and the fourth is the exclusivity of Te Mana o te Wai statements. Now, let’s be really clear: the legislation obliges the new water services entities to give effect to these statements. These are broad and unbridled statements. The breadth of what these statements can contain is enormous. The entities will have to pay mana whenua to participate in this process to give effect to them. There is nothing in the bill around how these statements will be reconciled. If there are different iwi and different groupings that put these Te Mana o te Wai statements to the water services entities bill, there is nothing in the legislation—we’ve had no guidance from the Government so far—about how they will be reconciled. We may well end up in a situation where there are differing statements that have completely irreconcilable objectives and there are, according to Te Puni Kōkiri, 1,200 iwi around the country who could potentially issue these statements to these new water services entities. So the potential for chaos is very, very real.

Fifth point: the “five waters”, not the “three”. Because this is not actually the three waters bill any more; the water services is now five and the select committee extended the scope of the bill out to geothermal water and coastal water. And we are yet to hear an adequate explanation from the Government as to why that is the case and what exactly the rationale for that is.

I finish by dealing with this privatisation furphy that the Government insists on talking about. The only people talking about privatisation of water assets are the Labour Party and the Green Party. They’re the only people talking about it. What the Government is doing is taking assets off councils and giving them to water services entities—so in other words, outside of local council control, and then using the private debt markets through balance-sheet separation to fund them. So who’s the people dealing with private money and private capital and private ownership here? It’s certainly not the National Party. So we need to put this furphy of privatisation to bed. National opposes this legislation. We will repeal and replace it.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I will never forget the day during the Havelock North water crisis where I met a family in Camberley where a young boy was suffering from severe eczema completely covering his body, simply from having a shower in his home where, unaware, he hadn’t been told, nor his family been told, that the Hastings District Council was having to pump and pump and pump chlorine into the water to try and protect our community from a campylobacter outbreak so severe that between 6,000 and 8,000 people across the community got sick, nearly a thousand people went to the doctor about the suffering that they were having, 58 people were hospitalised, and it caused four deaths. Nor will I forget the hours that my young daughter screamed in agony from vomiting so severely that I rang for urgent medical treatment, only to be told that they thought it was a tummy bug—little did I know that she was one of the first of, as I said, thousands to get sick.

As the MP for Tukituki, I know that the ratepayers and residents of Hastings have paid severely from a lack of investment in our water infrastructure where the council ignored warnings after warnings to invest in the infrastructure but instead chose to keep rates low. The economic cost to the community was $21 million from that Havelock North water crisis, and all they got from the National Government was $100,000 to help Havelock North re-market itself.

Hon Member: That’s their funding model, is it?

ANNA LORCK: That was their funding model. No local in National; no care for the local community.

Hastings and Havelock North have been the catalyst for this bill, but we are also an example of the future, because next year we will finally turn the tap on our new drinking-water system, that will supply over 65,000 people with a world-class drinking-water infrastructure. Now, I want to make clear to the ratepayers of Hastings that you have not already paid for fixing this but borrowed $82 million, and now another $8.7 million on top of the $15 million this Government gave towards fixing that water infrastructure. Under this bill, that loan will be transferred to the water entity and the debt wiped off the Hastings District Council balance sheet. The Government will also give Hastings another $35 million to spend as it pleases under the “no worse off” funding.

Under the entity model, the cost of no reform to Hawke’s Bay would be an average of $2,870 compared to the collective Entity C, which is projected to be $1,260. Now, that shows how much this is about keeping the lid on rates. Only this week, the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council announced a 20 percent increase ahead of them on rates.

It is appropriate for me to again acknowledge the work and experience of what has been learnt through the Havelock North water crisis. Hastings has also led the councils working together to put forward a regional solution, and I do want to say publicly that I commend Hawke’s Bay for doing so, but as the local MP who also went out and heard submissions, other councils couldn’t agree on what was the right number, how many entities. We just couldn’t get the response from them. It showed there was such a mixed reaction to what councils wanted across the country. But one thing was for sure: reform was necessary, and we cannot wait. We cannot wait a day longer to get this work under way. Yes, Hawke’s Bay is regionally parochial, but I also know that as a region we look outward and have significant leadership to contribute to how the entities move forward.

I think it’s important to make really clear today that this is about the entities being doers, doing the work. This is about delivering for provincial and rural areas. And, again, this is where a region like mine can show and bring their experience forward like no other place in the country can. Water entities are plan takers; they are not plan makers. What we will see happen across this country is regional water operations employing staff to deliver the work to get the pipes in the ground, to get the water infrastructure delivered that we need, because I don’t want to see another region, another community, have to go through ever again what Havelock North went through. We cannot afford to stop doing what needs to be done.

I don’t believe at all that the National Government would have any intention on repealing three waters. They have only been making it about politics. They have no local in them. They have never focused on regional New Zealand—$100,000 is all they gave Havelock North. This Government has committed millions to Hastings to fix up the water—millions of dollars to invest.

I want to say again: we cannot have anyone go through what that young boy in Camberley did. We need to have assurances that when people turn their tap on, the drinking water is safe to drink. We need to know when people shower that they will not have their skin being burnt with chlorine simply because the councils ignored investment in infrastructure despite warnings. Despite the warnings that were given to councils, they did not invest, because there has been so much focus on not investing. We have to invest, we have to get on with this, we need to make sure that the drinking water in this country is safe. We should be able to swim in the waterways and be safe for ever.

I know beyond doubt that this bill is the start, and I want to see us get on with the business of delivering the water infrastructure across this country. It will grow jobs, it will see investment, there’ll be work on the ground, it will keep us moving forward, knowing that every time we turn on that tap, the water will be safe to drink. I commend it, very proudly, with the work that everybody has done on this bill, and I acknowledge the incredible work of the Minister Nanaia Mahuta. She has done us proud, and I am so proud to be able to stand here with the fellow colleagues of mine and actually say we’re getting on, we’re going to do it—let’s get it done. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we come into this Chamber and when we pick up glasses like this, we take it for granted that the water in it is pure, it is healthy, and it doesn’t make us sick, and I thank the previous speaker, Anna Lorck, for outlining, in Havelock North, where the Water Services Entities Bill all started, with that inquiry into the contamination and with the fact that 5,000 people got sick. That inquiry happened under the National Government. The Green Party did a submission. We had an expert give evidence in submission that people got sick party because of the land use around that bore, and the failure to cap the bore properly so that you got animal effluent getting into it.

People take it for granted that human waste is flushed away to this magic place called away when they go to the toilet. People take it for granted, and yet if you’ve been through the Canterbury earthquake series, where people had long drops in their gardens, or if you’ve been on a marae that councils have neglected for too long, you don’t take clean drinking water for granted, nor do you take it for granted in Canterbury, where we’ve had huge agricultural intensification and contamination of drinking-water sources in areas like South Canterbury.

We all need to care more for our water because it is essential for life, and we need to look after it when it is delivered to us. People who use wet wipes should put them in the bin and not flush them down the toilet. They can save their community and they can save councils thousands of dollars each year by doing the right thing.

This bill is all about improving three-waters infrastructure: stormwater, waste water, and drinking water. But there seems to be a view that if you separate out balance sheets and that if you establish the entities, rates won’t rise and there’ll be an ability for the entities to borrow more and meet that huge infrastructure deficit of over $100 million.

But I think care is needed here. We have seen small councils refuse to invest. We’ve seen a lot of deferred investment. We’ve seen rates money going into civic buildings instead of into pipes under the ground. We’ve seen councils like Kaipara get itself into financial strife because it has relied on expert consultants and they haven’t provided affordable solutions.

These bigger entities will certainly have the technical capacity to manage water services, but there’s no magic money tree to provide for that infrastructure deficit. The credit rating agencies will be looking very carefully at how much the Government will impliedly support the entities when they go out to borrow, and we’ve seen overseas big private equity firms investing in companies in the UK which have been privatised creating debt mountains because of the large degree of profit that goes back to their shareholders.

There are protections in the bill against the entities privatising themselves—and I’ll come to that later—but the Green Party won’t be voting for this bill, because it doesn’t contain the protections for ongoing public ownership and operation of the water services entities. It doesn’t contain those protections because the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 that we put forward was removed from the bill.

Because we know that the current Government is committed to public ownership of three-waters entities, there are protections in the bill to prevent the water entities themselves divesting infrastructure assets without a very robust process and the support of territorial authorities—75 percent support on the regional representative group—but we don’t trust further Governments. We think there can quite easily be a law change, because National is saying that it will repeal this bill. We think it would be quite easy for a future National-ACT Government not to repeal the bill but to simply change the law, potentially, to get rid of regional representative groups or to get rid of the protections in Schedule 4 which require that poll of electors and which require the 75 percent support on the regional representative group.

We know that National wants long-term contracts. We know that members of the National Party like the Papakura situation, where Veolia has got a long-term contract to provide water services in Papakura. So it would be quite easy for a future National-ACT Government, because they’ve made absolutely no commitment to retain water services entities in public ownership, to simply tweak this bill to keep with the corporate water services entities model and remove any of those protections that the water services entities currently have.

So that is the major difference between the Green Party and the other parties in this House. We strongly believe in public ownership and operation of three waters assets because they are critical to the health of our communities, they’re critical to human wellbeing, and they’re critical to environmental outcomes. What National has done has spread misinformation about co-governance, misinformation about—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! You can’t accuse another party of that. You need to withdraw and apologise.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I withdraw, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: And apologise.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —and apologise.

What National has done has highlighted that co-governance and has not properly characterised that. What co-governance will do is it will ensure that iwi and hapū have a seat at the table and are contributing to decisions. What Te Mana o te Wai means is much more integrated water management. Those are aspects of the bill that we support, but it is our fear that a future Government, having had the entities established and with them having no protection in the legislation for ongoing public ownership and operation of these assets against a future Government changing the law—that is the reason that the Green Party will be voting against the bill. But there are many elements where we recognise the major work that Minister Mahuta has done, such as her courage in tackling this issue and not just having an inquiry at Havelock North but actually seeking a solution.

We don’t see anything that the National Party has proposed as being part of the answer. It has been critique, critique, critique, criticise, criticise, criticise, attack, attack, attack, but there is no real plan. Instead, they have wound up concern around the country, and that is where we think that the Department of Internal Affairs has got quite a lot of work to do in developing much more participatory arrangements around how people can get involved in water services.

We’ve had the author John Alexander suggesting that we have got quite significant polarisation on water issues, with that being a symptom of a deeper democracy and legitimacy problem, and suggesting much greater use of systems like Watercare is using in Auckland, where you pick people at random in a type of citizens’ assembly and have them debate these challenges, because this infrastructure deficit isn’t going to be met from a magical money tree. It needs communities to engage in how we ensure that everyone has clean drinking water and how we ensure that we’re not discharging sewage of a poor standard into our rivers, estuaries, and oceans.

People all need to participate in finding the solution to this. Simply attacking the current entity issue is not the answer. We’ve all got a responsibility because we all drink water and we all produce waste. It’s the entities themselves that need to invest, and communities need to be engaged in determining how the funding will be spread over generations without burdening the entities with unbearable debt.

We want good services. The Green Party believes that public ownership and operation of three waters is absolutely critical, and that is why, without the protection that our SOP would have provided, we cannot support the bill.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party will not be supporting the Water Services Entities Bill. In fact, should ACT form part of a future Government, then we will work to repeal the bill and replace it with ACT’s water infrastructure plan. That’s a plan that I consulted on with 67 councils, before developing the plan, and drew on the knowledge and experience of organisations who deliver water services, who build water infrastructure, and who manage the environmental impacts of discharges to water.

Now, it turns out that it’s a very, very simple fix to fix the three waters problems, which are drinking water not fit for human consumption in some places, at some times, around New Zealand, particularly in smaller communities where their water supplies are vulnerable to flooding and vulnerable to damage; and waste-water treatment plants unable to keep up with the growth that New Zealand’s experienced while our population’s grown from 3 million or so since 1990 to over 5 million now. If you look at projections from Canterbury, from Auckland, and from the Wellington region, we’re heading for a population of 6 to 7 million people by 2050, and that’s one of the reasons why we need to build the infrastructure and upgrade the waste-water treatment plants to deal with that growth, as well as all the issues with the assets that haven’t been adequately maintained in the past.

But it is a simple fix, and I’ll outline it for you. Firstly, you let these organisations that own the assets, which are local government democratically elected councils, continue to own the assets. But what you do is you provide a regulator over them that says, “How will you actually perform your obligations” to deliver safe drinking water and to make sure that you’re not discharging waste water and sewage into your local rivers and streams, to meet your environmental commitments—that’s called Taumata Arowai, the regulator that the Water Services Act set up, and it was created last year in 2021.

Now, I spoke to the Taumata Arowai staff at Fieldays. They say they’re on track to meet their commitments. They’ll be checking up on all the local councils and their drinking-water supplies, and then they’re going to move on to checking up on all councils’ commitments around discharges of waste water and stormwater to the receiving environment. There—tick, job done, regulator in place.

Now, we need to think about how we actually get the investment in the networks, for maintenance and renewal of existing assets and for growth. What ACT would say is that there are billions of dollars in private and institutional capital looking for a home right now. It’s not just this Government, which blew up the Reserve Bank and started printing money and handing it out hand over fist, there is so much private institutional capital—in KiwiSaver funds, ACC, and superannuation funds—floating around the world, right now, that is looking for a place to invest. It turns out that infrastructure, which includes big subdivision developments, waste water and stormwater networks, and drinking-water treatment plants, is the perfect place for long-term institutional investors to invest. They know that if they got a billion dollars and they put it into a waste-water treatment plant, then the city that operates that plant will be able to pay it back over 30 or 40 years. That means that the city, instead of having to come up with a billion dollars’ worth of ratepayer funds to pay the contractor on the day that the waste-water treatment plant is opened, can pay it off over 25, 35, or 40 years. That’s what they do in other countries I’ve recently visited, like the United States and Canada, but it appears in New Zealand, this Government thinks that only ratepayers and taxpayers can pay for stuff. Well, that’s what the Minister of Local Government said.

Look, the ACT Party thinks that there is a problem with three waters infrastructure. It can be solved with the water regulator which already exists—that’s Taumata Arowai—and if we get the funding and financing model right and let local councils retain ownership but make sure they’re subject to the kind of regulation that will force them to meet their environmental and human health obligations around drinking-water quality, then job done, three waters reform not needed.

Then I want to come to the problems with this bill and why it is not needed. Well, this bill appears to be an improvised Treaty settlement dressed up as an infrastructure reform. And I want to bring the attention of the House and of New Zealanders watching this at home and listening on 882 AM, that wonderful frequency that broadcasts Parliament out over the airwaves, to the reasons why the ACT Party believes this is an improvised Treaty settlement dressed up as an infrastructure reform.

I asked Minister Mahuta in a written question, “Minister, what justification is there, or what special interest, what special right, do iwi and hapū have in three waters assets built after 1840?” And the Minister replied directly: “None above that of normal ratepayers.” And yet this bill contains a number of provisions that allocate iwi and hapū, those organisations, special rights, special privileges. Firstly, co-governance of the regional representation groups—50 percent of the seats on the regional representation groups which will direct the strategy for the four water services entities. And I asked the Minister, “Why is this necessary?” Well, apparently these iwi and hapū have special rights and interests because of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that, in order to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, they must be given these seats.

Well, while the Waitangi Tribunal might say that, that’s not necessarily the case. Parliament makes laws—Parliament makes laws—and Parliament can acknowledge decisions by courts, but it makes laws that actually treat New Zealanders fairly and give them equal rights.

Then I want to come to Te Mana o Te Wai. Te Mana o Te Wai means, I understand, “The strength of the water.” It’s a concept rooted in what I understand to be the spiritual connection that many people of Māori descent feel between water and themselves. That’s a wonderful concept. In New Zealand, we’re free to practice our religious and spiritual beliefs in any way that we want. That’s one of the wonderful things about living in a liberal democracy. And yet when we consider what Te Mana o Te Wai statements in the Water Services Entities Bill require, it gives iwi and hapū in a region the exclusive right to submit a statement directing these new water corporations, set up at the direction of Minister Nanaia Mahuta. It gives these iwi and hapū the exclusive right to say how the water will be allocated, who will get it, and what should happen to the water. That also now includes geothermal water resources, geothermal energy resources—which power electricity power stations, for example—and coastal waters. And yet no other group is afforded these rights in the community.

The ACT Party says, “Look, there is a problem with the delivery and the operation of three waters infrastructure” in terms of providing for growth and allowing for renewal and maintenance costs, but, actually, this bizarre attempt to improvise a Treaty settlement, dressed up as an infrastructure reform, is a completely flawed way to do it.

What we saw a couple of weeks ago in the House with the addition of an entrenchment clause in the bill—which would apparently protect the assets in the water services corporations, these new entities the Minister wants to establish, from ever being privatised. And that was introduced to the House by a Green Party member, supported by Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who claims it was a mistake and then also claims, at the same time, she actually did mean to support it. That was apparently intended to protect the assets from privatisation. But what we know is that taking assets off democratically elected councils, billions and billions of dollars’ worth—nearly $11 billion worth in the case of Auckland’s water care—and putting them in a corporation and then telling New Zealanders that future Governments won’t be allowed to return those assets to democratic control isn’t an attempt to stop privatisation. It’s just an attempt to stop future Governments, democratically elected Governments, actually putting into place their own policies and agendas.

That’s why the entrenchment provision was repealed, and, again, that’s why the three waters reform proposed by this Government and Minister Mahuta will fail—because nobody wants it; nobody voted for it. The ACT Party will repeal it and replace it with a better policy.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ko wai ko au; ko au ko wai. I am water; water is me. Now, water is both life giving, but it can also be life destroying. And we’ve heard examples of that already this morning in this debate. In fact, right through the process of this legislation going through the House, we have heard many stories of the challenges that we have faced, not only for our people but also for our environment. Today, the purity of our water sources is becoming more and more threatened. There are the challenges of our infrastructure, but there are also the challenges of climate change, of sea-level rises. And these threats impact on us in a range of ways. This is both for us locally but it’s also on a global scale. Water has become economically, environmentally, ecologically, culturally, spiritually, and politically one of the most significant issues of our time.

Now, “clean green”, that we love to talk about here in Aotearoa, has been something that we have been challenged by in recent years—in making sure that the label that’s on the box is what’s inside and making sure that we are those people. Now, this bill is simple. This bill is about clean and affordable water for all New Zealanders.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, it’s not.

GLEN BENNETT: Clean and affordable water for all New Zealanders. Now, which part of that don’t you like? Is it the clean bit, or is it the affordable bit? Make up your mind.

Now, in 2020, I was privileged to be part of the New Zealand Leadership programme, which had people from all sectors—[Interruption]—yes, my colleague was on it as well—from business to the community, from sports to the arts, and everything in between. Now, I remember, throughout that year in 2010, a key message came out for me as many of the international and local speakers shared their stories in their life of leadership, and this was that the wars of our future are going to be different to the wars from the past. Our wars of the future will be fought over energy, over food, and over water. So it shows the importance of us protecting this taonga—this thing that is life, that is us.

I want to thank the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for her courage, for her tenacity, for her resolute passion to ensure that our three waters here in New Zealand are fit for purpose, not only for this generation but the next generation and the generations to come. To the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, I want to thank you for putting yourself out there and for taking many of those jabs and attacks that have been on you for doing what is right for the future of our nation, which is about protecting our people and about protecting our environment.

Now, as she spoke just earlier in the House, there was a number that really stuck out to me, and that was 107 million cubic metres of water are lost each year through leakage throughout our nation—107 million cubic metres. Now, this is a lot of water, and this shows that there are many challenges facing our councils and many challenges facing our infrastructure. And I want to say there have been a few things thrown around the House this morning. Someone from the other side of the House called out, “Stop insulting councils.” For me, it’s not about insulting councils or telling them they’re bad or they’re wrong; it’s around how do we actually enable our future, because reforms occur throughout history and throughout time, and they’re hard; they’re not easy. Reform isn’t easy, because often it feels like we might be losing something or it might be that it’s something I’ve always known and I have to change. But this isn’t about telling councils they’re bad or they’re terrible; this is actually about how do we actually get it right for all New Zealanders. When the public wake up the next day once this bill becomes law, we will still be able to turn our taps on, and water will flow. When we wake up once this legislation is passed, we’ll still be able to flush our toilets and trust where they go. When we wake up the day after this bill becomes legislation, our stormwater systems will still be operating. They will not be stolen or removed or taken away. These are the assets of our people and of our citizens. What I want to say is, when we wake up, the future is brighter because we can trust and work hard to know that when you turn on the tap, that water is safe to drink, and that you can trust where the toilet flush goes and where the stormwater flows and that it isn’t ending up in our streams or our rivers or our ocean.

In New Plymouth and in Taranaki, we’ve had many challenges with our water systems. An example of that was Port Taranaki recently. Because of high levels of E. Coli and bacteria, we were unable to have our secondary schools triathlon—because it was just too high in Ngāmotu Beach.

It’s about the people. It’s around ensuring there are good assets to ensure that our people are cared for. Now, the other thing I just want to push back on this morning is the notion of co-governance and how that seems to trigger a lot of response and how co-governance seems to trigger a lot of push-back. I’m not sure what you’re afraid of. I’m not sure what you’re concerned of when it comes to that. And it does grieve me when I hear the word “confiscation” used in this House when we talk about our water services. I come from Taranaki, and I can tell you about confiscation. My colleague across the floor there, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, can tell you about what confiscation really is. Confiscation is not about being able to turn the tap on the next morning and knowing the pipes are still there and you still have 100 percent access to those pipes. In our region in Taranaki, we had thousands and thousands and thousands of hectares confiscated. Our iwi and our hapū were landless. They became landless in their own land because of confiscation, so please don’t throw “confiscation” around in this House when we’re talking about pipes and when we’re talking about infrastructure that will remain for the future and for the good of our generations.

In closing, I again want to thank the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I want to thank the officials, who have worked hard, who have been challenged, and who were able to work to get this to a place where I can confidently support this bill to the House this morning.

But I want to finish as I began, and that’s a quote from Jacques Cousteau, and he said, “We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one.”

Simon Watts: You’re adrift.

GLEN BENNETT: Please listen up: “We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one.” We need to protect our water. We need to protect our future. We need to protect our planet. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose this bill today. I also rise on behalf of the people of Waimakariri, who I serve: the 95 percent of Waimakariri residents who chose to opt out of this bill. That was at the time that the Government promised them that they could opt out. Yet what we found with the release of ministerial documents, that decision to legislate all in had already been made when the Waimakariri District Council was consulting their residents.

They believe that this bill comes into the House today in good faith; it comes in in bad blood. This Government has misled New Zealanders; it has no mandate. That’s why when we are in Government in 12 months’ time, we will repeal and replace this bill.

When you listen to the Labour speakers this morning, the absolute arrogance. We’ve heard comments, “If the public just bothered to read the bill”—well they have read the bill. That’s why they oppose this bill that you have rammed through under urgency and extended sitting before Christmas.

The public will not forget what you have done to them. They will remember that you do not have a mandate. My observation of the firestorm with the entrenchment Supplementary Order Paper is that, maybe in the first term, at the height of “Jacindamania”, the media and the public would have not delved into that issue that they have in the last week. Maybe under the guise of COVID, the public and the media would have not had the time. It is interesting now, though, that the voracity that the media and the public took to the arrogance of entrenchment says a lot.

In my view, it said the public have lost confidence in this Government. They have lost trust in this Government. This Government has no credibility. Look at the talking points that they’re using today. Look at that last speaker—“this bill is about clean water.” No, it’s not. This bill is about the establishment of four mega-entities that will take control of ratepayer-owned assets. This is State theft-by-stealth. Ratepayers will not have control of their water assets.

They know, when they first pitched this idea—remember the ads—it was about green sludge coming out of pipes. They don’t mention that any more because they know it was misleading—like everything they’ve said over the last 18 months—misinformation. That’s what this Government is now known as: the Government of spin, the Government of misinformation. And because the polls are now tanking and they’ve finally owned up to the cost of living crisis, now they’re like, “Oh, this is a cost of living crisis solution.” Could you believe it? What a backflip that is.

It’s no surprise that I’m the first Canterbury MP to get up today, because you won’t hear a Labour Canterbury MP get up and speak on this bill. They have been silent in Canterbury the whole year. Cantabrians do not want this bill. It’s gone down like a cup of cold sick. They know they will be judged in 12 months’ time on this bill.

I must say, a picture paints a thousand words, and to watch the Labour Government backbenchers pile in this morning, it was clear they had been whipped to sit in this House for the first reading by the Minister. To look at them and the look on their face as they swallowed that dead rat—they did not want to be here. Not only were they swallowing on that dead rat but they were choking on that dead rat as they were whipped into being in here. Welcome to being a backbencher in an unpopular Government, where those Government backbenchers are marching to defeat in 12 months’ time, for ever known as the Government of three waters.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Water Services Entities Bill. Te Paati Māori will not be supporting this bill at third reading. We are opposing this legislation because despite claims from both sides of the House, it does not implement co-governance, it doesn’t implement self-governance, and our belief is our tino rangatiratanga as tangata whenua is being ignored.

I guess the debate in this place, for us, has missed the central point entirely. Public water infrastructure absolutely should not be sold off, but it also doesn’t need to be entrenched. It needs to be returned to its rightful kaitiaki—its owners; tangata whenua—who, as many hapū and iwi remind today, would have ensured that we could still drink, collect kai, and swim in the wai. What’s missing in successive Governments is the leadership and the will to implement the inherent customary, proprietary, and decision-making rights of tangata whenua over fresh water—the customary kaitiaki who, today, are protesting to protect and are standing by their lakes and their rivers to clean up their wai, awa, lakes, and moana.

The conservative race-baiting campaign run by right-wing extremists and misinformation has been successful so far in whipping up opposition to any increase of Māori decision-making on water rights, and people don’t even understand what these reforms are proposing. They do not even guarantee Māori representation, let alone iwi representation, on the actual governance entities. While iwi and councils will both appoint a body that then appoints the entities, these degrees of separation are designed to limit Māori power through not creating precedents or co-governance.

So there is no doubt, I will say, that there will be improvements to the ability of mana whenua, particularly larger iwi, but our concerns are that this will have a cost, particularly for those smaller iwi and hapū. There is the reality that until the Crown implements our customary and decision-making rights on fresh water, reform of this scale is dangerous. The ongoing Crown position that everyone owns the water or no one owns the water—which is it? We can’t keep up—is, effectively, designed to do what we saw happen in 1983, which is extinguish the rights of tangata whenua, as they did with our rights to foreshore and seabed.

So three waters is one thing, and there are elements of this bill that we can support, but what actually needs to happen is to go the full scale, not half-pie, ka pai, and that is to bring about protection and restoration of our water through the absolute recognition and legal implementation of Māori ownership rights. Te Paati Māori would overturn the Crown’s position that everyone owns water and, instead, adopt a position that acknowledges Māori rights to fresh water and kaitiakitanga. We acknowledge the intrinsic w’akapapa of fresh water and support hapū and iwi to negotiate for those w’akapapa rights to be acknowledged in law, as Te Tiriti proposed. The w’akapapa connection between tangata whenua and wai māori is intrinsic, and I guess what we have seen is 150-plus years of Government—local government, regional government—and they’ve all failed in Te Mana o Te Wai.

So we want to see negotiations between Government and hapū and iwi which need to be re-established to develop a policy framework on how Māori rights and interests are implemented in freshwater management and allocation. The Waitangi Tribunal said that the Crown should be doing this and it should be working directly with hapū and iwi to create a standard process for addressing these rights and interests. Instead, we have the Crown currently deciding to stop negotiation with iwi leaders and shamefully, instead, has established its own Māori advisory group, te Kāhui Wai Māori.

And close to our hearts in Te Tai Hauāuru right now, within W’anganui, we need to put a moratorium on new consents for water bottling plants. We see the same in Lake Horowhenua. Until we can guarantee the safety of our aquifers and the life-sustaining mauri of our wai māori, not one more drop. I guess we are concerned that the Crown has been in charge of our wai, environmentally, socially, politically, and has continued to fail future generations. We will prioritise these protections.

What we see now is reform that is weak. Our wai is in crisis, and we need transformation, not tinkering. We will accept nothing less than our rights, our interests being honoured and implemented. Ko te mana o te moana, ko te mana o te wai i ahu mai i te mana o Papatūānuku, nō reira tēnā koutou katoa.

[The spiritual state of the sea and of water stems from the spiritual state of the Earth Mother and so, greetings to you all.]

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to talk about stormwater, waste water, and drinking water. Those are the three waters. We’re not talking about coastal water or thermal water—different types: fresh vs coastal. We’re not talking about different states of water. We’re not talking about water ownership. What this bill is is all the water in pipes and treatment stations, and what happens to that water once we’ve used it.

Those pipes and those treatment stations are owned and operated and organised by 67 different territorial councils around the country. We’ve heard from around the House today that there is a problem with the lack of investment in that infrastructure. When you do not invest in infrastructure that deals with waste water, we have problems. We had some vivid images of it in the first reading, and I won’t go into them, but we have problems. How do councils fund that infrastructure? Most of it is through rates. It turns out that most ratepayers don’t find that voting for an increase in rates, on that infrastructure—those pipes; those treatment stations—is something that they’re particularly interested in doing. And, of course, there are 67 of those councils—so, many of those councils are small entities. Obviously, Auckland Council is a giant one, but there are little places, little places like Waimate, that are not well resourced to make big infrastructure investments. So that is one of the reasons why we have this bill and a suite of bills. It is because Minister Nanaia Mahuta, in the Helen Clark Government, realised, as a Minister, that we have a problem in New Zealand with that investment in those very boring pipes and treatment stations.

We also have a secondary problem that the ACT member spoke about, and that is the regulation of that water. Nanaia Mahuta, as a Minister, in this Jacinda Ardern - led Government, has already put through the legislation establishing that water regulator so that councils—and it will be entities—are checked. Is this water safe; is it not? That regulation was largely missing in the past, so we’ve fixed it.

What this bill does—and it’s important to note, here, as well, that this is part of a package, so that there are other bills coming—is it establishes these four entities that we’ve heard about. What it doesn’t do is change the Resource Management Act. Water allocation is an issue under the Resource Management Act. It’s interesting, at the moment, submissions are open on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which does deal with water allocation and, you know, water generally, because when you need to take water or to discharge something to water, you need a resource management consent. That’s not what this bill is about; this bill is about when you’ve got the water or when you’re discharging your waste water or stormwater.

However, we do know that, of course, there is a relationship between the decision makers who are deciding what sort of treatment station they want with that Resource Management Act function of the safety of our environment. So that is why there’s this concept of Te Mana o te Wai in this Water Services Entities Bill, because there is a relationship there, and it may be that a Te Mana o te Wai statement will say something like: “We, mana whenua, have a preference for waste water being discharged to land; we don’t want it to go to the ocean.” That is the sort of thing that is relevant, then, for the owners, for the entity, to decide, “Well, how do we invest in our waste-water treatment? What are our decisions going to be?” That is how they interlink, and it’s really important that we think about that.

What else the bill does, of course, is we know that it sets up the regional representative groups, and that is where the mana whenua representation is at. It’s equal with the territorial authorities. That’s at clause 27(3) of the bill. That body, that regional representative group, appoints the board. The “Membership of the board” is at clause 57. The Finance and Expenditure Committee thought really carefully about the skill set that that board needs to have. There’s a lot of things listed in clause 57. The board has a constitution. At clause 91, you can look at what that constitution needs to contain. Then, the board, at clause 141, responds to the Te Mana o te Wai statement, or statements, that have come from the mana whenua in the entity’s rohe.

What I want to say is that I’m proud to be part of a Government that is clear and tackling difficult, complicated problems that are not a quick fix; that are going: “Well, how do we invest sensibly into the future of this country? How do we do it in a way that we don’t just privatise all of the assets?” We just heard from the member Simon Court about exactly what ACT would do in that role, and that’s not something that I want to be part of.

So I want to say thank you to our brave and courageous Minister Nanaia Mahuta. I want to say thank you to all of the local government representatives who were on the various working groups as this legislation has progressed, as the policy has progressed, and as the policy and the legislation progresses on the bills that are to come. I want to thank the Attorney-General—not the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General; wrong AG!—for considering the changes that the select committee made to really amplify the accountability mechanisms. I want to thank the submitters around the country, especially those councils that came and gave their submissions and spoke about their important relationships—highly valued relationships—with mana whenua. Lastly, I want to thank the Standing Orders Committee, which has now opened submissions for the process of entrenchment. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, well, well, we now know the parties of the left have abandoned the ship of State and, at the 11th hour on the Water Services Entities Bill, not a single party other than Labour is going to be supporting this: not National; not ACT—we knew that; not the Māori Party, after the second reading; and now not the Greens. The only party that thinks this is a good idea, in this House, is Labour. But don’t they look glum about it? I know those backbenchers don’t think this is a good idea, because they’re having a look at the polls and thinking, “This is going to be curtains for me.”

Let’s talk about one of them for whom it may be curtains. Anna Lorck said, in her contribution, that Havelock North is the reason for this bill. Well, I don’t agree. Let me tell you what the reason for this bill is: blind political ideology—no more, no less. The reason for Te Mana o Te Wai was Havelock—that’s true—and nobody wants to see a repeat of that, but this Government has spent two years catastrophising the situation with our water, demonising councils, and candy-coating the benefits of the water services entities. But I said it at the start of this process, and I’ll continue to say it: this is nothing more than State-sponsored theft of community assets. And I found Glen Bennett’s contribution quite ironic—that he was talking about theft, and iwi knowing about that. Well, this is the water equivalent of a really bad Treaty settlement: taking hundreds of billions of dollars of assets away from councils and throwing crumbs at them—you know, a little bit of compensation here, a bit of debt forgiveness there.

Glen Bennett: It’s still there to be used.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Sorry?

Glen Bennett: It’s still there, and it’ll still be used.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, it’s still there! So was the land that was confiscated from iwi. It’s a very good analogy, and it’s fundamentally wrong. The member knows it’s wrong and he’s trying to put a polish on it. Well, he can’t.

The catastrophising of the situation has been, I think, underpinning every single speech from a Labour member since this started. The Minister continued it, Anna Lorck continued it, all members have continued it, and nobody’s arguing that—we need to have clean water. We need to have good foul water and stormwater management, but Barbara Edmonds, talking about Auckland, fails to recognise that the problem is already being fixed with the central interceptor that’s being run by Watercare. Anna Lorck did admit that Havelock North have just spent millions of dollars fixing their water. They didn’t need the Government to come along and tell them what to do. They knew what the problem was, they knew what the solution was, and this is State-sponsored theft—nothing less.

Now, I want to go into the issue of co-governance. I think it’s really important. In my city of Dunedin, we will be part of Entity D. There are 1.1 million people who live in the South Island and most of them—but not all of them—are going to be in Entity D. If they came along and said, “Well, OK, we’re going to have this board of representatives for the territorial authorities”, Invercargill is going to have six members on that board and the rest of the South Island is going to have six. Those other 23 territorial authorities would be up in arms. Now, one thing that Entity D does have is one really good iwi, not several iwi. Ngāi Tahu, with the same population as Invercargill, is going to have six members on the board, and the rest of the 24 territorial authorities are going to have another six. How is that representation for the 1.1 million people, nearly, that will be part of Entity D?

Stuart Smith: It’s not.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It isn’t—that’s right, Mr Smith. And not only that, but those representatives—it would be great if they had consensus—need a 75 percent majority in order to get anything done. Where have we heard about 75 percent? Sounds a lot like entrenchment, doesn’t it? Well, it’s going to be there in another way, and so we haven’t heard the last of questions about entrenchment.

Now I want to go to the financial case for change. Simon Watts is a very good chartered accountant, as is my humble self. What we know is that when financial forecasts are done 30 years out, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on. The benefits-realisation estimates that actually came out of Scotland—a flawed methodology in my view, because, while Scotland has 5 million people, half of them live along the Forth and Clyde rivers, in a very concentrated situation. They are not distributed across—and Scotland itself is no bigger than Otago and Southland. We have five million people distributed right across the length and breadth of a long, skinny country, and the synergies that Scotland was able to achieve simply can’t be done here. Pipes are pipes. A pipe in Westport is going to be needed just as much as a pipe in Balclutha, and the idea that, according to the modelling, there would be capital reductions of 50 percent in cost is just pie in the sky. The operational reductions of 65 percent—

Joseph Mooney: Impossible.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: You’re quite right, Joseph Mooney. Absolutely impossible—particularly when there is going to be no reduction in headcount, apparently. And, of course, staffing is a very big part of managing water, and certainly engineers.

I think back to the Auckland super-city. Now, that was my Government that did that, but the benefits realisation for the taxpayer was going to be significant by merging the seven councils up there—or six councils; whatever it was. I wonder whether the Auckland ratepayer, 10 years later, thinks, since they’re listening to this debate, “Thank goodness my rates are lower because of the Auckland super-city merger.”—said no one ever. So I say that about this. I will be in my rocking chair—in fact, I’m determined to live long enough to be there in 30 years’ time and be proven right. The benefits realisation is pie in the sky, and it’s not going to happen.

I talked about co-governance and the potential for division, but that’s actually not my greatest concern. My greatest concern is the division that will occur between our communities. I think about Entity D. Dunedin, for the first time in about 30 years, is actually growing in population, and it needs the infrastructure base to support it. It has the prerogative now, and the autonomy, to go and rate the community and consult on its long-term plan and build the water services infrastructure it needs, as they’ve done for the last 20 years, in upgrading it, and a pretty good job it’s done so far. Now they’re going to have to go to Christchurch, or wherever the head office of Entity D is going to be, and say, “We need infrastructure.” Christchurch could easily turn around and say, “Oh I don’t know about that. Selwyn is growing a bit faster than you. And Invercargill’s pipes are a bit rustier than yours. So you’re going to have to wait.” All of that autonomy has gone. And I’m sorry, six members of a representative board fighting for 24 territorial authorities is not going to give the representation and the lobbying that cities like Dunedin and towns like Balclutha will need in order to get what they have done. So it’s going to pit communities against each other. I absolutely believe that. That is wrong.

Of course, we’ve already talked about the taxation without representation. There is more legislation to come to work out how on earth the revenue is going to be collected from the water services users. So that will be the first litmus test. I go back to the question of the financial modelling. I think it’s ironic that Grant Robertson can’t even stick to a Budget Policy Statement four months before he issues the Budget. How on earth are we going to have confidence in financial modelling that goes out 30 years? I think it’s going to be completely, completely undermined.

I want to finish with the biggest false flag of this week: that is the question of privatisation. It’s a false flag, because it’s been raised as a risk that National would privatise, and there were attempts—

Rachel Brooking: Did you listen to ACT’s speech?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Listen up. It’s a false flag, because National wouldn’t have stolen the assets in the first place. The biggest thing that the ratepayer and the taxpayer have to fear is this Government’s theft of these assets. There will never be the privatisation by a central government under a National-led Government, because the assets wouldn’t be in central government control. They are going back to the local authorities from whence they were stolen, so that there is taxation and representation aligned, and they can manage their own needs, the way they have for 150 years. One thing a National Government will not do is catastrophise the situation, the way those ads and every single speech from Labour Party members have done. I did refer to taxation without representation—that is, if they don’t like the quality of their local assets, they can vote out the council. Well, they won’t be able to do that when this bill is passed, but they do have another vote. They can vote against the people who stole these assets and centralised in a Wellington-knows-best way, and I think that vote is less than a year away. No wonder Labour are worried.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This country faces a $180 billion problem. That is how much this country needs to find over the next 30 years to fund water infrastructure in this country. If it doesn’t, then people will get sick. If it doesn’t, then development will not happen. We heard numerous times that the National Party MPs dispute that figure but provide nothing to the counter. They can point to their own individual qualifications, as Michael Woodhouse just did—but he didn’t provide any counter argument other than he disagrees with the figures that have been provided by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and peer-reviewed by Beca, and peer-reviewed by Farrierswier. But doesn’t that sum up the National Party’s position on this very issue? They have walked a very interesting line throughout this debate, and I’m very interested indeed to see that yet again the National Party have changed their position on the issue of water services reform.

It seems now, today, that the National Party have always agreed that something needs to be done. I had a little read through the first reading speeches. Simon Watts started his speech and finished his speech with a very clear message: they will repeal three waters—full stop. There was nothing about replacing it. It was, “We will repeal.” If anybody here wants to go over to Wairarapa, as soon as they drive through Featherston they will see a massive billboard that says the National Party will repeal and reverse three waters. So that’s the second position. The second position was not just repeal; it was repeal and reverse, and now they’re trying to say they will repeal and replace what is in this bill. So there are three positions, and I think what that says to the people of New Zealand and to Parliament is that they are trying to position themselves as the ones that have the solutions, without offering anything at all.

This bill deals with a very serious problem—an issue of the tune of $180 billion that at the moment every single community in New Zealand is facing. And when every single community in New Zealand is facing that, it means ratepayers are facing that. Councils themselves say they cannot afford to do it by themselves. They either have to increase rates to an extent where the community can’t afford it or they don’t do the work they know they need to do. Councils aren’t the villains in this issue. Councillors are hard-working and dedicated elected representatives. There are people that work at the councils that have dedicated many years of hard service to their communities. Over successive generations, the councils that currently represent our communities face an issue that they have inherited. It is not their fault but they cannot fix it by themselves.

If we take the Tararua district, for example, they need to find $600 million over the next 30 years—a figure they do not dispute. They have one of the largest roading networks in the country, a huge geographical area, and a very small population that simply cannot find that type of money over the next 30 years, 50 years, or probably even over the next 100 years. They just can’t do it, and the National Party’s solution is to leave them on their own and say they’ll be all right, because National is going to repeal the legislation—or is it repeal and reverse, or is it repeal and replace?

Let’s take their point of view that was stated today—that they’re going to repeal and replace. With what? It’s a very simple question—a question that has been posed for four years. What are they going to replace it with? They have no ideas. They have no policies. That is not a debating point, Mr Speaker; that is a matter of fact. As I was going through the first reading speeches, I came up with an absolute doozy from Matt Doocey—a Doocey doozy. He promised in his first reading speech that the National Party will co-fund this required investment. He said it once and once only. He contributed to the second reading debate, he contributed to the committee of the whole House, and he contributed again today. Did he say it? Did he say it—my foot. Someone got in his ear and said that what he had just committed the National Party to was a $92.5 billion dollar bill, while, at the time, they were proposing $11 billion worth of tax cuts. Even Paul Goldsmith knows that one doesn’t add up. The fact of the matter here is that the National Party are left wanting. I’ll take the opportunity to give the ACT Party credit. I don’t agree with them ever but at least they come up with policies. At least they come to the table with an alternative.

You will note that Simon Watts has tried a real trick that he tried at the second reading as well. He says that the Government says that there are no alternatives. No, we don’t; we say that they have no alternatives. Communities 4 Local Democracy had an alternative. They presented it to the Government. The Minister Nanaia Mahuta and her officials reviewed it. They discussed it with them, and they appreciate the fact that they actually came up with an alternative, but it didn’t achieve what is needed to be achieved because it doesn’t achieve the balance sheet separation. Simon Watts will scoff, but I’ll make this very simple point. On two occasions in this House he has listed a long list of alternatives—none of them are his—and none of them has he or his party committed to. Make no mistake—the National Party have one policy on this matter and one policy alone, and that is the status quo. They want to leave communities—that can’t afford to do this work—on their own. It is the free market, user-pays mentality that is rife amongst the National Party that is going to leave ratepayers with bills that they simply cannot afford. Even now we are seeing rates rises across the country that people can’t afford, and that doesn’t even take into account the amount of work that is required, which is being outlined by councils day in and day out. And let’s not forget: while some councils agree with three waters proposals and some councils don’t agree with three waters proposals by this Government, every single one of them agrees that the status quo is unsustainable.

So when the National Party members stand up today and paint themselves as the saviour of local government, and, ironically, promote the one thing that the local government sector do not want when it comes to water services, that is called dancing on a pin. That is trying to present an argument and distract from the core issue here—that they have no solution to a problem that is facing this country and is going to cost, over 30 years, $180 billion. At least the ACT Party came up with a solution. Their solution is that they will share the GST from new developments from councils to allow them to invest in water services. Fine, good as gold—a billion a year. It’s a $180 billion problem, and a billion dollars a year is going to take a very long time to solve the issue. So it doesn’t add up, but good on them for coming up with a solution. I don’t agree with the Green Party’s position. They agree with the need for reform, but for particular issues, they’re voting against it, and so too are Te Paati Māori. But I appreciate and respect that view. At least they’ve got one.

All we’ve heard from the National Party throughout this debate is “No.” They change their position because they pick up the sentiment in the public. Once they realise that the public recognises that there needs to be reform in water services, they think that the public won’t realise when they change their billboards across the country, except for forgetting to do a few. So if you drive for two hours on State Highway 2 you’ll see a mix of billboards: “We will repeal and reverse”, “We will repeal and replace”, advertising to this country that over this whole debate they have changed their view without coming up with a policy.

For four years this issue has been debated. The Government, through the leadership of Nanaia Mahuta—and I take the opportunity to acknowledge her today. She has taken all the rubbish that the National Party has thrown at her, and all the rubbish they have stirred up in our communities, and some that has gone towards the Minister has been incredibly nasty. She has stood strong and stood proud and focused on the issues. She has focused on a solution—the one thing where the National Party refuses to front up. So by all means, run around the country with your slogans, but I implore the National Party to answer one thing when they go and talk to the communities. Justify to their faces how they are happy to leave them with unaffordable rates rises and unsustainable water services in this country when they had an opportunity to engage and had an opportunity to come up with a solution.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Water Services Entities Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Voting

Correction—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to cast a proxy vote that was missed last night on the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill.

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

RACHEL BOYACK: Jo Luxton votes “No”.

SPEAKER: The record will be corrected. Therefore, the Ayes are 61, the Noes are 50, Abstentions are 1.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Electoral Amendment Bill, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill, and the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill, and the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.

Bills

Electoral Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1

Amendments relating to donations and loans

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come first to the Electoral Amendment Bill. We come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3A to 18, “Amendments relating to donations and loans”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my pleasure to speak on the committee stage of this, the Electoral Amendment Bill, which the National Party is not supporting. The context, for those tuning in to this debate, is that the Government in its wisdom has set up an independent panel to consider a range of things relating to the electoral bill and the way that we run our elections, and that was supposed to be bipartisan—it was claimed to be bipartisan, although we in the National Party on the other side didn’t have any great engagement in the appointment of that panel. Nevertheless, in the meantime, before that panel is supposed to report back after the next election, the Government has brought through this legislation, changing some elements of the electoral law before that group have had their chance to have their say.

The primary change in this legislation in clause 4 is reducing the amount of money—or lowering the threshold—before party donations have to be declared, or the people who make the donation need to be declared, from $15,000 where it has been for nearly 20 years to $5,000. The original proposal was $1,500. So the first question I have for the Minister is what is the issue she’s trying to deal with here? Because the context is there are two thresholds in the electoral bill. One is a $1,500 threshold before people’s names need to be published in relation to donations for candidates. Bearing in mind that under the rules—the electoral rules—candidates can only spend $30,000 in the electoral period, a $1,500 donation would represent about 5 percent of the amount that they are entitled to spend, and the sense was that there’s a certain logic about a relatively significant donation within the context of what a candidate can spend being made public for transparency purposes.

When we come to the party vote, a party standing in a large number of electorates can spend up to $3 million or more than $3 million in the regulated period. And so a donation of less than $15,000, you know, $14,000, for example, would represent a very tiny fraction of that overall spend. So I wonder whether the Minister might clarify for us: does she think that it’s possible that a party’s policies would be altered in such a way because of such a donation, and what is she concerned about? And secondly, I’d like to know whether she sort of understands the desire of some people to donate to a party without necessarily having their name published—at a reasonable level, because obviously one has to draw a line somewhere and for 20-odd years, or nearly 20 years, $15,000 has been a threshold that people have understood. There are plenty of people around the country who, for good reason, don’t want to have their names published. They might be concerned that they may attract attention from people, they may be worried about future contracts, they may be worried about all sorts of things. I’d be interested to know from the Minister what she thinks about that.

And then, the broader issue is how does she think parties should be funded, because the natural sort of consequence of this legislation is it in essence makes it more difficult for political parties to raise funds given the reality that some people don’t want to have their names published widely, and so what alternative funding does she have in mind for political parties? Some questions to open up the debate for this clause. Thank you very much.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I just acknowledge my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith for his questions—and also all of the colleagues who have spent the last period of time engaged on this bill through the select committee process, and those who that have provided their submissions.

Just coming to the three questions that the honourable member just raised, in terms of the issues that we’re trying to deal with, broadly, the proposed changes are multifaceted: lowering the threshold for publicly disclosing donations and contributions from two parties from $15,000 to $5,000, as Mr Goldsmith rightly identified; amending the reporting requirements for party donations by reducing the threshold from $30,000 to $20,000 and requiring disclosure of donations above the threshold within 10 working days only within a general election year; requiring parties to report non-anonymous donations under $15,000; requiring parties to disclose their annual financial statements; and requiring candidates to publicly report on loans from unregistered lenders to support their campaign.

The issues that we are trying to deal with collectively is enhancing the public’s trust and confidence in our electoral donation system. Recent surveys have shown us that over 70 percent of those that have participated do not have trust or confidence in our electoral donation system.

The rationale for splitting out the difference or the variation for candidates and what’s required to be disclosed and the variable thresholds for party donations is based on, first, the current model, to which we are making amendments. But also, when we’ve come to consider the $5,000 threshold—I think that’s the one that my colleague focused on in particular—why that $5,000 threshold? What evidence is there to support that this would be appropriate, and what evidence have we seen that this might work?

I think that what we’ve tried to do, and the member will be aware that when we initially tabled these proposals, the threshold that we had proposed to set was at $1,500. Officials during that period of time engaged with all political parties’ secretaries to try to get a real understanding of the practical implications as well as the actual objective that we’re trying to achieve, which is enhancing that trust and confidence of the general public that you don’t by access to political decision-making.

The advice and feedback that came back through that process was that the $5,000 threshold strikes the appropriate balance between transparency, privacy, the compliance burden placed on parties, the right to freedom of expression, and sufficient donation revenues for parties. The existing threshold of $15,000 is also, arguably, an arbitrary threshold.

What we sought to do then was to look at the thresholds for disclosing the identity of political donors in comparable jurisdictions. We looked to Australia in terms of what the disclosure thresholds were there. In the Australian Capital Territory, their threshold was $1,000, same as in New South Wales and Queensland. We looked to Victoria; again, just over $1,000 was their threshold. We looked over to Canada at a very relatively low threshold; it’s $200 in Ontario, $250 in Alberta and British Columbia.

So what we’ve tried to do here is to approach the issues—the thesis that we were trying address: enhance that trust and confidence in our political donation system and then look at the evidence that would support a reduction, but also doing that in quite a practical way. We’re all politicians in this House and we all understand what it is to work with small community—often heavy voluntary basis within the communities. I always think about my own organising committee and think, practically, what will the onus be and the obligations be on those that are members within the political parties and what will the compliance measures mean for them?

We addressed that in quite a substantive way, and that was, indeed, the work that the officials had done prior to the bill coming into the House, making sure that the amendments would be workable and practical.

I come to that third question that the honourable member put to me. It was, how do we think political parties should be funded? Well, we’re comfortable with the way in which political parties are funded, that we seek donations from those that seek to support us. We’re comfortable with those that seek to support us being required to disclose their identities. We’re comfortable as decision makers to attest to the public, to the general public at large, that whilst we graciously accept support—and fiscal support at that—we don’t have any expectation, or we never purport, that that support for our political party ideology results in tangible power to impact our decisions as decision makers.

So at the member also rightly pointed out, we have established an independent electoral panel. They make choose to delve into these issues as to the way political parties are funded in the future, but it’s certainly not something I’m currently considering now.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, thank you to the Minister in the chair, Kiritapu Allan, for the answers to those questions, and a couple of things come out of that. First is the reference to a survey. Yes, a survey was done, I think by Victoria University, on this issue which does seem to point to a sense of public concern around electoral finance. I suppose the obvious question is: well, how is she clear that the concern isn’t around examples of parties allegedly breaking the rules and examples where large donations have been split up, against what the current will rules are. That might be the primary concern and cause of public concern rather than the particular threshold, which is not being altered by this legislation in any way. To split up donations was against the law previously and will be against the law afterwards.

So I’m not quite clear what the Minister is saying is in the sense that there is a broad concern around electoral finance and therefore we need to make these changes. Drawing that logic would be interesting. It may well be that a general lack of confidence may be related to a general lack of confidence in Government generally and the gap between promises and delivery. That may be a broader challenge for all politicians, that, ultimately, the task of all politicians is to win the confidence of the electorate and to fight for it. So it’s not clear to me from what the Minister says, and just because there are concerns out in the community around electoral finance—my guess is primarily because there have been cases involving allegations of people breaking the rules—doesn’t mean that this change is necessarily justified or required.

The other key question for the Minister is: does she not think a measure of bipartisan support for electoral law changes is desirable? This is clearly changing the electoral finance rules in a manner which we on this side of the Chamber claim, or are concerned, is skewing the system in favour of some parties over other parties given the history of funding and the way funding operates. We’ve heard quite a lot about the need for bipartisan support around constitutional changes and entrenchment and for changing the voting age, but when it comes to this area, which is an equally important part of how the rules are drawn up for how we conduct elections, how we finance them, this Government is just using its bare majority to change the system, arguably in its favour. I’d like to hear a justification from the Minister for doing that and how she thinks that that is appropriate, if she does.

There are a number of other, sort of, issues raised around how she thinks it will operate, because I think all New Zealanders are absolutely concerned to ensure that our system has integrity and that there is transparency. There’s no question around that; it’s just that the argument that we’re having here is what is the appropriate threshold. The Minister referred to other countries, and, again, I’d like her to tease out the difference between Australian states, for example, where they don’t have an MMP system, they don’t have a party vote system, which is the reason for the two different thresholds in this country. A lower threshold is appropriate in an electoral context where there’s relatively smaller funds being raised and a donation would have a relative significance, whereas the New Zealand context of the party vote is one electorate for the whole country, and therefore a donation, even of $10,000, is very small within the big scheme of things in terms of a party’s overall fund-raising. But those sorts of donations are significant, and, ultimately, it comes back to the need for parties to be funded somehow, and if this legislation makes it more difficult for parties to fund themselves, the logical conclusion is taxpayer funding.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member, can I just make this general observation to all members, as you’re thinking of your debate notes. This is Speakers’ ruling 52/4: “A member may not (1) impute improper motives to the Government; (2) suggest that the Government has received orders to put a bill through; (3) impute dishonesty to the Government; [and] (4) suggest domination by outside bodies.” There were several sentences there where it sailed close to some of those.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I am pleased to take a call in this discussion. I want to pick up on one of the themes that was touched on by the Hon Paul Goldsmith in his comments. He asked what I think is a legitimate question, which is, effectively, the link between the rules and the thresholds that are expressed in Part 1 of the bill and public confidence.

I want to come right to the heart of what I think is one of the main and most important changes that is in this bill, and that is, effectively, the shrinking of the difference between thresholds for local donations and party donations, and I have a question for the Minister as part of this. The question, effectively, is this: is the Minister aware of the fact that the current threshold difference that we have—that is, the difference between $1,500 at the local level and $15,000 for direct declaration—potentially creates a significant arbitrage incentive? And that is that there is a practice, that has been quite widely reported on in the media, of some local candidates being approached for donations that are above the $1,500 level that would have to be reported at the local level, sending them to the party head office where the threshold is $15,000—so these are donations between $1,500 and $15,000—and that the party head office then, effectively, bundles up the total amount of money that is received from that and donates it back to the local campaign as a global figure.

So we’ve seen—and this has come through public reporting, particularly through the National Party’s reporting—that a number of local campaigns receive back donations from the National Party head office, sometimes in the order of $30,000 to $40,000 that have come through donations that are between the $1,500 and $15,000 level, and I wonder whether the Minister thinks that that practice might have some impact on public confidence in the integrity of the current system, and whether she believes that, effectively, the closing of the arbitrage gap—which is currently $1,500 to $15,000, to $1,500 and $5,000—might help to mitigate against that practice, which I consider to be abuse, and I think might bring the current system into disrepute.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the committee in advance. I think it’s easier if I just respond to questions as they come in. That means I won’t have too many bits of paper floating around. I know the member over there has a few questions as well. Look, I’ll start with the last one and then work my way through. I think that Minister Wood’s question goes to the heart of these reforms in the first instance. It was around closing the gap that had been identified, rightly, by multiple observations. And as we’ve been able to see through the public disclosure of campaign funding, where you could see that practice had meant that work-arounds had been pursued. That was indeed why we went to political parties with having the same like-for-like $1,500 dollars for individual campaigns and $1,500 dollars for party campaigns, because we wanted to make sure that those types of practices couldn’t be worked around in the way that the member has correctly identified.

So to the overarching question: are we satisfied that there is at least a closing of the gap? Yes. The reason that we didn’t expand or maintain the original proposal to have the like-for-like $1,500 disclosure at both candidate and party level was because of the feedback that we received, particularly, from all party secretaries talking about the administrative and procedural implications, which officials advised me on and we subsequently made decisions. So we have sought to close the gap by which exploitations of the system could be made.

If I come to the question by the member the Hon Paul Goldsmith with respect to the splitting of donations, it’s like and like in some sense, but the issue has been correctly identified by both sides of the Chamber. The bill doesn’t directly deal with splitting of donations to avoid that closure. That was one of the original intents, as I’ve just walked through. But, yeah, to that more fulsome point, the lower threshold makes it harder to circumvent those disclosure requirements by the splitting of a donation, and so the advice is that more people are likely to fall within the scope of that reduced threshold.

The more political question there was whether there is an attempt to screw the scrum, I think was the kīwaha. Was it “screw the scrum”?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Skew.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Skew. Screw the scrum—yeah, that would be a bit odd, wouldn’t it? Skew. So whether—[Interruption] I’d better not get into that today—the bill would advantage one political party over another, in short, the response is no. All registered political parties would be required to follow the requirements set out in the bill, if enacted, in the same way all registered parties must comply with all of the existing requirements in the Act. The bill contains flexibility to respond to the differing impacts of the proposals on smaller and larger parties, and, for example, the bill proposes that parties receiving less than $50,000 in donations and that also have no loans within a calendar year would not be required to obtain auditors’ reports for their returns. We’ve thought through those issues in some substantive detail.

The member also raised questions about whether that general sense of trust and confidence in our political party donation regime has been caused by party practices and particularly issues that have been evident in the media and also the subject of litigation. I want to get probably to one of the amendments that we’ve decided to introduce as a Supplementary Order Paper, whilst the committee was considering the bill, that responded to the New Zealand First Foundation case in particular. What we could see there and what was highlighted in the High Court’s ruling there was that the court raised a risk that parties may structure their financial affairs in a way that legally avoids Parliament’s intentions for the disclosure of donations and, further, that risk undermining the public trust in the integrity of our political donations regime, and it was something that went to the heart of why we’re introducing these reforms in the first instance, and it was something that we considered that needed to be addressed in advance of the next general election. In absence of doing so, it would completely undermine our political party donation regime. I won’t get into that in any length right now but to say—I think it was well traversed during the Justice Committee inquiry and I’m happy to take questions if there are more on it—we amended the existing definition of “party donation”, in particular, to make sure that the work-arounds that had been seen in the particular case and explored by the High Court in their determinations would no longer provide that work-around.

Finally, I think there was one question there just in terms of the way in which we seek to get support for these types of amendments. I think and I hope that it’s seen that we actively do try to get bipartisan support where it’s possible on these types of reforms. I know that the views were sought by the Ministry of Justice from all registered political parties, both in and outside of Parliament. I’ve obviously had discussions with political parties. The former Minister of Justice wrote to all political parliamentary parties, seeking their views on the proposals, and the concerns raised have certainly been things that we have taken into consideration when reworking the amendments. The best example of that, of course, is the raising of the original proposal of the $1,500 donation threshold for party donations and increasing that to $5,000.

I understand changes were made to the bill during the select committee process as a result of the submission from the National Party, which we acknowledge and thank you for your efforts there. One of those changes that we made was that the bill was clarified to ensure it didn’t impose any retrospective obligations on parties, and that’s something that we really have tried to do. But the overarching principle as to why this bill is in the ballot in the first instance is because there is evidence that says that New Zealanders did not trust the way in which political parties were receiving political donations. The public has the right to know who butters our bread, and these reforms in the round are intended to address exactly those issues that have been raised with us.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, for her replies and, firstly, as well, that she wrote to all parties—it’s great. There’s a bit of a habit of other Ministers of only writing to one side of the House. I really appreciate that. I think she’s mostly answered my questions around why this is happening now. The initial questions are that bipartisanship has been a little bit broken in this regard. I am still not clear of the urgency, and she has somewhat explained that. I suppose it’s as much a rhetorical question as an actual question to her: is that lack of trust and transparency that’s out in the community—which I’d probably actually agree with—actually related to donations, or is it constitutional overreach and other activities of any political party or Government of the day?

A second question is: why is this coming through now when there is also a review happening? If she wants to talk about trust and transparency, is there any desire within her ministry to finally release the submissions of political parties? I know the National Party’s position is already public. Is there any desire to release that from the likes of the Labour Party and others, simply because we are talking about trust and transparency?

She referenced, in the plural, that there’s been surveys indicating the need for this legislation. I’m aware of one survey. Now, it could just be a slip of a tongue, a solecism, but if there are surveys, I wouldn’t mind the Minister telling the committee what they are.

The final two questions—because I don’t want to waste the Minister’s time—is: what consideration was given to the right to privacy? She’s referenced, at least once—perhaps twice—the right to the freedom of expression, and I personally think that’s being challenged here. But what extent was the right of privacy explored by her and her officials? Under clause 4, as we drop the threshold arbitrarily—I think everyone’s agreeing with that; it is in an arbitrary drop—from $15,000 to $5,000, the right to privacy has been undermined.

The last question is around the question that the Hon Michael Wood raised—he was talking about arbitrage and systems that might go around. I’m just wondering: is she aware of, effectively, groups of people who unite together? It often happens, not just in the civil service, but often people, if I could use that as an example, in the civil service, paid by the Crown, paid by taxpayers, they, in turn, somewhat voluntarily, give money, over usually a yearly subscription to a group that they feel some unified understanding with. That group, in turn, often generously gives money—very generously gives money—every three years—whopping amounts of money, actually. To people like myself, it seems like a giant circle, because often, this group of people who unite together want a certain Government to remain in power. I’m just wondering, in that line of what Michael Wood was referencing: has she come across any reports of such groups where people pool their money together into this group, and that group, over the years, but often election time, gives whopping donations? I think—and I’m happy to stand corrected—if I’ve got the word right, they’re called “unions”, but I’d be happy to be corrected on that.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): To the last question: no, I haven’t received any concerns, because all of those donations are declared.

To the second question that came before: look, I know that there’s been much reference to the Victoria University survey that was done that highlighted the issues that we were seeing play out both in this House, in the courts, in the media, that affirmed the sentiment that there was a dis-ease amongst New Zealanders about the way in which the finances of political parties were managed in an environment where trust and confidence is always at the forefront of our minds when we should be seeking to ensure that Government support its legitimacy. This is one area that we knew that we could address, it’s not an issue that reared its head overnight, and it was something that could be addressed and addressed relatively swiftly. That is why we are making these amendments. We’re making these amendments because they are simply the right thing to do.

You’ve also seen over the last few weeks that there’s been the findings of research conducted over the past year. I’ve just forgotten the authors’ names right now. Max—

Hon Members: Rashbrooke.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —Rashbrooke and others have been looking into political party donations for the period over the last couple of years. It’s probably a crude synopsis, but, I think, their findings and through their extensive engagement with parties up and down the country, all political parties, civil group societies, etc., agree that this is a good first step but there is a lot more work that should be done to ensure that there is the requisite transparency that New Zealanders can rightly expect.

So why are we doing this now? It’s because New Zealanders deserve to know who is buttering our bread.

Third, there was one—I don’t know whether to respond or not; maybe it’s more in the realm of the political—comment about lack of trust and confidence, as a consequence of constitutional overreach. Look, I don’t think that this is at all—

Simon O’Connor: Take the bait!

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: “Take the bait!” Ha, ha! I’m not in the mood. Look, I genuinely think that if we are concerned about the state of our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand, the biggest thing that we can do is take New Zealanders with us. They want to understand how we give our time, our energy, to stakeholders. They want to know whether money carries weight and buys access. We as a Government want to dissipate that perception, and, therefore, as a consequence, these amendments that we are making to the political donation scheme right now are the right thing to do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take the next caller, I do want to say this—especially to the last member who made his comments before he sat down and the Minister took over—I want to remind everyone in this Chamber of the Speakers’ ruling 52/4, “A member may not … (4) suggest domination by other bodies.” I would like the member Simon O’Connor to withdraw and apologise, because he did, towards the end, make a suggestion about domination and named a body, which I’m not going to name again.

Simon O’Connor: Well, I withdraw and apologise.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to start off my contribution, first of all, to thank the Minister for coming to the Justice Committee for a hearing and to answer questions. That was a new approach for us, and one that managed to get us all through the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper and to support it, even though we don’t support the bill itself. So I just wanted to thank you and acknowledge you for that.

Minister, within the bill, in Part 1, there are a couple of things I’d just like to pick up on. One is where you’ve talked about the transparency and trust and confidence. You know, we’ve had the Victoria University survey, and Max Rashbrooke has written his article about it as well. One of the concerns that I’ve had—and my colleagues next to me have addressed this as well—is about whether or not it is about political donation, monetary donation, or whether it’s actually about the trust and confidence of what’s happening in the day, not only in New Zealand, but, of course, when we are looking at what’s happening across the world, and the way that other political parties have been operating, especially in areas like the United States, for example, and whether or not that has discouraged the trust and confidence of Kiwis in the way that our own political system may work. And then I ask the Minister whether it’s actually just about the political donations, or just whether it’s the way that Governments as a whole, worldwide, are working and operating at the moment that causes that decrease in trust and confidence.

Minister, when we’re looking at the support that the parties need to be able to operate during an election year, one of the issues that my colleague next to me raised is one that you may have missed, because you were talking to an official. It was about that right of freedom of expression for those that do give political donations, and being able to ensure that privacy is attained, in some way, for some people who just want to be able to express financial support for the political party of their choice, and whether or not we actually cease people feeling that they are able to financially contribute because of the fear of being named and shamed for doing so, and whether we have any ability to be able to protect some individuals—not necessarily companies, but the individuals who wish to financially support a party’s policies and then feel that they may be cancelled, named, or shamed, because of that.

Minister, while I’m on my feet, I’d also like to ask about the $40,000 fine that could be attributed to those parties who fail, within a reasonable time, to comply with section 207B of the Act—$40,000 is a lot of money, Minister. When we’re looking at the start-up of quite a few smaller parties that are wanting to come through, this is actually big bucks for them. My concern, Minister, is that it will potentially stop new political parties from arising and wanting to represent others within their community as well, because we are putting excessive rules and regulations upon them that they would have to comply with when they’re just trying to start out.

When I look at clause 4(3), Minister, I can see some of the work that will be involved by volunteers in having to comply with these massive amounts of reporting. It’s almost so bureaucratic it makes it untenable for some to be able to actually work their way through it all. I wonder, Minister, what your thoughts are this particular part, especially clause 4(2) and (3) and whether it would have a detrimental effect on others wanting to come to this House and represent people of our community as well, and whether we’re actually just keeping this for the bigger parties and the bigger minority parties instead of allowing everyone in New Zealand to have the opportunity to be represented in this House. Thank you.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member from the ACT Party for her considered contribution. You are right; I did miss that question with respect to the balance between privacy and that freedom of expression to be able to contribute. So turning to that question first, one of the things that we did closely through the development and evolution of the bill was to work with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that we were striking the right balance. One of the caveats, I guess, or one of the safeguards that we also have available to us is that within the Electoral Act, there is the donations protected from disclosures scheme to address exactly some of those issues, where people can make donations up to $50,000 if they have a reason or rationale for not wanting to be disclosed. Those contributions go to the Electoral Commission and then are filtered out to the requisite party. But there are some checks and balances on that, and that’s one of the ways that we’ve sought to be able to strike that balance.

Turning to the second issue, just around the $40,000 fine if found guilty upon conviction. What we did there, I looked at a range of different thresholds to find schemes within the Electoral Act. What I did is I, essentially, pulled over what was already the existing fines schemes within the Act, noting that it cannot exceed that amount. It’s not a base amount of $40,000. We certainly wouldn’t want that to be seen as a barrier for participation in our democratic institutions. I guess the only real risk there that one would come up against is if they weren’t administering their affairs appropriately. A court would exercise their discretion if they were right at the egregious end of a breach that would warrant that type of magnitude of a penalty, but that would certainly be at their discretion. But, yeah, I didn’t want to introduce a new type of threshold into the Act, given we already had thresholds that had been tested and proven.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s been a comment made by the Minister of Justice this morning about New Zealanders deserving to know who was buttering our bread, and there’s been a number of food references, and there have been a number of kaikōrero in the House—speakers in the House.

So it brings me to clause 3A, the amended interpretation of the definition of “party donation”. So I’ve lead into this kōrero, this discussion, with reference to food. Many of our Māori communities koha kai by way of a donation. So Minister, I’ve made inquiries with my colleagues who did sit on the Justice Committee—I didn’t sit on it—but in my eye and my whakaaro, my mind and my thoughts, looking at this legislation, I know that, in many Māori communities—and this would have bearing and relevance not just to the Māori electorates but also the general electorates and the candidates—a koha or a donation is not always in monetary terms. It’s often, for many of our communities, by way of kai. But also it’s been identified that the definition of “party donation” means a donation, “whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those”.

So Minister, how is this legislation going to address koha by way of donation to a candidate or to the party? Many of us have feasted at hākari when we’re at the marae or at a gathering of a public place, and that is a means of a koha or a donation in many instances. So I note, Minister, that there’s been no interpretation. It appears that there’s been no consideration as to how to define “koha” in a cultural context and whether advice was provided in terms of the information and the definition that’s supplied by the Inland Revenue Department, in terms of quantifying and also qualifying koha.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I can assure the member that we are not making any changes to the equivalency functions, and that unless any of us indulge in kai that exceeds the value of $1,500, then we should all be absolutely fine.

Look, if somebody wants to koha the equivalent of—oh gosh, what would that be these days?—maybe four pigs or four, eight, or 16 maybe, you’d be getting up to about that value where you’d want to note that that is the fiscal equivalent of a $1,500 donation to a candidate. So like you ordinarily would in any context, when you receive a koha at the marae, you note what it is, you look to its value because you know you’ll have to disclose that in your ordinary accounts—the same applies for parliamentarians and politicians, and nothing there changes.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions: the Minister did very often refer to the fact that the people in New Zealand need to know who’s buttering the bread of politicians, and, of course, the obvious point to make is that there are a number of ways in which an individual can help a political party, and giving them some money is one way. The obvious other primary way is to volunteer and offer one’s services.

Nicole McKee: Kaimahi.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: To work, that’s right. So I’m sort of just wondering what the Minister’s not proposing in this bill—it doesn’t propose any changes to that, but, I mean, if somebody was to volunteer their time full-time, that would be worth a hang of a lot more than $15,000 or $5,000 or $1,500, but it’s not something that she and the Government regards as something that the people of New Zealand need to know from a transparency point of view. And so I’m just interested in the logic there behind her thinking.

Secondly, I heard the comments of the Hon Michael Wood around the gap between the party threshold and the electorate threshold and whether this opens a back door for donations from the party to electorates in order to confound the thresholds. And I suppose, again, the obvious point is, well, if people were worried about that there are different ways in which to remedy that. One simple option would be to limit the amount—

Hon Michael Wood: Stop your National Party laundering, that would be one way.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Michael Wood: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I mean, the obvious point would be to say that another alternative would be to limit the amount that a party could donate to an electorate contest. That’s another way of doing it. So did the Minister consider other options, and isn’t that precisely one of the things that the independent panel that she pulled together is supposed to be considering? Minister Wood raises a potential problem, and so the question I have for the Minister is, well, did she consider other alternatives to rectifying that problem, of which there are many, aside from lowering the threshold which happens to have other consequences?

The second point I wanted to make was the Minister referred, very often, to the public polls and the concerns that the public apparently have in some of these polls around the electoral finance regime. I’d like her to comment also on other polls which show a very clear majority of New Zealanders do not favour a switch to taxpayer funding of political parties. And the point I’m making, the fundamental objection we have to this legislation, is by making it more difficult for parties to raise funds there is a logical sort of push or direction towards more taxpayer funding of political parties because parties have to be funded in some way or other. And she referred to Max Rashbrooke, who is clearly in favour of taxpayer funding of political parties rather than fundraising. So given the very strong public poll indications that people don’t favour that, I’d like her to comment on why she thinks some polls are relevant or helpful to her argument and others aren’t, and if she could give some comment on that, I’d be grateful.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yeah, very clear: this bill does not contemplate taxpayer funding of elections, so it’s outside the scope and it’s not something I’m considering. Secondly, to the issue raised around the way in which services by individuals are quantified, so currently in these provisions that we aren’t changing, where a person volunteers their services that they would ordinarily charge for, those are considered political donations and need to be disclosed.

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

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, my question here is on clause 8, which will be amending section 212. I’m going to be a little bit mischief here because I think, you know, if we’re worried about political donations, then we’ve got to think of the mischievousness that could evolve from that.

Minister, it’s about the loans in clause 8(1), and it’s about loans to candidates and loans to a party. In section 212, new paragraph (a)(i), talks about a loan for the use of a candidate’s campaign needs to be divulged unless it comes from a registered lender—in other words, like a bank.

So my question—the mischief question, Minister—is, what happens then if a candidate or a party then gets a bank loan but a potential donor pays off that bank loan, rather than giving their money to the political party? I just wonder whether or not that had been considered. What are your thoughts on that?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes, that’s a mischievous question. I can confirm—I’ve just confirmed with my official—that that is something that they contemplated, and it would be considered a political donation, by which it would need to be disclosed.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Other amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 19 to 42 and the Schedule—other amendments. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister and the officials. I’m a little confused at clauses 19 and 20, which amend the same section. Clause 19 looks to amend section 80(1)(a) by replacing “3 years” with “6 years”, and to amend section 80(1)(b) by replacing “12 months” with “4 years”, but then clause 20 reverses them back again. I’m a little confused about that, and I wonder, Minister, whether or not you could explain what’s going on there.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes, I can see why that would raise questions for the member. In brief, the summary is that clause 19 deals with the extensions out to the 2023 election, and in clause 20, those amendments extend the provisions out to the 2026 election.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

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

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 316 in my name. It amends the start date—the commencement date—of this bill by changing it from January 2023 to 31 December 2023.

My reasoning for this is because election year is upon us. And while we understand that the Minister and the Government is looking for some transparency, we also need to be able to have time for political parties to be able to get themselves in order for this.

I would have thought—the ACT Party would have thought—that being able to implement a new regime, especially in an election year, which is upon us, is rushed and unnecessary; that looking at the transparency that we need should be looked at for the 2026 election; and, in fact, that if we amend the date to 31 December 2023, we would allow all political parties a just way to be able to participate in the 2023 election without fear of fine or consequence.

So Minister, I’d like to know whether or not the Government would support my Supplementary Order Paper to extend the commencement date to 31 December 2023.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Just to acknowledge the member for her thoughts and considerations that have gone into preparing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 316. Two parts, probably, in my response before I inevitably let you down.

First is that when we’ve thought about the design of this as the scheme for next year and how it might practically work, I have confidence in the fact that in terms of the actual reporting—the system that’s currently in place—there are very minor amendments that will be required to be understood by political parties, I understand, in terms of the way that the reporting is conducted.

Then the actual returns for next year’s general election won’t be required until 2024. So there’s certainly a sufficient amount of time to make sure that any of our political parties won’t have to have fear of any negative ramifications as a consequence of stuffing up reporting. Got some confidence there.

In terms of the way that really structured my views here, the problem we’ve got is that if we were to adopt this type of approach, it would be a two-stage commencement process for these political donations. In terms of what we’re trying to do here, I guess, is enhance the public’s confidence in the transparency of our system. This, of course, would create further ambiguity and probably would be counterproductive to the ultimate purpose that we seek to embed with these amendments.

So we won’t be supporting the SOP, but we do have confidence that there will be enough time for political parties to be able to understand how to report and adequate timing by the time those annual returns are required to be in in 2024.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand Labour 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Nicole McKee’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 316 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1

Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. We begin now with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 53, and the Schedule, which are the amendments to the principal Act. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. It is responsible for 15 percent of all deaths in New Zealand at the moment. This Government is determined to do something about it.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill and to speak to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name, on behalf of the National Party, that seek to improve the proposal that’s on the table.

I want to speak to the SOP 312 first of all, which seeks to take into account the proximity of specialist vape retailers when new licenses are announced. This Supplementary Order Paper amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. It addresses concerns about large numbers of specialist vaping retailers clustering together in close proximity to each other and their potential impact on under-age vaping especially.

In July 2022, Local Government New Zealand member councils passed a remit proposed by the Kaipara District Council that called for the retail availability of vapes to be limited to specialist stores and for proximity restrictions. At that time, Kaipara Mayor Dr Jason Smith said, “Without these measures in place, we could end up with more situations like the one in Dargaville, whose main street has 13 places where people can buy vapes. This includes 3 specialist vape stores within 150 metres of each other”.

Vaping is an important vehicle for smoking reduction. However, there are widespread community concerns, including from parents and schools, around the significant increase in under-age vaping. The concern is that large numbers of specialist vape stores in close proximity unnecessarily contribute to under-age vaping, and that the same overall smoking reduction benefits could be achieved without proximity clustering. To date, there is little evidence for market-forces correction.

This SOP provides a mechanism for the Director-General of Health to have regard to the proximity of other specialist vape retailers when granting approval to new specialist retailers. It addresses the concerns of local bodies for greater regulatory control, as well as the concerns of parents, schools, and the community to better manage the significant increase in under-age vaping.

Local Government New Zealand, when they passed this, said this: “New Zealand was late to the party passing laws regulating the sale of vape products and that’s left our communities playing catch up … Between 2018 and 2021, daily vaping rose from 2 percent to nearly 10 percent amongst 14- to 15-year-olds. We can’t afford this trend to continue. While we support the supply of vapes to people wanting to stop smoking, we don’t want to see young people who’ve never smoked in their life taking it up. That means we must stop vapes from being [as] readily available in our dairies, supermarkets, and service stations. We need to get the balance right because even though vaping is less harmful than smoking, we don’t know what the long-term effects are. Councils play a major role in promoting the wellbeing of their communities. Concerns around youth vaping is one issue mayors and councillors hear about time and time again from worried parents.” They then go on to talk about the situation in Dargaville.

This SOP makes a sensible addition to what is already on the table. It is a community-led initiative recommended by Local Government New Zealand. So let’s be clear, then: to vote this down is to vote down a community request that will send a signal that confirms this Labour Government’s ideology of “Government knows best; Wellington knows best” and that they don’t listen or care for the local voice of councils and ratepayers. This SOP improves the vaping environment and we ask the Government and other parties to consider supporting this as part of the bill.

I have two other SOPs, the second of which I’ll talk to. It talks to a schedule change, which was raised in the second reading, that achieves, in my view and in our view, the same goals we all want—we don’t disagree in the goals, but we do disagree in the scheduling. We think what we want to do is we want to be able to achieve those goals with the least harm possible. To do that, we’re proposing that denicotinisation be the first action that kicks off in this bill, and that we give it, roughly, over two years so that we can watch and observe if this is effective or not. Certainly, the modelling suggests it will be, but we should put this to the test before we reduce our hard-working small retailers, businesses, and local dairies, before we eviscerate them from 6,000 down to 600 being able to retail smoke products. We should put this to the test.

This SOP suggests exactly that with a proposal that suggests denicotinisation within 18 months of commencement of the bill, a review period 30 months after commencement so that we can see if denicotinisation has worked or not. If it’s already been successful and mostly achieved, like the modelling suggests it would, the targets we’re looking for, then there is nothing more to do, we don’t need to do any further damage. If not, then we would need to entertain the other two options in this bill: retail reduction and the smoke-free generation. We think this heads us in the direction we want to go and does the least harm possible, particularly to those small retailers and dairy owners who are already severely hurting from ram raids and burglaries and other items. So I’ll come to my other—[Time expired]

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge my learned colleague Dr Shane Reti, the future health Minister of New Zealand, who once again rides to the rescue of this Government. Let’s remember when Dr Shane Reti went off round the world and came back with a medicinal cannabis framework that was better than the Government, with their thousands of bureaucrats, could put together. This is quite rightly, Dr Shane Reti, focusing in on vaping. And I agree with Dr Shane Reti that there is evidence that vaping can help those adults who are addicted smokers to transition to something that is not safe but less harmful, and we welcome that. That gives smokers tools in their tool box to make choices for healthier lifestyles.

Where we are very concerned is the number of young people who are taking up vaping and who have not been smoking traditional cigarettes before. Now, this rings quite closely home to me. I had a constituent appointment recently with two mums who came to talk about their sons, who were being sold vapes at an age they should not have been sold them. At their request, I followed up with the local police, who said this was not on their radar, nor would they follow up on it—the selling of vapes to the under age. So I think this is very timely. It’s come at a time when there does need to be some oversight. I’d ask the Minister whether she will support these two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) around proximity and ensuring those who should not be accessing vapes don’t get access to them. So I’d like to hear from the Minister whether she and her Government will support these very good SOPs from Dr Shane Reti, and, if not, why not?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Thank you, Madam Chair. A very interesting debate that we’re having about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Dr Shane Reti. So I thought it would be worthwhile to add some Green contributions and perspective to this one, and also just to ground what we’re actually talking about.

I think that, actually, in the bill as presented by the Minister, there are new regulations proposed for vaping and for vaping retailers, and there are new considerations for the Director-General of Health—for example, as in the parts that Dr Reti’s SOP 312 proposes.

Currently already in the Minister’s proposal, there is a requirement for the director-general to take into account the geographic location of the retail premises and, secondly, the population in relation to which the retailer carries out their business and, thirdly, any criteria prescribed in regulation. I think it’s important to note that what we’re debating could potentially come out in the regulation process, but also that there already is consideration of the geography and of the population.

I do want to take on board, however, the points that have been made by Dr Reti about the fact that there is the opportunity to consider, particularly proximity of other retail premises already selling these goods. To that effect, I just challenge the logical consistency of the National Party here, because just last night we were talking about local voice—we were talking about that in relation to another drug that causes quite a bit of harm in this country, and we were talking about that in the context of removing special appeals processes for local alcohol policies, which have, of course, allowed massive corporations to stymy local voice in the establishment of local alcohol policies. So I’m just asking for a little bit of logical consistency from the National Party there—hopefully not all too much to ask for.

None the less, I think that this is a question that still goes to the core of the Minister’s contributions, which I hope she’ll soon stand and take a call, which is just to really flesh out the concerns that have been raised by Dr Reti. I’m of two minds—I do feel as though making it explicit could be beneficial, but I also feel as though it could potentially already be encapsulated by virtue of the drafting that’s come to the Chamber today.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I thank members for those contributions. So the Government will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 312. The reason for that is that I don’t believe it achieves what the purpose statement sets out to, and therefore it is ineffective. So the SOP proposes a new section 20P(3), after paragraph (b). So that means that the Director-General of Health would only need to give regard to proximity when the lower total vape sales threshold is. So, I think, due to the technicalities of how it’s been written up, it wouldn’t have the policy intent that the members proposes. There is still the ability for regulations to be passed about the location of vape stores, so the ability to take that into account is a power that the director-general has.

However, I would just note that it is interesting to hear a discussion about the desires of communities to remove vape stores, when we have heard in the debate on this bill previously that the desires of communities to have tobacco—which is far more harmful—removed from their communities through retail reduction is not supported by all members of the House. So I do think, both for the technical way that it is drafted and the lack of consistency and the being tougher on a substance that is less harmful than tobacco, that is why we won’t be supporting SOP 312.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): I thank the Minister, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, for that offering. Can I comment that the policy intent is correct; it was drawn up not by myself but with expertise from the Table Office. So we have that assurance that it is a correct policy intent. I’d like to put that to rest.

Secondly, if she wants to say that the geography component—the descriptor—in this bill does take into account proximity and put that on the Hansard record, that goes some way to alleviating the concerns that we’re bringing to this Table. I agree with the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick that, for removal of doubt, we believe it is useful to explicitly put it there. But, if the member says it is taken into account, put it on the Table; say the geography descriptor in this bill takes into account proximity, and that does make some progress towards that end.

The other Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) I want to talk to is an SOP that further progresses this discussion around under-age vaping. This is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, on behalf of the National Party, that, again, amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. It addresses the widespread community concerns from parents and schools particularly, which my colleague Matt Doocey has talked about as well, around the significant increase in under-age vaping. This SOP remedies this by emphasising the importance of monitoring under-age access to, and the use of, vaping products. This includes legislative compliance with activities such as vaping acquisition, as well as support for local policies preventing under-age vape use in controlled environments such as schools and community facilities.

National supports vaping and the desirable impact it has had for adult smokers; however, we share the concerns of parents, communities, and schools about the increase in under-age vaping—a tripling, in fact. We should be cautious about the nicotine in vaping products and young people. If we look at some of the recent headlines, two months ago, “Christchurch vape retailers fined over under age sales. Seven Christchurch vape retailers fined after selling products to minors.” About a week ago, another article—actually, I’ll come to one from a little bit further back: “A vaping problem of almost epidemic proportions has arrived in Christchurch after first hitting Auckland schools two years ago.” This is from a principal. Principals are alarmed at the growing number of students who vape, with one saying children as young as 13 are using the cigarette substitutes—principal after principal expressing what parents have concern with as well. And then, about a month ago, “Students ripping down vaping detectors in schools as New Zealand battles a teen vaping epidemic.”

Time after time, we’re seeing schools particularly, and concerned parents, saying we are concerned about under-age vaping—and I believe we all are as well. So we are of the view that we need to increase that compliance, increase that monitoring in a safe way around the acquisition of under-age vaping products. This bill does do some things around identification, for example, of online acquisition. We think we should be doing more—that is clearly wrong—and also providing visible support to schools and to parents, saying, “Yes, we agree with you. Under-age vaping is not a good thing. How can we help you? What resources can we bring? What other policies can we bring that say especially the Director-General of Health needs to take this into account? We consider it a problem.” Everyone considers it a problem. We are supporting the voice of schools and communities in asking for further compliance monitoring of under-age vaping.

And, again, to turn this down would be to turn down that voice, to say one hasn’t listened, to say that, no, we know best; we think it’s all going to make its way out in the wash. I don’t think that’s correct. I think we all have concerns for under-age vaping. Let’s make it explicit. Let’s put a flag in the sand and say, “Here’s what we will do to support parents, support schools, and support communities.”

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Well, it’s good to hear that statement on the concerns we all share about under-age vaping. Indeed, it is under age. Specialist vape stores are R18, and vaping is not permitted in schools. I can reassure the member Dr Shane Reti that section 20P(2) enables the Director-General of Health to make other requirements that are in regulation a criteria for the granting of a specialist vape store. So that power sought through Supplementary Order Paper 312 is available were those regulations to be in place. So that’s already a possibility if regulations are made on that issue.

To pick up the member’s other concerns about monitoring, indeed we’re lucky to have good surveys of youth vaping use in New Zealand. So that has meant we have got a timely alert about the increasing youth vaping rates. We have some survey data on the ways in which young people come to access vapes, which is invariably through friends, more so than through stores. Those types of information that the Ministry of Health collect are very helpful in formulating other control measures that can be taken.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): In a previous offering, I put to the Minister, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, that if she believed the geographic descriptor in the bill covered the proximity issue that Local Government New Zealand and the National Party have brought to the Table, put it on the Hansard record here now. Say it is—that it takes proximity into account—and that then sort of alleviates some of the concerns we have. We think it should be more explicit. But, if that is your view and the advice you’re getting, put it on the record here today so that legislative avenues and other policy makers can see that, yes, that is correct; it is already covered with that descriptor.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to go back to the Minister in the chair’s comments around drawing a parallel to Dr Shane Reti’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around proximity and how inconsistent that is with the primary bill before the committee, retrospectively wanting to reduce the number of tobacco retailers from 6,000 to 600. Because what this Government’s got form on is that when the Opposition is right, they start muddying the waters. So, of course, the bill we’re discussing today is retrospective of reducing the amount of tobacco sellers from 6,000 to 600. But, of course, Dr Shane Reti’s SOP is proximity for future growth, so it won’t actually be reducing the number of vapes; all it will be doing is taking into consideration proximity for future growth. So I would ask the Minister how she draws a parallel between the SOP around proximity and a key part of the bill we’re debating today around reducing from 6,000 to 600. And is that a correct comparison?

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d also note a little bit further around the removal or reduction of retailers from 6,000 to 600—the industry has come back and said they would like more time on that. What engagement has the Minister had with small businesses in that regard and is she is open to any means to potentially extend that? I think they asked for a two-year runway just to give them a chance to adjust their business model. We know a lot of small retailers in New Zealand have taken a real pounding over the past couple of years, and we certainly don’t want to see another whole lot go down the gurgler. We obviously don’t want their business model supported by tobacco, but we have to be realistic. That’s the situation we’re in. I ask whether the Minister will be open to affording them a bit more time—two years—to adjust that.

Another thing is around the proximity of vape stores, which has come up, and I speak here as someone who has smoked cigarettes and vapes—I think they’re extremely addictive. I’ve personally found vapes to be a lot more addictive than cigarettes. They have disposable ones out now. They’re $10. They’re very cheap and very accessible. I went to a pharmacy the other day because I’m a healthy boy and I wanted to buy some vitamins to boost my immune system. And, blow me down! Behind the counter, there were vapes. They were selling vapes in a pharmacy and I was pretty shocked to see that.

So I wanted to know what the Minister would do to limit the number of vape stores. The impression I got from that was that anyone could just kind of—it didn’t seem to me that a pharmacy should be selling vapes; pharmacies are meant to be about health and there they were selling these products. I found that pretty concerning. So what limits, as far as retailers or different sorts of retailers, would the Minister look at in regards to who can supply vapes?

I’d also echo the comments that my colleagues have made around what is really a vaping epidemic in our youth. For people who are elderly, like myself and want to transition, cool—quite good in that regard. But the uptake from young people, they don’t have to go through the punishment that smokers do with the smell and people looking at you like you’re a bit of a social leper; they can sneak it in there and do it inside. I think there’s a real issue there. And I just want to reiterate that the good points that Dr Reti has raised in his Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Let me, perhaps, just help the committee with clarity on the two different requirements for retailers. This bill introduces new requirements for tobacco retailers that include criteria on where smoke product retailers should be and include a specific requirement for the Director-General of Health in saying where tobacco retailers are to take into account geography. My reference to section 20P(2) is with respect to vaping store location. The director-general has the power to be able to act on other regulation to specify where specialist vape retailers are. So it is different in keeping with the desire to have risk-proportionate regulation, given that tobacco is the product that has the highest risk to health. In fact, it is New Zealand’s leading cause of preventable death. That is why there is greater restriction on the sale of tobacco than on vapes, but the power to do both vaping and tobacco store geographic restrictions, if they’re supported by regulations, are present in the bill for both.

Returning to some of the other comments around the number of retailers and the time to transition, it is perhaps worth just taking the big picture here. The smoke-free goal was set in 2011, following the report of the Māori Affairs Committee into tobacco harm. Parties on all sides of the House have supported that goal since that time, and we have as a country achieved a great deal of progress. The smoking rate—the only data point I have—is from 2016. Our smoking rate was 16 percent 10 years ago, and it has now come down to 8 percent. So the point is that demand for this product has been going down over time, and what we seek to do, in achieving the smoke-free aim, is go that final bit of the distance to get the smoking rate down beneath 5 percent for all population groups. So in the big picture, this has been a long-term trend in this market, the reduction of demand for tobacco.

In addition to the warning that the setting of the goal in 2011 was to the industry, there has been consultation on this bill. In 2021, we had a discussion document out. We received a wide range of feedback, including from communities impacted by tobacco as well as retailers. This has been a measure that has been signalled, really, for more than decade, and that is the reason why the time to introduce these measures and change is now.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to take a call in this committee of the whole House stage. It was nice to hear from the Minister about the reduced rates of smoking. They have been declining for some time and, as we know, the young people don’t view smoking as cool any more. They see it as something disgusting that older people do that they don’t want to partake in. But what hasn’t been mentioned is the rapid escalation in vaping. We have replaced smoking—which we’ve done such a great job on—with vaping. It is a massively widespread, colourfully packaged, lovely smelling product that—let’s be frank—is aimed at kids, and that is why these two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) proposed by my good colleague Dr Shane Reti are so important today.

One of the things that’s really important is his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 315, especially the insertion of new section 99A(1)(b): “support policies preventing the use of vaping products by people under the age of 18 years”. I wanted to give the Minister—and I’m sure she will have heard these stories as well—this story from my local high school, who have vaping levels at epidemic levels and who are unable to combat the problem because they don’t have any supports. They go to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), who do a wonderful job in their lane, and ASH say to them, “Look, it’s difficult for us.”—and this was about a year ago, so they may have ramped it up a bit since then. But ASH say, “Look, with vaping, we don’t have enough statistics on it. We don’t have enough interventions. We find it really difficult to go into the schools.”

This is what the local principals are telling me, which is that ASH haven’t been able to provide them with the solutions to get kids to kick the nicotine habit. They don’t have any tools. They don’t have any supports. They are, basically, saying to kids who are coming to them saying, “Yes, I was caught at school with my vape, but I am massively addicted because of the high level of nicotine in these products.”—and I can tell this committee that parents have got no idea of the level of nicotine that their children are ingesting when they smoke these vape products.

They have no idea of how much more nicotine is included in these products than there would be in a normal cigarette, and parents are being sold this view that it’s healthy and it’s fine and it’s a healthy alternative to smoking, and this is being relayed to children as well. It’s really important that under SOP 315, the support policies preventing the use of vape products is introduced so that we’re giving schools more tools, more knowledge, and more help to get kids to kick the product but also giving more knowledge to parents and children that these are not safe products—that these do harm your health; they’re not cool—and also giving them more supports around helping them to kick the habit.

Now, the other problem that we’ve got is that if you’re a child walking to school, you’ll pass many vape products on your way—not just specialist vape stores but dairies and now, we’ve heard today, pharmacies as well. Colourful products are right there in front of the store. It’s like we’ve never learnt our lesson from smoking in the first place and here we are again, and that’s why SOP 312 is so very important.

I know that the Minister just talked about new section 20P in clause 13 in the bill, and she mentioned new section 20P(2)(c), so that’s “any requirements in regulations have been met.” So I guess my question to the Minister is: will the Director-General of Health have a direction about the proximity of vape stores to schools? At the moment in my electorate, if you’re a student walking to school, you pass three or four dairies, three or four vape stores, and a pharmacy, who are all selling vape products. It’s in their face when they go in the dairy to buy a drink or some food on the way to school—it’s right there. It’s right in their face, and it’s obviously now in the pharmacies, as well, and it’s also in these special vapes stores.

Look, I support Shane Reti’s SOP around the clustering of these and the amount and the proliferation and the fact that there are so many together, but I specifically want to ask the Minister what regulations will need to be met for the director-general to have a say on where these premises will be, and will that be in locations around schools and the clustering of them on school walking routes, because that is the problem at the moment.

They are being sold to every single day as they walk past all of these schools. They’ve got wrong information that it’s some sort of healthy product that’s a good alternative to smoking. It’s packaged in such a way that it’s attracting them. It smells nice, it looks good, and it’s everywhere in their faces. These are two really good SOPs that, in my mind, will go some way to reducing that risk and provide schools with the tools that they need to reduce the number of students that they’ve got that are vaping, but it will also provide information to parents that this is highly addictive—much more than cigarettes—and that it actually does have a number of health risks. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 315, the Government will be voting against it. The measures contained in it are not required and reflect business-as-usual compliance activities that the Ministry of Health and others already do. I mentioned in my previous remarks the survey of youth vaping, and then the Director-General of Health also has a duty to enforce the Act and make sure that under-18s are not supplied with—

Dr Shane Reti: How’s that going?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —vaping products—well, we’re here to discuss the bill—but compliance activities are under way with that.

With respect to the member’s other question, I think the difference between the member’s points and the author of the SOP’s points perhaps just points to areas where further thought and policy work is required, because the member raises a concern I have heard frequently from communities about the proximity of vape stores to schools. The SOP, of course, deals with the proximity of vape stores to each other. These are two different issues, and clarity on what the policy goal we are trying to seek through it is required, particularly when there might be legal risk incurred from taking either move. So the reason for not supporting the vaping proximity SOP is because the powers to set that regulation are already there, and for the director-general to make decisions on it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. It’s good to hear from all in the Chamber that there is an ongoing concern about the need for greater vaping regulation. I think it is really important to unpack, as we all have been doing throughout this debate on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of, particularly, Dr Shane Reti, but also in the Associate Minister of Health’s responses, whether some of these SOPs do what they say on the tin. Because that is, of course, the core thing that we, as legislators, should really be trying to pull apart, to road test, and to make sure that we’re actually doing our job here.

So, again, I just want to really pull this back to the fact that right now, inside new section 20P, inserted by clause 13, we have a requirement, under subsection (3) for the director-general to take into account the geographic location of retail premises, the population of that geographic area, and any other criteria that ends up being prescribed in regulations.

As I’ve already spoken about with regard to SOP 312, I do think that there is some validity in having some explicit requirement to consider proximity of other retail premises to each other, as the Minister has made really clear, but I am quite challenged by some of the things that are laid out in the explanatory note for SOP 315, but then actually looking through the clauses themselves, as proposed, to see whether they will do what, again, the kind of rhetoric that we’ve been hearing and debating today actually outlines.

First and foremost, there is kind of a bit of a difference between enforcement and monitoring, and, as the Minister has already outlined, business as usual is compliance monitoring. I think what would have beefed this up is actually the requirement for funding, for example, or for resourcing for that compliance monitoring. If we had that budgetary requirement inside of that SOP, then I might be of a different mind and the Greens may be of a different mind, because in lieu of that, we are kind of confronted with just another new clause which continues to outline what should already be being done, and, as the Minister has already said, is currently being done.

I’d also point to the contributions made by other members, particularly around some of the more colourful vapes, some of the disposable vapes, and some of the cheaper vapes. To that effect, I guess I’m wondering if I could test the committee’s interest in, perhaps, supporting an SOP that we could all draft on the fly to get rid of disposable vapes, because they, of course, tend to be precisely those which are cheaper, which are easier to access, which are colourful, and, therefore, more attractive to younger people.

On that point around attractiveness to younger people, in particular, I think it is really important, in reference to some contributions made by my learned colleague Erica Stanford, to state that it is currently illegal to provide or to sell vaping products to under-18s. That is the baseline law. It is illegal to do that and it has been illegal to do that, actually only since we went about introducing new regulation legislation last term. Prior to that, again, as I said on Tuesday night as we were debating the second reading of this bill, it was entirely self-regulated, and that is perhaps why we’ve seen such a problem with the proliferation of these vapes.

All of that said, I think it really boils down to the reality that all of us can accept the health advice that a substance or the way in which we administer a substance can cause harm. The next step from that has to be how do we, as, kind of, responsible regulators, in keeping with the evidence, and talking to the experts that are out there, take a public health approach to think about the entire ramifications of whatever legislative response we may be putting in place. For example, we know that criminal prohibition of substances pushes them underground. We had a very similar experience with knee-jerk responses with the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill, which pushed substances that were temporarily licensed underground, and, as a result, we saw immense harm in the form of at least 50 New Zealanders consuming, particularly, synthetic cannabinoids, and dying as a result of consuming those substances which did not go away, which did not get rid of the addiction, but only pushed them to get that supply underground, because the demand did not go away.

After we take that kind of public health approach and thinking about the whole sociological environment, it’s then a matter of how we legislate and regulate effectively to get those outcomes that we’ve said that we want to get per the public health, which, obviously, builds on the medical reality. To that effect, again, I think that we are getting the balance largely right in this legislation, but I am hearing that there is a greater need to focus on vaping. I’m hearing from the Minister that there is also a focus to that effect, but, again, I just say, particularly, in response to the ideas that have been put forward by Dr Reti, that we really do, and the Greens appreciate some of the thinking that’s gone into it, but we do hold some concerns that these, as they’ve been drafted, do not do what they say on the tin. I want to kind of say that I’m hearing across the committee that we’re all largely in agreement, and if we want to, we can draft that SOP on banning disposable vapes.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to put a couple of questions to the Minister in the chair, Ayesha Verrall. But before I do, I note the Supplementary Order Paper 313 in her name, which seeks to amend clause 15A, which I think ties in quite nicely with one of the issues that the Health Committee grappled with in terms of the internet connectivity to a particular site rather than it being a little bit ambiguous. So that seems like a sensible suggestion that the Minister has put forward.

I do acknowledge that the Minister has given similar responses to what appear to be the same questions that have been put to her. I would, however, like her to reflect on new section 20M, inserted by clause 13, and it relates to the retail premises. One of the changes in the bill is one where it moves the specified number in terms of the limit from regulation through to being specified specifically in the legislation. So I was interested in whether the Minister was comfortable with that particular change, given that submitters had referred to that.

The other is just the level of cap being set at 600 whereas the regulatory impact statement actually went a little bit more conservatively around that and went at a lower level, from what I understand—so, seeking a lower threshold. So I really, in terms of perhaps when the Minister takes her call to answer the next batch of questions—if she could just reflect perhaps on the level of comfort around those changes in the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, a very quick contribution. One is to ask the Minister’s reconsideration around the proximity argument around vaping stores. I do appreciate the distinction that she’s making, but what I think unites it all is what I would term as “ubiquity”, and Dr Reti and others have well talked about it and she knows—the Minister, that is—herself just the sheer ubiquity of these stores now. I think, in my own electorate in Tāmaki, of the number of little dairies which are dividing off spaces to, basically, turn them into vaping stores—it is ubiquitous.

The reason why I think we need to support Supplementary Order Paper 315 in particular is that we cannot simply rely on the advice coming out of the Ministry of Health—and that’s no disrespect to the individual advisers, but I personally feel we need to have it quite explicitly written into legislation. The reason I say that, Minister, is I was chair of the Health Committee when vaping was coming on board. There was a great push at the time that this was going to be the replacement for cigarettes and nicotine in particular, and a number of us on that committee, myself included, were saying, “Well, what is the evidence around the use of vaping? What is the harm here, as laymen or laypeople?” There was a concern that this was going to become ubiquitous, this was going to become the new fad, and we were told there’s no evidence. Now, at one level, that’s true because it was new, but at another sign—and, again, it’s hard for me to phrase this without trying to throw aspersions at the ministry, that does a good job, but, in effect, they said, “No, this should be OK.”

Well, it’s demonstrably not OK—it’s demonstrably not OK. This has become the “cool thing”, for want of a pretty old phrase, for young people to use it everywhere. Parents in my electorate are almost literally pulling their hair out. There was a public meeting recently where hundreds of parents turned up to hear about the harms of vaping, from the experts but, obviously, reflecting what they’re seeing in their children.

I think the reason we need to support the likes of Supplementary Order Papers 315 and 312 is that some of the suggestions at the moment to put detectors into schools and so forth are just not going to work. As principals and parents have pointed out to me, as soon as the alarm goes off, the vapes are hidden in a whole range of places. It’s just not helpful. We need to be getting in first and foremost on that educative front. Secondly, we need to address it by reducing that—I’m sorry to keep using the word, Minister, but I think it’s critical to the argument and the question I’m trying to put to you: it is just so ubiquitous we have to pull it back, and a part of that is, I think, the ministry accepting, I would suggest, and others, myself included—actually, not myself included, I think for others who said, “This will be fine. This is just a great anti-tobacco smoking product; all else will be fine.” Well, it’s turned out to be demonstrably the opposite, and particularly parents in my electorate, what I’m hearing, and, I’m sure, all MPs, they’re crying out for some assistance.

So if proximity is based on schools or proximity’s based on just how frequent businesses around—I don’t, in some ways, particularly care; we have to pull this back. So the two questions—well, actually, the last observation is, ultimately, you can take nicotine out. Well, some will make the argument that there’s no nicotine in vapes. Well, that’s true until you get some liquid nicotine and just mix it in. That’s pretty simple and easy to do. So we’ve got wider, wider problems here, which then feed back into our smoke-free approach.

I suppose that the fundamental question is: can she see, with the erroneous advice, if you will, given to us—granted, five, six years ago—there is a need to move into very strict primary legislation for what the ministry must do, so that there’s no wiggle room or mistakes. And, secondly, and I think I do know the answer: does she appreciate the urgency by which we need to address this growing—I don’t want to use the word “pandemic”; we’ve used it far too much, but, you know, there is an urgency here. It’s only my opinion, Minister, but the window’s closing for us to be able to nip this in the bud, which is probably a very bad cannabis pun or something, I don’t know.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you. It’s good to hear the comments of concern around vaping, from across the committee. I’m going to keep my comments with respect to the bill, but I am very happy to talk in other fora about education that the Ministry of Health has under way on vaping and its monitoring and compliance work.

With respect to advice on vaping, I think two things. One, it is true, and advice has been correct—and we’ve heard statements to this effect in the Chamber today—that vaping is less harmful than tobacco, but there have not been long-term studies because there has not been long-term experience with vapes. None the less, the fact that vaping is addictive and that that changes the behaviour of young people in terms of seeking it out—we’ve heard from school principal that they’re concerned about the behaviour of children and their ability to concentrate in class because of addiction. So I think that is the basis on which we can continue to work to address vaping-related harm.

I want to come to Mr Utikere’s comments about section 20M. Indeed, that’s correct that that was the recommendation of the Health Committee—as he would know, he chaired the select committee—which was to reduce the retail reduction number which was initially proposed. The bill as originally drafted said that that should be done by regulation. This is now in the primary legislation as 600. That 600 number is one that, I think, reflects the intent when the bill was drafted, but I believe some of the modelling supported an even lower figure than 600. I think one of the things in moving the number into primary legislation is that it’s clearly less flexible, it’s a bigger deal to go back and fix it once it’s in primary legislation. So the number of 600 being in there reflects the fact that one wouldn’t want to overshoot and make it overly onerous, so that’s why the 600 has been moved into primary legislation. Indeed, I am comfortable with the committee’s recommendation on that. That is why it’s reflected in the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I am going to take Dr Shane Reti, but I warn him that I will have to interrupt his speech, if he’s still speaking, to report progress at 5 minutes to 1.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to address—the Minister has said that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 315 is unnecessary because it is primarily just part of the ordinary business for the ministry. The simple response is: how’s that going for us? Clearly, not doing so well. And to address what my colleague was saying around the SOP not specifically mentioning funding, my intention was for it to be inherent that, of course, there would need to be funding and resources to support the increased monitoring. But I take her point.

Can I point for the first time to the Minister’s SOP 313, which came into the Order Paper—gosh, the ink was still drying on the second reading. On the website it’s declared “Proposed amendments”, and I ask her to talk to that—why she felt this wasn’t well covered in the Health Committee, the changes that are there in SOP 313; particularly the commentary around the change to commencement for herbal cigarettes—where did that come from? I don’t recall deep discussions in select committee, yet, suddenly, mysteriously, 24 to 48 hours after we’ve just had the second reading, it is suddenly in her SOP 313. So can she talk to that, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Matt Doocey—two minutes.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, that’s a great choice. Thank you very much. Look, I want to talk to Dr Shane Reti’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 314. Once again, you’ve got a hard-working Opposition MP who’s doing all the heavy lifting around proposed legislation. You know, it just beggars belief when we’ve just got a bloated bureaucracy of armies of officials that couldn’t write the succinct drafting that Dr Shane Reti has. So when you look at SOP 314, it’s looking at what we do first on that next step for Smokefree 2025.

Now, in the Government’s view, they want to reduce the number of tobacco suppliers through dairies from 6,000 to 600 first. The reality is, with this Government’s soft on crime approach, there’s dairies closing down every day without this legislation because they just do not feel safe in their workplaces, and that’s an absolute blight on this current Government. But I would like to hear from the Minister why she would not look at and have interest in Dr Shane Reti’s proposal in SOP 314, because I would argue it’s actually a very pragmatic way forward. If we can look at reducing nicotine in cigarettes and use that as the heavy lifting of this tool to move forward for Smokefree 2025, then why would we not look at that for a period that Dr Shane Reti says, for a number of months, and then, after that, have a review around the implementation? Dr Shane Reti has very clearly said if denicotisation does not work, then we would pragmatically look at the reduction of outlets for tobacco sales.

But, I think, at a time when there is a lot of pressure on our dairy outlets and our small retailers—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Electoral Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and reports no progress—hang on; yes. I move that the report be adopted.

SPEAKER: OK, the question—sorry, did we get two bills? There should be three altogether.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Apologies, Mr Speaker and to the House. I will go back. The committee has considered the Electoral Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and reports no progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Thursday)