Tuesday, 2 May 2023

TUESDAY, 2 MAY 2023

TUESDAY, 2 MAY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 10 to Minister, 22 February

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to an oral question on 22 February 2023.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI: On 22 February, in answer to a supplementary question to question No. 10, I stated that: “I already have. It is a decision for the Ministry of Education.” I subsequently became aware that my office did have input into the timing of the release of the data through email correspondence with officials at the Ministry of Education. This correspondence has been released under the Official Information Act.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Zakaria Hazaranejad requesting that the House urge the Government to create a visa to allow the immediate family members of former refugees’ partners to immigrate to New Zealand

petition of Aly Cook requesting that the House call for a royal commission of inquiry into the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine use in New Zealand

petition of Brian Webb requesting that the House entrench water assets based upon at least 80 percent of the House to prevent the privatisation of public water assets, and tax any water that is sold overseas at $1 per litre

petition of Kirstin Murray requesting that the House increase the GST threshold to $75,000

petition of Susan Durno requesting that the House pass legislation to increase community policing in Wainuiōmata

petition of Craig Dawson requesting that the House recommends the Minister of Health and the Minister of Internal Affairs urge Fire and Emergency New Zealand and St John to allow Ōmārama First Response to respond to 111 medical and personal alarm calls

petition of Annette Moody requesting that the House require total transparency in invoicing by body corporates under the Unit Titles Act of all inclusions in levies

petition of Huck Smith-Haeata on behalf of the Free The People Party requesting that the House urge the Government to amend the Trespass Act.

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

CLERK:

2021-22 annual reports for:

Capital and Coast District Health Board

Health and Disability Commissioner

New Zealand Conservation Authority

Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Limited

Tairāwhiti District Health Board

West Coast District Health Board

Long-term Insights Briefings for:

Ministry for Primary Industries The future of New Zealand Aotearoa’s food sector: Exploring global demand opportunities in the year 2050

Statistics New Zealand Aotearoa New Zealand: Empowered by data

Controller and Auditor-General Draft Annual Plan 2023/24

He Pou a Rangi—Climate Change Commission Erratum to annual report for the year ending 30 June 2022.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on:

the Business Payment Practices Bill

the Department of Internal Affairs Long-term Insights Briefing 2022

petition of Flick Electric Co. reform of New Zealand’s electricity market

report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Business Payment Practices Bill

report of the Environment Committee on the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Deposit Takers Bill

reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on:

the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill

the international treaty examination on the framework agreement on the establishment of the International Solar Alliance

report of the Justice Committee on the petition of Free Speech Union: Remove clause 15 from the counter-terrorism bill

report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on:

the alterations of the 2022-23 Appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

the 2023-24 draft budgets for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

the reports of the Petitions Committee on:

petition of Dan Liu: Allow anonymous birth and install safe haven baby hatches to save lives

petition of Jackie Foster: Inquiry into a complaint made to the Independent Police Conduct Authority

petition of Sandra Bianciardi: Urgently stop National Library from sending thousands of books to the Philippines.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for the second reading. The report of the Officers of Parliament Committee, the report on the international treaty examination, and the briefing are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “it’s not right for households to be tightening their belts if the Government doesn’t too”, and will he rule out introducing a new tax on capital while he is the Minister of Finance?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): To the first part of the question, I always agree with the Prime Minister. To the second part of the member’s question, the Government has made a series of commitments on what we would do and what we would not do on tax this term, and those are being upheld. The Prime Minister’s made clear that there will be no major new taxes in the Budget such as a capital gains tax or wealth tax.

David Seymour: Why can’t he match Jacinda Ardern’s promise not to introduce a capital gains tax while in his current position?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I thank the member for his confidence that I will be returned as the Minister of Finance after the election. There’s one more Budget to go in this term.

David Seymour: How is it possible that his Government is spending $11 billion, or 68 percent, more on health and $5 billion, or 38 percent, more per year on education since 2018, but fewer kids are attending school, fewer are getting university entrance (UE), and waiting lists for operations are longer than five years ago?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Among the various suggestions that the member is making there, all of them could be challengeable. In particular, the member might want to wish away the impacts of COVID on issues like school attendance, but actually this Government has work in place to improve that significantly.

David Seymour: Why would New Zealanders agree to any new Government implementing a new tax on capital when this Government has increased core Crown expenditure by 60 percent, compared with general inflation of 20 percent in the last five years, and yet the trains don’t work, the roads are potholed, fewer criminals are in jail, fewer kids are attending school, and more people are queuing for operations?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is asking a hypothetical question.

David Seymour: Does the Minister of Finance think it’s a serious matter that he has increased expenditure by 60 percent and isn’t prepared to get up and defend the performance of his Government in simple things like how many kids are attending school, how many are passing UE, how many operations are getting done, how long is the waiting list for hospitals?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member did ask a hypothetical question. I spend a lot of time in this House talking about how proud I am of the record of this Government, of the fact that we went through COVID and came out the other end in a better place than most countries around the world, with one of the lowest excess mortality rates, with our economy 6 percent larger now than it was before COVID, with more people in work, with record low unemployment, and with our net debt levels being among the lowest in the OECD with countries that we compare ourselves with. I am extremely proud of our record, Mr Seymour.

David Seymour: Does the Minister of Finance believe that unrealised capital gains on assets like houses should be taxed and, if not, does he agree with David Parker, who used exactly that assumption to claim that the wealthy pay half as much tax as middle-income New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to my primary answer. The Prime Minister has been clear that the upcoming Budget will not include a wealth tax or a capital gains tax.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What support is the Government providing to help New Zealanders with their winter energy costs?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): On 1 May, the winter energy payment started rolling out, once again, to over 1 million New Zealanders. For people receiving New Zealand superannuation, a main benefit, or veteran’s pension, they will receive an extra $20.46 per week if they are single with no dependent children, or an extra $31.82 per week for couples or people with children, from now until October. This is the sixth year where low-income and older New Zealanders have benefited from this Government’s winter energy payment. This extra boost will provide more cost of living relief over the winter months.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: Who benefits from the winter energy payment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Around 1.2 million adults receive the winter energy payment every year. The payment goes to those receiving New Zealand superannuation, a main benefit, or veteran’s pension. This Government introduced the winter energy payment to boost people’s incomes over winter to help with the cost of heating so that they could have a warm home, and help to prevent respiratory illnesses during the winter season. We therefore targeted the winter energy payment to older people, because they are more susceptible to ill health in winter, and beneficiaries as they are more likely to be on the lowest incomes.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: What difference does the winter energy payment make?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The winter energy payment provides a boost of $450 in total for single people with no dependent children, and $700 for couples or those with dependent children, over the winter months. Analysis has suggested that those who received the winter energy payment spent more on energy, were more likely to say their income meets their needs, required less hardship assistance, and experienced improvements in some health and wellbeing outcomes. On top of that, we’ve heard directly from people who have received it that this payment means they can afford to have a warm house and avoid getting ill.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: What else has the Government done to support New Zealanders with the cost of living?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We introduced the winter energy payment as part of the Families Package in 2017, which also included the Best Start tax credit and increases to the family tax credit and accommodation supplement. Since then, we have continued to increase support available to families through increasing access to childcare assistance, further increases to Working for Families, lifting the minimum wage, increasing main benefit rates, and increasing dental grants. As a result of this Government’s changes, 356,000 beneficiaries will be better off by, on average, $142 per week during the 2023 winter period compared to 2017 policy settings, including 109,000 families with children who are better off by $222 per week on average. As I’ve said before in this House at this time of year, “Winter is Coming”.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. One million New Zealanders will receive more cost of living relief through the winter energy payment. From 1 May to 1 October this year, single people with no dependent children will receive an extra $20.46 per week, while couples and people with children will receive an extra $31.82 per week. This is on top of the increase to superannuation and the veteran’s pension in the past month, which saw those over 65 receive $102.84 more in total a fortnight, and a single person living alone, an extra $66.86 a fortnight.

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to farmers and tradies, who are being forced by her Government to pay even more in tax whenever they buy a new ute?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s really important to keep this issue in perspective. The Clean Car Discount has been incredibly successful in the long run. Because of the carbon emission reductions that we are able to achieve through this scheme, every New Zealander will be better off. If we don’t have an initiative like this that is successful, in the longer run we can expect higher fuel prices, and that would not be beneficial for farmers or tradies.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that someone buying a new Toyota Hilux will now pay an extra $2,645 in tax, meaning the total tax on a Hilux is now $4,370 just so Michael Wood can subsidise Teslas?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, it’s really important to keep this in perspective. As New Zealanders, we have seen firsthand the impacts of climate change. We have made commitments internationally to reduce our carbon emissions. This scheme is incredibly successful. Most people, I think it’s fair to say, are not out every year buying a new vehicle that will incur the tax that that member is talking about. In the longer term—in the longer term—New Zealand is better off.

Christopher Luxon: Can she rule out her Government introducing a capital gains tax or a wealth tax?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes.

Christopher Luxon: Will she confirm that she will not rule out a capital gains tax or wealth tax? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to—I’m going to ask this side of the House to calm down. There were at least three interjections in that question. I didn’t even hear it, so I’m going to ask the—[Interruption] Yeah, and it doesn’t help when we get interjections while I’m on my feet. Christopher Luxon, can you ask that question again.

Christopher Luxon: So can we confirm that her Government will rule out a capital gains tax or wealth tax?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve made it very clear that there is no intention through the Budget or for the remainder of this term to introduce a capital gains tax or a wealth tax. Every political party will have their tax policy before the next election, but that is not a matter for us to discuss here—not this term.

Christopher Luxon: Does she think it’s right that Kiwis are paying more than $100 million extra in tax every single day than in 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Wages have gone up, and hence why there is more of a tax take.

Christopher Luxon: Why will she not commit to giving income tax relief to hard-working Kiwis so they can keep more of what they earn—because isn’t it their money, not yours?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’ve been very clear that we will not be making any tax changes over the course of this year. What we are concerned about is that when political parties are talking about potential tax cuts, they are, effectively, also talking about taking money away from there. I think that the Opposition needs to be clear about what services they plan on cutting.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Acting Prime Minister give us an assurance that GST will not be increased?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We can be absolutely trusted to not increase GST.

David Seymour: Does the Acting Prime Minister stand by her statement that “There are … a number of New Zealanders who are driving around with utes in Auckland where they’re not always needed”, and, if so, can she explain to New Zealanders what are the right and the wrong and the legitimate and the illegitimate reasons for buying and driving a ute?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I said very clearly that some in Auckland have very fair and reasonable reasons for driving around in a ute. That’s what I said. But if the policy that we’re talking about helps them to consider or make the transition to an electric vehicle, then why would we not continue to do that?

David Seymour: If some in Auckland don’t have a legitimate use for driving a ute, can the Prime Minister explain who are these people in Auckland who have a ute they shouldn’t have?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I didn’t say that.

David Seymour: Does the Minister have confidence in her Minister of Justice Kiritapu Allan’s ability to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Race Relations Commissioner, after it was revealed that the Race Relations Commissioner and his partner had donated to the Minister’s campaign—back in the previous election—and she did not report it as a conflict to the Cabinet Office? If she can have confidence, can she explain how, and how low are the standards now?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Minister of Justice has given the delegation for the Race Relations Commissioner to her Associate Minister of Justice.

Christopher Luxon: How is it that this Government can find money for Teslas, consultants, and communications staff, but it just can’t let Kiwis keep more of what they earn?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It is finding money to reduce carbon emissions so that we can actually respond to our international commitment to addressing climate change and what it means for New Zealand.

Question No. 4—Education

4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made on reducing class sizes for years 4 to 8?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Last month, I announced that this Government is reducing class sizes in the latter primary and intermediate school years to improve education outcomes for kids. By the beginning of 2025, class ratios for years 4 to 8 will move from a ratio of one teacher to 29 students to a ratio of one teacher to 28 students, and this is a meaningful start. With an extra 320 full-time teachers in primary and intermediate schools around the country, half of these teachers will be in classrooms from next year.

Angela Roberts: Why is the Government focusing on reducing class sizes for years 4 to 8?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Years 4 to 8 are critical learning years for our kids, with research showing that this is a time when maths and literacy achievement can begin falling behind. The 2019 National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement found that, in writing, 63 percent of students were achieving at the expected level in year 4, dropping to only 35 percent achieving as expected by year 8. For reading, the corresponding numbers were 63 percent at year 4, dropping to 56 percent by year 8. That’s why we are targeting these years with more teaching resource to help turn this around.

Angela Roberts: How does this support the Government’s work on lifting rates of maths and literacy?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Reducing the number of students in each class will take some pressure off teachers and allow them to spend more one-on-one time with each student. It means they can focus on what they do best: teaching our young people the basics well so that they can go on to succeed.

Angela Roberts: What further work has been done on class sizes?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Alongside the Government’s immediate commitment to reducing class sizes, a ministerial advisory group will also be set up to look at class sizes over the longer term. Reductions in class sizes are resource-intensive, so we need a deeper understanding of the key areas where change is most needed and what the costs are. But we have heard from the sector that this is urgent, so I’ve set up this group—made up of experts—to do this work at pace.

Erica Stanford: What would she say to the principal of a primary school who contacted me to say that under her proposal he will gain 0.2 of a teacher for 300 students, but will lose a staffing allocation of 0.15 of a teacher through the loss of the inquiry time staffing allocation—which she is disestablishing—which gives him one teacher for two weeks per year in two years’ time?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That is completely incorrect. As the member has been told in the answer to a written parliamentary question, schools do not get the inquiry time; that goes to Kāhui Ako. That is actually not correct.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he think that New Zealanders are being fairly taxed; if not, what consideration, if any, is the Government giving to reducing the tax paid by average-wage earners?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): There is always room for improvement in the fairness of New Zealand’s tax system. As the Prime Minister has said, this Government has made a series of commitments on what we would do and what we would not do on tax this term, and those are being upheld.

Nicola Willis: Have Government officials been asked to provide advice on possible new taxes, such as, for example, a wealth tax on unrealised capital gains?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday and in his speech last week, we consider a range of issues around tax on an ongoing basis. Information about those will be released at an appropriate time.

Nicola Willis: How can that information be Budget-sensitive when the Prime Minister has explicitly ruled out introducing these taxes in the Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I didn’t say it was Budget-sensitive.

Nicola Willis: Why won’t he just come clean with New Zealanders about the consideration Cabinet has given to a new capital gains tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Governments of all shapes, sizes, and colours over the years give consideration to a range of policy issues and decide to announce those, not announce those, go ahead with them, not go ahead with them as conditions dictate. The member knows; she was an adviser to a Government who said that they would rule out increasing GST and then promptly came in and increased GST.

Nicola Willis: Why, if the Minister is sincere in his commitment that the Government won’t introduce new taxes, did the Cabinet, as recently as three months ago—

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the approach that you take around questions, but calling into question a member of the House’s sincerity is something that has been ruled out on many occasions.

Chris Penk: Speaking to the point of order, Sir. It was a conditional statement for rhetorical effect. It wasn’t saying that the Minister wasn’t sincere, it just said that if he is, then how can X, Y, Z.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to that point of order, conditional statements for rhetorical effect are also out of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When you’re ready. Very good. That question is ruled out of order.

Nicola Willis: Why, if the Government is committed to not introducing new taxes, was Cabinet considering a new tax as recently as three months ago?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do not disclose discussions that take place at the Cabinet table. The member should be very careful with the kind of accusations she chooses to make.

Nicola Willis: Can the Minister rule out the possibility that Government officials have been working on tax policy that will inform Labour Party manifesto?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can rule out the fact that Government officials would work on anything that was for a particular party’s manifesto. Government officials work on a range of issues at different times across the parliamentary term. Any information that they do work on is, obviously, the subject of Official Information Act requests, and, in the case of things that relate to the Budget, the subject of the Budget proactive release.

Nicola Willis: Why does the Minister continue to dance on the head of this particular pin and not just come clean with New Zealanders about exactly what his Government is cooking up on tax?

SPEAKER: I’m going to leave it to the Minister whether he wants to respond or not, but that last bit was definitely out of order.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister has been crystal clear: there will be no wealth tax and no capital gains tax or no major tax changes in the Budget. That is what I am responsible for as the Minister of Finance. The member might want to consider the impact of her proposed tax policy, which would see close to $11 billion needing to be found, and, every single time, when something’s put to her about what will be cut, she says, “No, it won’t be cut.” It doesn’t add up; the member is right in the middle of Paul Goldsmith’s Bermuda Triangle.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he think that the wealthiest New Zealanders are paying their fair share of tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I think there are always things that we can do to improve the fairness of our tax system.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How is it fair that teachers, midwives, and checkout operators across this country pay more than double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The information that the member is referring to came from the high-wealth individuals tax report. I want to acknowledge Minister David Parker and the Inland Revenue Department for the work that they did on what is a world-leading study in that regard. I welcome the fact that it is creating debate on the issues that the member is raising.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with revenue Minister, David Parker, who said—and I quote—“If income earned from capital is taxed at a lower rate than the tax people pay on their income from salaries and wages, then that tax advantage will be concentrated at the top end. This study proves [that] that is what is happening in New Zealand.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is a factual statement.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he comfortable with an Aotearoa New Zealand where the wealthiest 311 families hold more wealth than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not comfortable with the level of inequality that I have seen in New Zealand, and one of the reasons I came to Parliament was to address that issue. What we have done while we have been in Parliament is we have taken great strides towards that and to making sure that we do have a fair tax system and that we have a fairer society. As I said in answer to the primary question, I believe there is always more we can do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Would he like to see someone with wealth in excess of $276 million pay a greater effective tax rate than 8.9 percent, where a nurse, for example, earning $80,000 has an effective tax rate of 22 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said in answers to earlier questions, there will not be major tax changes in the Budget. Obviously, consideration can be given now to the report that has been produced.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think that the revenue from a wealth tax or a capital gains tax would allow Aotearoa to better address our approximate $100 billion infrastructure deficit in transport, health, housing, education, and climate action?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m extremely proud of the fact that this Government has increased year-on-year expenditure on infrastructure. We inherited a massive infrastructure deficit caused by nine years of under-investment, and we have increased that by billions of dollars. We now have a $64 billion infrastructure programme over the next few years. I believe that investment is appropriate. I would like to see that investment continue.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does she agree with the NZ Herald report on 30 April 2023 that there is a nursing shortage, and has she asked for advice on whether giving new nursing graduates in their first five years an effective pay rise of $4,500 a year by making student loan repayments for them would attract more Kiwis into nursing?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question, I agree New Zealand needs to recruit and train more nurses. In answer to the second part of the question, no, I have not commissioned advice on expanding the existing Voluntary Bonding Scheme.

Dr Shane Reti: Is there a crisis in the nursing workforce?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There is one person who is desperate to prove that there is a crisis in the nursing workforce, and resorting to misrepresenting nursing figures; when I told him that the numbers we had were not fit for the purpose he then used them for.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm that she had no idea how many of the 19,000 nurses she said had left employment in the public health system over five years were later reemployed, and, if so, why then did she claim on One News, “That’s the number of nurses [who have] changed jobs in the last five years,”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is inclusive of the number of nurses that have changed jobs. So, yes, that statement was correct. As I have said repeatedly in my answer to written parliamentary questions from him, that data is the number who have left jobs, either to change jobs within our health system or to leave. He has got himself into this mess.

Dr Shane Reti: Why, when many report there is a crisis in the nursing workforce, won’t she support National’s policy to give nurses student loan relief in exchange for bonding for five years?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There is already a Voluntary Bonding Scheme in place open to nurses and midwives. It is targeted. But I want to point out that there are gaps that National needs to address in their proposal if they are to stand by their claim that students are better off by $22,000. National has long opposed the Government’s fee-freeze policy. That means the net benefit to those students would be much lower: $13,000, and equivalent to the Voluntary Bonding Scheme that already exists.

Dr Shane Reti: How many New Zealand - trained nurses have moved to Australia in the last five years?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We do not have that data, but we do know—we have some very clear facts about our nursing workforce. We know that the number with annual practising certificates is up and at its highest ever. We know that we have achieved historic increases in nursing pay. We have increased the pay for graduate nurses by 35 percent, and more than 40 percent for senior nurses. I’ll tell you what, Dr Reti, if you want to give nurses a pay rise, give them a pay rise.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent reports has he seen on worker and visitor arrivals into New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I have some excellent news to share with the House in response to the member’s question. New Zealand has welcomed over 1.6 million people to visit, study, or work in New Zealand since our border fully opened in July of last year. We’ve approved 110,000 workers to come to New Zealand, including nearly 55,000 workers on the Accredited Employer Work Visa and around 54,000 working holiday makers. We’re also seeing encouraging numbers of tourists choosing to visit New Zealand: 1.2 million people from visa waiver countries have been granted a New Zealand Electronic Travel Authority to be able to travel to New Zealand, and an additional 220,000 visitor visa applications have been approved.

Ibrahim Omer: What is behind the strong figures we are seeing in these areas?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: These figures show that New Zealand remains a highly desirable destination location for both workers and tourists. This is reflected in the OECD’s recently launched Indicators of Talent Attractiveness index, which ranks the ability of countries to attract and retain different types of skilled migrants. New Zealand ranks number one for highly educated workers. It’s good to see that after a period of transition as we implemented the immigration rebalance after border closures, we are now successfully attracting people with the right skills, while at the same time boosting investment in domestic skills and training, and prioritising the lifting of wages and stamping out of migrant exploitation.

Ibrahim Omer: How will this benefit our economy?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This is incredibly important at a time when there is a global labour shortage and these additional workers are invaluable for New Zealand businesses to thrive. This will also be welcome news for our tourism and hospitality sectors and will add a much-needed boost to many businesses around the country.

Ibrahim Omer: What steps is the Government taking to ensure immigration settings remain fit for purpose?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our Government’s approach in immigration remains to continue to listen and work with key stakeholders—including employers, unions, and the immigration professionals who work in our sector—to help to meet our reconnection and rebalance objectives. We have shown that we are pragmatic in implementing our policies. We’ll continue to carefully monitor our immigration settings to make sure we have the visitors, skills, and workers that our sectors and businesses need to sustainably grow their businesses and our economy. We’ll also keep working to make sure that migrant workers are paid well and treated fairly.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he agree with his predecessor Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s statement that “Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those as ratepayers within their respective communities of interest”; if so, does he think granting mana whenua representatives half the seats on regional representative groups for water services entities reflects the interests of all ratepayers equally?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: On behalf of the Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, mana whenua representatives having half the seats on the regional representative groups reflects that Māori have a special interest in water resources. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2013. The member is confusing the role of regional representative groups and the ownership interests of the asset. The role of the representative group is to provide representation to appoint a competency-based board that would run the entity and provide strategic advice.

Simon Court: Can the Minister explain how he made the leap from a court case in which Bill English testified that the recognition of rights and interests in fresh water and geothermal resources must by definition “involve mechanisms that relate to the on-going use of those resources, and may include decision-making roles in relation to care, protection, use, access and allocation, and/or charges or rentals for use.” to the conclusion that mana whenua should have half the seats on regional representative groups despite being 17 percent of the population?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I simply repeat what I said towards the end of my primary answer: the member is confusing the role of regional representative groups and ownership of assets.

Simon Court: Does the Minister believe that other ratepayers within communities of interest, including irrigators, farmers, and manufacturers deserve representation on regional representative groups for water service entities?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has made the decision that the regional representative groups should reflect local government and mana whenua on the basis of the interests previously outlined.

Simon Court: What other factors, in addition to 50:50 representative arrangements, support Standard & Poor’s conclusion that water service entities would achieve balance sheet separation from local authorities for the purpose of credit rating assessment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The concern that Standard & Poor’s have expressed is that if, for example—as I’ve seen some other parties advocate for—these were council-controlled organisations, that does not create the level of balance sheet separation.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clear. I don’t believe the Minister addressed it. The Minister has answered in a reply to a written question that there are other factors in addition to co-governance arrangements, and my question to the Minister is: what are those other factors?

SPEAKER: And the Minister has addressed it. Have you got any further questions?

David Seymour: Point of order. The Minister simply commented that he didn’t think other parties’ policies would work. He hasn’t talked about any other potential stakeholders or interest holders that might somehow help with balance sheet separation at all.

SPEAKER: Well, I think you should go back and listen and read Hansard when it comes out because, in my opinion—and I remain with my opinion—the question was addressed.

Question No. 10—Forestry

10. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcement has he made on how New Zealand’s forestry can help grow the economy and contribute to climate change response?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Last Thursday I spoke at the Wood Processors and Manufacturers Association conference where I announced on behalf of the Government a $57 million fund that will enable the Government to partner with the wood processing sector so that together we can process more logs on shore. This fund will support feasibility projects through a catalyst fund, and provide capital support through an accelerator fund. This announcement will help us achieve the objectives of this Government’s Forestry Industry Transformation Plan to support our economic plan to build a high value, high wage, low emissions economy. The fund will open on 3 July and work is currently under way to engage all interested parties.

Anna Lorck: What is the significance of this announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: There is huge potential in the wood processing sector and this Government is here to grow this potential. This fund is a kick-start to encourage this sector to process more logs onshore, and help move the sector from volume to value to lift our economic performance and resilience, support our climate change response, and create high wage jobs in our regions.

Anna Lorck: How will the announcement support the economy and contribute to the Government’s climate change response?

Hon PEENI HENARE: In 2021, wood product manufacturing plus pulp and paper contributed around $3.8 billion of our GDP. Wood processing and manufacturing alone makes up around 40 percent of this figure. It is estimated that this funding support could see over $500 million of additional GDP over the life of the funds’ investments. These investments will deliver better outcomes for workers, families, communities, and regions to support a more productive economy. Current projections will see hundreds of jobs generated from the additional capacity created by the fund. In addition, this fund will help meet our climate change goals. For those who don’t know, wood products store carbon and delay carbon dioxide being released back to the atmosphere. Te Uru Rākau - New Zealand Forest Service modelling indicates that processing an additional 1 million cubic metres of logs annually could reduce our emissions by 7.4 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050. We will also see increased onshore processing that produces sawmilling residues that can be turned into a range of biofuels and other products, which contributes to reducing our emissions.

Anna Lorck: What feedback is the Minister hearing from the sector about this announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Feedback from the sector has been extremely positive. Techlam New Zealand managing director, Brett Hamilton, said it was encouraging to see that this Government is listening. Wood Processors and Manufacturers Association chairman, John Eastwood, said the Minister’s announcement was a really positive step. He said investing in lifting productivity in the sector was really important, “It’s about considering how we can maximise every fibre we have in our forestry profile. It’s not just about finding more efficient sources, it’s about making sure that we are using every aspect of our tree in our economy.”

Question No. 11—Transport

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

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government’s Clean Car Discount scheme has been an electrifying success and I thank the member for his ongoing interest and the spotlight he shines on it. Since the discount came into effect last year, 111,000 low-emission vehicles have been registered in New Zealand—over 82,000 of these in 2022 alone. Over 88,000 of these purchases have been supported by the discount. Across the programme we’ve supported Kiwis to purchase around 74,000 Daihatsus, Fords, Hondas, Hyundais, Mazdas, Mitsubishis, Nissans, Subarus, Suzukis, Toyotas, and Kias, making up about 84 percent of total vehicles, paying out over $200 million—around 71 percent of total rebates, on these vehicles. That’s over 35,000 more than the last time the member asked me this question in October. In comparison, the discount has supported the purchase of about 6,157 Teslas, less than 7 percent of total vehicles, by paying about $52 million, or 19 percent, of rebates. Stats New Zealand today announced that imports of fully electric vehicles more than doubled during the 12 months to March 2023, a feat that has only been possible due to the Clean Car Discount.

Simeon Brown: Point of order. My primary question was in relation to how much has been paid out to Tesla owners through the Clean Car Discount scheme. The number he gave me was from 1 April last year. The Clean Car Discount scheme came into effect on 1 July 2021.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Being sneaky.

SPEAKER: We don’t need a commentary. I’m listening really carefully to the point of order.

Simeon Brown: And, in fact, I asked the exact same question last year and he did give me the number on 27 October last year, which was for the entire period. And if you look at the New Zealand Transport Agency website, it talks about the Clean Car Discount scheme starting on 1 July 2021.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Speaking to the point order, Mr Speaker, if you’d like me to answer on the point of order, the member is referring to two different time periods. The full Clean Car Discount scheme, which was brought into effect via legislation in this House, came into effect from 1 April 2022 and those are the figures to which I refer. The figures that the member is referring to was a partial start of the scheme that occurred from 1 July 2021 through which discounts only applied to fully electric vehicles, but the full Clean Car Discount scheme was not in effect at that time.

SPEAKER: My ruling for this is that I will listen carefully. You’ve got three supplementaries. If, at the end of it, I don’t think that has been answered, I will give you an extra supplementary, provided that your supplementaries in the meantime are in order.

Simeon Brown: How many Teslas have been subsidised under the Clean Car Discount schemes and Clean Car Discounts that this Government has been offering since 1 July 2021, and how much is that represented in subsidies for people buying Teslas?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ll just repeat the information that I gave in the previous point of order, and I will address the member’s question. The Clean Car Discount scheme fully came into effect from 1 April 2022. That is a scheme that was brought into effect via legislation that was passed through this House. The Government did apply discounts to zero emissions vehicles only from 1 July 2022. That did include Teslas during that period. If the member is asking specifically about the total amount of discounts provided since that period, then the number is $83 million applying to 9,730 of those vehicles.

Simeon Brown: Does he think spending $83 million subsidising wealthy people to purchase Teslas represents good value for money during a cost of living crisis?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I do believe that it is good value for money for the Government to invest in initiatives that reduce our carbon emissions during a climate emergency. The Clean Car Discount scheme has turned New Zealand from one of the world’s worst markets for importing the dirtiest vehicles in the world to one of the best markets for importing clean vehicles into our country. That has meant that the average emissions of vehicles coming into New Zealand have decreased by 14 percent over that period, that over 100,000 New Zealanders have gotten into cleaner vehicles, and that New Zealanders right across the income ranges have gained access to cleaner vehicles, which cost less to run. There was once a time in the National Party when members on that side actually supported action on climate. Unfortunately, it’s not a rare misstep that that member is opposed to it; it has now become the cultural norm in the National Party—a party of modern-day climate denialism.

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an—order! I will give that extra question.

Simeon Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So can the Minister confirm that, as part of the changes made today, he is increasing the taxes on tradies and farmers purchasing utes so they can do their jobs, so that he can then hand out millions of dollars to people purchasing expensive Teslas; and does he agree that this is just another kick in the guts for our hard-working farmers and tradies?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I recognise that the National Party and the member opposite wish to turn every policy that is about addressing climate change into a tacky little culture war, but our Government is actually focused on practical measures that reduce emissions across our transport sector. Of course, what the member is trying to do here is present the Clean Car Discount as a policy that only applies to those purchasing a vehicle like a Tesla, and that is completely wrong. For example, the biggest make of vehicles that has attracted both the largest number of discounts and the highest total value of discounts have in fact been Toyotas. The two most commonly sold vehicles that have attracted a discount under the Clean Car Discount have been Toyota models that sell for under $20,000. Ours is a Government which is getting on with reducing transport sector emissions. We will keep doing that while the National Party continues to wallow in their lazy climate change denialism.

Simeon Brown: Who is creating the culture war, the National Party who says that Tesla owners shouldn’t be subsidised for purchasing expensive vehicles or the Deputy Prime Minister, who said this morning on the AM Show, “There’s also a number of New Zealanders … who are driving around with utes in Auckland where they’re not necessarily needed for practical reasons”, and, if so, what exactly makes a ute necessary for practical reasons?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In addressing the first part of the member’s question, I would most certainly say it is the National Party which, effectively, takes one of the most significant issues of our time, which is the urgent need to take action on climate, which criticises every single initiative which reduces emissions, and offers absolutely nothing in return. In 2023, when communities up and down our country have been devastated by climate change - driven extreme weather events, for the main Opposition party of this country to oppose any and all climate action for cheap political gain is a disgrace and an embarrassment to them, and certainly an embarrassment to some members on their backbenches who once led a more progressive climate change policy from that party.

Question No. 12—Oceans and Fisheries

12. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What recent announcement has she made regarding transformation in the fishing sector?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Last week, I was pleased to announce public consultation on the draft Fisheries Industry Transformation Plan. This was my first announcement as Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. This plan intends to transform the fishing sector so that we can collectively do a better job of protecting the environment while providing more jobs and ensuring people earn more money. This plan sits alongside several recent and proposed regulatory changes to strengthen the management of fisheries and manage related environmental impacts. The draft plan is open for public consultation until 11 June, and I encourage the public and interested stakeholders to have their say on this important Industry Transformation Plan.

Tāmati Coffey: Why do we need this Industry Transformation Plan?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The plan is necessary because the sector is experiencing a number of challenges, including change in the marine environment, an ageing inshore vessel fleet, difficulties attracting and retaining workers, and increasing cost pressures. This draft plan outlines a way forward for the future of the commercial fishing industry built around innovation, sustainability, and partnership. It builds on promising initiatives already under way to develop precision fishing gear and seafood-derived bioproducts. On top of all this, consumers both locally and globally continue to demand high-quality and sustainably sourced seafood.

Tāmati Coffey: Who has had input into the draft plan thus far?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This draft fishing industry plan has been put together by representatives of the fishing industry with environmental groups, iwi representatives, scientists, unions, and the food sector. This plan is focused on supporting fishers to successfully navigate the changes the fishing industry faces to increase environmental performance and drive value so that this important industry remains sustainable and competitive over the long term.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Congratulations to the Minister. Does she agree with comments by Greenpeace Aotearoa that we cannot rely on technology to avoid the destructive impacts of bottom trawling on fragile habitats such as seamounts in the Hauraki Gulf and that the Government must take action?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I look forward to the submissions from Greenpeace on the transformation plan and note that this is a high-level strategy document about modernising the fishing industry and sparking these conversations.

Tāmati Coffey: What are some of the opportunities that this draft plan presents?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: There are multiple opportunities across a range of industries that this plan presents. It will help expand medical, cosmetic, and nutraceutical products from seafoods so we can earn more without catching more. It will also help identify new technologies, fishing gear, and practices to reduce the impact fishing has on the seafloor and protected species, and it will help develop skilled jobs for New Zealanders and ways to earn more from the fish that we catch.

Urgent Debates Declined

Immigration New Zealand—Dawn Raids

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Teanau Tuiono and Ricardo Menéndez March seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, reports of recent dawn raids conducted by Immigration New Zealand against visa overstayers. While arrests resulting from early-morning raids have occurred from at least July 2022, the requirement of “recent occurrence” depends upon when it becomes publicly known, so I consider this requirement has been met—Speakers’ rulings 204/6. In considering the application for an urgent debate, while there is ministerial responsibility, it is also relevant whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. In this instance, the Minister of Immigration is scheduled to attend the annual review debate tomorrow afternoon, where this matter can be debated—therefore, the application is declined.

Member Vacancy

Mt Albert Electoral District—Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 131(b) of the Electoral Act 1993, a vacancy in the Mt Albert Electoral District having arisen and the House having been informed that a general election is to be held within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy, no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Jacinda Kate Laurell Ardern.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 4 April on the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, offices of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees. There are nine hours remaining in this debate. Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside, so there will be no sector-specific debates. Instead, specific Ministers will be available each day to respond to specific portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Social Development and Employment will each be available for 45 minutes today to respond to members’ questions. The time for this debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered the annual reviews most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios. The Minister of Transport is now available for 45 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Transport

SHANAN HALBERT (Chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my honour to stand this afternoon to speak as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, a team that has heard from a number of agencies, particularly over the annual review period, with a focus on decarbonisation, mass rapid transport, inter-regional rail, and mode shift. It’s been particularly interesting over this period to hear the energy, the enthusiasm, and particularly the work that is being done to support these areas.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has conducted the 2021-22 annual review of the following entities: Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd; City Rail Link Ltd; KiwiRail Holdings; New Zealand Railways Corporation; Maritime New Zealand; MetService; the Ministry of Transport, Te Manatū Waka; and the New Zealand Transport Agency, Waki Kotahi. We also conducted briefings on the 2021-22 financial performance of the following entities: Air New Zealand, the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, and the Transport Accident Investigation Commission.

We met with the Minister of Transport, the Hon Michael Wood, to discuss the 2021-22 annual reviews of the transport sector also, and the Minister characterised this period as one of which New Zealand, including the transport sector, was recovering from and emerging from the COVID-19 emergency phase. The Minister noted the work on the COVID-19 response by the transport sector, and the progress of key transport and infrastructure projects, emissions reduction policies, and maintenance of the network. The topics covered in the hearing with the Minister included the severe weather events, allocation of transport funding, funding of road maintenance and what it involves, improving transport choices, funding for recovery from severe weather events, the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, the clean car programme, Auckland’s transport network, maritime transport, and the significance of progress on such large transport infrastructure projects like Auckland light rail and the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing.

Several of the committee’s hearings took place following severe weather events, which added to the discussion events that happened in Auckland, and following Cyclone Gabrielle in Te Tairāwhiti. This was the focus of the committee’s questions to officials also, particularly with reference to KiwiRail and Waka Kotahi, and to the Minister of Transport.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this annual review debate, and what a year it has been for our transport sector in New Zealand. I don’t know if there’s ever been such a time when things in our transport sector have been in such a poor state. The 54,000 potholes on our roads last year, a record—a record—under this Minister: 54,000 potholes on our roads last year. No new major roads started and completed under this Government.

Our ferries: the Interislander ferry—absolutely appalling the service that’s being provided there at the moment with cancellations left, right, left, left, left, and left under this Government.

The trains: the trains in Auckland—you can’t get on the trains in Auckland, the lines are shut down. Trains in Wellington—well, I say Michael Wood’s so good at speed limit reductions he’s even managed to do it on the rail network here in Wellington. It’s appalling.

Chris Penk: It’s gone to zero!

SIMEON BROWN: The Road to Zero is even applied to the rail network now. It’s only for the speed limit. And then the bus driver shortage. So if you can’t get in your car because there’s potholes everywhere and you can’t get on the train, well, I’m sorry, there’s no bus drivers either, because this Minister of Transport is also the Minister of Immigration and hasn’t sorted it out. Ferries: well, the Interislander, but also the commuter ferries are in a terrible state. And then this Government’s flagship policy around road safety, Road to Zero. Well, it’s the “road to zero-maintenance” policy under this Government. It’s the “road to zero-maintenance” policy, they’ve spent, though, $61 million advertising—$61 million advertising. It seems like Michael Wood’s trying to make Phil Twyford look good. He spends all of this money but actually isn’t getting the results that are needed.

And then, of course, we’ve seen the cancellations, the bonfire—the bonfire of policies. The Clean Car Upgrade, all of these other critically important policies which were promoted in last year’s Budget: gone, gone, gone. And to this new Prime Minister. And the only thing that’s actually been progressed in the last 12 months in the annual review is slower speed limits. It takes longer to get around. We’ve got 30-kilometre zones being put in Auckland and Wellington and Hamilton and Christchurch and other places, slowing people down, meaning it’s a less productive economy, harder to get around, more time on the roads, less time doing the things that people want to do. And that is a really sad state of affairs for our transport sector.

And so our time in annual reviews was asking these questions of the officials and trying to get answers as to what is actually happening, and the answer is: transport has never been in such a bad state as it currently is under this Government. It’s going backwards, it’s going slower, it’s less productive. And even the outcomes that this Government says that they’re wanting to achieve are not being achieved. Their road safety goals, hundreds of kilometres of road safety median barriers were meant to be done but all they’ve done is actually put in place 50 kilometres of median barriers—50 kilometres. They promised hundreds of kilometres of median barriers—50 kilometres. They said they were going to do 3 million breath tests every year; they only achieved 1.5 million breath tests for alcohol on our roads in the last financial year.

Hon Judith Collins: How are they going on the drug testing?

SIMEON BROWN: And how’s drug testing going? Well, I’d really appreciate it if the Minister could give us some insights as to how that’s going, because, well, it isn’t going, because they passed legislation which they can’t implement.

Hon Judith Collins: Six years.

SIMEON BROWN: It took six years, as the Hon Judith Collins says; six years—passed legislation which isn’t able to be implemented in New Zealand. They set a test which can’t be implemented. Another failure when it comes to road safety.

And, of course, we have had the tragedy and the challenge of Cyclone Gabrielle, which has left many of our communities asking where this Government is supporting them when it comes to restoring their roading connections. And this Government—$250 million to help our councils and New Zealand Transport Agency repair, but this is going to need far more than $250 million to fix the roads damaged by Cyclone Gabrielle. I was down at Thames-Coromandel district looking at State Highway 25A, and the people of Thames are saying, “What is the solution? When will it be done? Will it be completed before Christmas?” Because that community is dying under what’s happening and the indecisiveness about what the solution is going to be. The communities at East Coast need to have their roads restored. But also, we don’t just need to be restoring these roads, we need to be making sure that we’re also making them more resilient at the same time.

Going North: the Brynderwyns, we look at Dome Valley, which this Government spent $78 million and the road’s worse than when it started. It’s appalling. So, look, I think the Minister of Transport is leading transportation to the worst place it’s ever been in this country, and we need to make sure we’re getting transportation back on the right track.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’m pleased to stand up and make some opening comments in this debate. I thank both members so far for their contributions. I acknowledge the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Shanan Halbert, and the committee members. I think it has been a hard-working select committee over the course of this parliamentary term, and I thank them for their work on this annual review. It is a select committee which has also, I think, done some really good work in respect of trying to get its head around and provide a good forum for public debate and the development of policy ideas in respect of complex issues, such as the inquiries that it has held into congestion charging and, more recently, into inter-regional rail. They are both pieces of work which the Government—well, the first one we have picked up and we are working on; and for the second one, we look forward to receipt of the select committee’s report on that matter soon.

The chair of the select committee rightly identified that the 2021-22 year, which is the subject of this report, was one of considerable transition for the transport sector. It was, effectively, the year in which we started to move out of that COVID emergency period, which had such profound impacts across every part of our society, including the transport sector, and started to get back towards more normal levels of activity. So it was a real year of transition. It was a year, for example, in which the Government continued on with our Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme, a critical scheme which ensured that New Zealand exporters were able to get their products to market through international aviation at a time at which the international aviation market had pretty much collapsed. It was one of the ways that we kept many of our high-value exports continuing to move forward. And I want to thank Ministry of Transport officials for their work on that scheme and their engagement with much of our business sector during that difficult COVID period, dealing with those international connectivity issues, dealing with issues like the Auckland boundary that had to be navigated. Most people I speak to in the freight sector, while they say, “Look, it was a really tough time.”, found that their engagement with Government officials during this period was incredibly productive and constructive in terms of resolving issues.

This was also a year in which work progressed against a number of the Government’s significant priorities. So we made further progress on mass rapid transit in our major cities.

Simeon Brown: What? How much light rail’s been built?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We made further progress in respect of providing New Zealanders with better transport options. While the member to my left—Simeon Brown—continues to criticise and belittle any and all investment in providing better transport choices for New Zealand, our Government, during this period of 2021 to 2022, actually believes that it’s important to give New Zealanders those choices, if we’re serious about creating better places to live and a reduction in our carbon emissions.

The member also has a lot to say about road maintenance, which he suggests was taken to zero under this Government. If indeed road maintenance spending was taken to zero under this Government, I query of the member what it was under the previous National Government when it was 50 percent less after they froze it for eight consecutive years. The member speaks a lot about potholes. Some indeed suggest that there is an unhealthy obsession with this particular topic. The reason that we deal with so many potholes in our system is firstly because we are dealing with a backlog of maintenance, because the party that that member represents froze road maintenance funding for eight years. With any asset that is not maintained properly, such as one’s house or any other asset, if you under-invest in the maintenance in past years, it will catch up on you. So we are getting on the job of fixing up National’s mess there by increasing road maintenance funding by 50 percent, and that is why there has been so much activity in that area.

This is also a year in which the Government got on with its $8.6 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme with critical investment in transport infrastructure all around New Zealand, including in the Hon Judith Collins’ electorate of Papakura, where there is excellent progress going into the widening of State Highway 1 between Papakura and Drury, into the electrification of the main line between Papakura and Pukekohe, and also into the third main line between Wiri and Westfield. Right across the spectrum—I recognise that the members opposite would like to pave every bit of spare space in the country, with additional motorway tarmac, but that is not our Government’s policy. The members want to build as they did with the East-West Link, an expensive, unnecessary, high-carbon, duplicate motorway next to an existing motorway system. Our Government is intending to ensure that we invest in better transport options for the residents of that part of the city, but we want to actually make sure that we focus on the right things: better safety improvements in that area; ensuring that we have better options for residents. But what we won’t be doing is doing what the previous National Government did and investing in evermore big motorway projects that just increase congestion and increase our carbon emissions.

This is a time-limited debate, so, unfortunately, it will be challenging to address all of the inaccuracies from Mr Brown’s speech, but the one that I do particularly want to touch on is his comment around bus drivers, because, over the course of the past year, we have been doing significant work to deal with this particular challenge.

Simeon Brown: You shut the border; it stopped them coming in.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That’s right. Mr Brown notes that the border was closed during the period of COVID-19, and we do note that the National Party changed their position on that issue about six different times as to whether the border should have been open or closed. We actually do stand by our position as a Government that it was a pretty good thing to save many New Zealanders’ lives by protecting this country from COVID-19 at the height of the global pandemic. Now, that did create labour challenges for groups like bus drivers, but, actually, the underlying cause of the bus driver shortage is the crummy pay and conditions that so many bus drivers had to endure because of the Peyton model that was put in place by that previous National Government. That is something that in this 2021-22 year, our Government has got busy addressing by bringing $60 million of investment into Budget 2022 to actually lift our bus driver pay and conditions to sustainable level. And because of that, we are actually beginning to see the bus driver shortage abating. As of the end of 2022, approximately 800 shortage across the country, which has now reduced down to about 500, and I’m confident, in the coming months, we’ll see that reduced down further and service levels improve. Ultimately, the race-to-the-bottom model for bus services that the National Party put in place has cost us. We’re getting on with the job of improving those pay and conditions and also overhauling the framework by bringing in the new sustainable public transport framework—

Hon Judith Collins: Buses run on roads.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —that will stop the race to the bottom. Mrs Collins, buses do run on roads; I’m pleased you mentioned that. That’s why we’re investing in important projects like the Eastern Busway, which, in the member’s electorate of Pakuranga, we dug the first shovel on last month to make sure that we actually make sure that bus commuters have the options to actually use efficient, highly prioritised bus services.

This is a Government which is getting on with the job of maintaining our network better, of investing in more transport choices for New Zealanders, and making the network safer. All of those are anathema to a party on that side who’s just obsessed with big motorways. But we’re going to keep doing what we know needs to be done to deliver a more resilient and more carbon friendly network.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I do want to just acknowledge the recent announcement by the Minister of the purchase of the new trains and congratulate my colleague over here, the MP for Ōtaki, Terisa Ngobi, who’s also been a huge advocate for that purchase.

Look, it’s very baby steps—though, in the right direction. And, you know, I can’t disagree more with the contribution from the member from the National Party. New Zealand currently has an incredibly inefficient transport system and a very costly transport system because we haven’t invested in efficient passenger transport services and we haven’t invested in communities that are easier to get around without a car. That means that we have to spend a huge amount—all New Zealand households and businesses, if they’re able to drive, have to own a car, that’s at least thousands of dollars a year, to use the roads that Government builds and maintains.

Every time that we make it easier for people to use the bus or the train or the ferry, or to take a bike or to live in a community where they can walk to things, we not only reduce emissions and pollution but we actually give those people more freedom—more freedom to not have to spend thousands of dollars a year on cars, and then tons of time sitting in traffic. So that’s the project. And I do want to acknowledge that the Minister has done—you know, means well and is doing the best in difficult circumstances. But, unfortunately, if you look at the make-up of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, that’s billions of dollars that could be used to transform our public transport network being used on a couple of roads that, quite frankly, are about greenfields housing development in the worst possible places and not really about improving transport efficiency.

I just don’t think, at this point in time, in 2023, particularly given the huge bill that we have following Cyclone Gabrielle, that we can afford to keep throwing so much money at just a few highway projects where, yes, the road does need to be improved and there are safety upgrades that could be made, but it doesn’t have to carry on in this outrageously expensive, overdesigned way when such a small percentage of daily vehicle trips will be used on that particular road.

So I think, ultimately, we are going to have some institutional change, I think, to get the outcomes that the Government wants from the transport sector. And that is seen very clearly in the disasters we’ve seen for passenger trains as a result of KiwiRail not sufficiently being on top of the maintenance of our regional rail networks, you know, in the urban areas—Auckland and Wellington. I just don’t understand why the Government did a review of the structure of KiwiRail and came to the conclusion that it should remain a State-owned enterprise (SOE) vertically integrated, when, clearly, that makes it very difficult for the organisation to focus on what is needed to have properly maintained safe railway tracks that are of use to passenger trains when they’re very, very focused on freight because they’re an SOE and then they’re required by law, basically, to focus on profitability and dividend when the true benefit to society in New Zealand isn’t in an operating surplus from our freight operations, it’s the good of having transport connections and infrastructure that takes pressure off the roads, that enables more people and goods to move around without having to congest our roading network, without having as high congestion and emissions costs.

One of the more interesting things, I thought, out of the select committee was our two inquiries, one into congestion pricing—which of course had cross-party support for congestion pricing—and the future of passenger rail, which we haven’t reported back on yet.

What I think is of interest in the congestion pricing debate is that, from the parties on the right, we hear that they’re all for road pricing and congestion pricing, but they don’t seem to understand that when people face those costs more directly, there’s going to be huge increased demand for public transport. And that’s why we need to shift the investment in our urban areas to public transport so that there’s sufficient capacity there to meet the demand. And so, you know, I guess that will become clear once we bring in the congestion pricing, because any city that has brought in congestion pricing has used the vast majority of the revenue to pay for more buses and trains. And that’s because it makes economic sense.

With the future of passenger rail, I think the Green Party would like to see a much more ambitious plan for interconnected services right across the country, be they by rail or bus, that they qualify for the same sort of public support that public transport services in cities.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’d just like to ask you some questions about the priorities that this Labour Government has with respect to transport in the context of the annual review of the transport sector. Waka Kotahi commissioned a report that identified 40 extreme risks to the transport network. Extreme risks in terms of resilience, and we saw some of those risks manifest during the last severe weather events in January and February, including the Brynderwyn section of State Highway 1 being closed; State Highway 2 through Waiōeka Gorge between Bay of Plenty and Hawke’s Bay, East Cape escape being closed. So, Minister, I’d just like you to give us an update as to what’s happening in terms of response to the 40 extreme risks that were identified.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. How much does it cost a Labour Government to change a speed sign outside a school? Now, like any good joke teller, I actually know the answer to that, and you couldn’t make it up: $46,000 is how much it costs a Labour Government to change a speed sign outside a school. Why I know that: because under the rules implemented, the new rules by the New Zealand Transport Agency, Christchurch had to put a speed management plan in place. That cost $9.3 million—9.3—for a speed management plan. What’s even more outrageous is 80 percent of that was spent on changing speed signs outside of schools. So the journo, hard-working with his calculator, worked out, at 145 schools, $46,000 per school it took to change that speed sign. How is this happening when the Government, a Labour Government, promised us a “back to basics” in a cost of living crisis? I’d like the Minister in the chair, Michael Wood, to stand up today and respond to the many Cantabrians who want to know how much and why it cost $46,000 to change a speed sign outside a school.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, just further to the priorities that this Government has when it comes to transportation, I want to ask the Minister what action has Waka Kotahi taken to secure planning protection and land acquisition to secure routes for future State highway upgrades and future State highway bypasses of townships like Kumeū and Huapai in West Auckland, where over 15,000 vehicles a day choke those local roads that are also doubling as a State highway, and that cause motorists to spend up to 45 minutes waiting in congestion, creating carbon emissions, and generally their lives being wasted instead of travelling at safe and efficient speeds on a modern State highway. So, Minister, I’m interested in—can you give us an update on what progress Waka Kotahi has made in terms of planning and designation overall, land acquisition and route protection for projects like Kumeū and Huapai.

And then, Minister, I just want to ask you about funding and financing. We understand that there may be a proposal for congestion charging to be brought to the House at some point in the near future. So I just want to ask the Minister about whether there is any coherence in this Government’s approach to funding and financing roading. We understand that, last year, the Minister declined to apply a toll or a road price to the Pūhoi to Warkworth project, and that was a surprise to many because that project’s being built by a consortium. The Government has to pay it back over a certain period, 25 or so years, and potentially that could have been a great opportunity to levy motorists to pay that back separately so that taxpayer funds could be used, say, for the next stage of the Warkworth to Wellsford State Highway 1 improvements. And how is that coherent, when this week the Minister’s announced that people using the Penlink road between Whangaparāoa and East Coast Bays in Auckland will pay a toll, but only for the maintenance of that road, not to repay its capital cost. How is that coherent?

And, Minister, how will Auckland light rail be paid for when, in response to a written question I’ve put to you, Minister, it appears that you have not yet asked Auckland Council whether they will pay for it? So how will that be paid for?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’m happy to take a few minutes to respond to a number of queries and points from members.

I do want to go back to Mr Brown’s first set of comments, where he did state—I believe very inaccurately—or certainly imply it, that there is a lack of action and focus and work into repairing the damaged roading network in cyclone-affected regions. I just wish to put on record that that is completely inaccurate, and it is, in fact, somewhat offensive to the efforts and endeavours of hundreds of road workers and contractors who are working every single day of the week, and have been under considerable pressure for the last few months to continue opening up that network. Most of the key connections have now been reopened.

State Highway 23, between the Waikato and Raglan, is reopened as of this week. We have two particular areas where there are significant works that need to be done to ensure safe access on State Highway 2 and State Highway 25A on the State highway network. We have made significant progress in the Hawke’s Bay region—the most affected across the local road network—with the signing of an interim alliance arrangement to ensure that there is a linked-up plan between Waka Kotahi and local councils to repair that network. Bailey bridges have gone in to provide access across many of those rural areas where communities have been cut off, with a number more that are likely to come into effect as of this month.

This is a significant impact on our transport system that will likely require billions of dollars’ worth of investment. The member notes that the Government has made an additional $250 million of investment to provide space for Waka Kotahi’s emergency work budgets to fund this work, and we have recognised that there will need to be more investment to come. So I simply want to put on record that it is inaccurate to suggest that there is a lack of focus on this. It is the primary focus of Waka Kotahi, and also affected councils and many contractors at the moment.

I note the comments from the Hon Julie Anne Genter. She commented on the nature of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I do need to note that the primary New Zealand Upgrade Programme was, in fact, signed off by transport Ministers in the previous administration, between 2017 and 2020. The member asking the question was one of those Ministers. I recognise that the overall programme includes a number of different investments across road, rail, walking, and cycling. In fact, the changes that have been made in this term—with me as Minister—have tried to put greater focus on the sustainable modes of transport, including funding for the Whangārei to Port Marsden rail link, for example.

Mr Court asked a couple of questions, one related to the range of risks that Waka Kotahi has noted across its network. Waka Kotahi continues to work with local councils—bearing in mind that sometimes these risks will be on State highway network; sometimes they will be on local roads—to address those risks where we can. The member asked about planning protection designation for better transport to the north-west. There has been significant planning work put into roading improvements in the north-west that are included in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, and I understand that they are continuing to work through the business casing programme. The member will be pleased to note that, as of earlier this year, the designation process for mass rapid transit to the north-west of Auckland, and, actually, also for the airport to Botany busway, the designation process for both of those projects was started by Waka Kotahi earlier this year. So the member can be rest assured that, while I understand that there are significant pressures in that region, there is real focus on improving things there.

I will make the point that if we simply encourage more and more people in that region to pop in their cars for every journey, it will just result in more congestion. That is why the work on mass rapid transit and the interim work on the north-western busway—which is moving forward—is so important.

The member asked about the coherence of tolling decisions that have been made, and it is correct that the decision not to toll the Pūhoi-Warkworth road was made in the 2021-22 year. More recently, we have made the decision to proceed with tolling on O Mahurangi - Penlink. There are particular reasons for that. In respect to the first decision, the main reason that that decision was made was that, in my view, putting a toll on that road would have meant that a number of people would have, effectively, had to have paid double tolls along that stretch, and some local residents would, in effect, not have had the ability to avoid using a toll road. One of the considerations that the legislation sets out is whether there is, effectively, the ability to have a free route for local movements. So that is the reason behind that decision. In the case of Penlink and Whangaparāoa, there is, in my view, a strong case for a tolling proposal to proceed to support maintenance, and there is very clearly a free route that local residents are able to use.

Mr Doocey—enjoyed his little speech around speed limit changes in his area. I can be very clear that in the 2021-22 year, we were actually very proud to sign-off on the new speed rule, which does take us in the direction of safer speeds around our kids’ schools. Our Government stands behind that: that local kids walking or biking to their local school should be able to do that safely. It is something that is extraordinarily popular with our school communities and most of our local communities. We’ve given local government the ability to set speed limits in consultation with their local communities. The exercise that the member refers to was a local government - led exercise, and I’m quite sure that if the member delves into it further, he will find that his mathematics actually include a lot of additional costs that go into ensuring that those areas can be safer. I know that members on that side of the House don’t put any particular priority around safer roads around our schools, but it is a priority for this Government.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a number of questions and I’m keen to ask the Minister to clarify his positions in regard to them. I’d like to know what his commitment is, or not, in regards to the Mill Road corridor. Is the Minister still considering a business case in regards to the Mill Road corridor? Is he committed to funding an upgrade on that highway or not? I think the good people of South Auckland would like to know the answer to that.

In relation to Ōtaki to Levin, the question there is whether this Government is committed to the four-lane expressway from Ōtaki to Levin and whether that is something which is still on track to be delivered by 2029.

And in regards to some of these roads which have been damaged by Cyclone Gabrielle, State Highway 25A, the question is when a decision will be made around the fixing of that particular road and whether that will be completed by Christmas. Those communities are feeling desperate, they are feeling let down by this Government where they have not had the answers and the information that they need, and they need a clear plan. And if you look back at what this Government did when faced with challenges such as Kaikōura, we had a plan in place within weeks, in terms of how we were going to respond, how we were going to fund it, how we were going to deliver it. This Government has now had around three months and we still do not know the answer to many of those questions in relation to those communities. The Minister says this is billions of dollars. Yes, it’s billions of dollars. Cancel Auckland light rail—you’ll save 29 billion bucks straight away—and get on and fix these roads and build some resilience into our networks.

And finally, in relation to Auckland light rail, I’d like to ask the Minister—it was said earlier in the year, after the new Prime Minister came in and said they were still committed to it but they were going to deliver it in stages—can the Minister give the House some understanding about what delivering light rail in stages will mean? Is that the stage of acceptance, the stage of grief, the stage of denial? Which stage will come first? Because the stage which is not being talked about is the stage of delivery. And if the Government is focused on delivery, what stage will be delivered first and in which time frame? Because I note this Government said they would deliver light rail from Auckland CBD to Mount Roskill by 2021. Where is it? In which year will it be delivered and which stages will be completed first? Because this Government is very good at the announcements, very good at saying “We’ll do this, we’ll do that, we’ll do everything else.”, but, when it comes to delivery, this Government has a poor track record when it comes to transport delivery in New Zealand, and New Zealanders know that.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for acknowledging the hard work of our committee. Mr Chair, through you, I’d be really interested to hear from the Minister around how the recent announcement in terms of the investment in lower North Island rail supports both the mode shift and has affected our decarbonisation goals. Also, if the Minister could talk about what this means for commuters, especially for places like the Ōtaki electorate? That is Waikanae, and I know it goes further north, so it’s Ōtaki and Levin right through to Palmerston North—what it means in terms of their transport choices.

I’d also like to add too, just around Ō2NL, or Ōtaki to north of Levin, I know that I’ve had many conversations—and the Minister has talked about this in the select committee, as well—around confirming it and around confirming the $1.5 billion investment that we’ve already confirmed. So it would be really good to hear the Minister talk about that, especially for the naysayers out there. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, there was a question that I posed before that you didn’t respond to, so I’m just wondering if you could respond. Auckland Light Rail is a project that, if it proceeds, will need somewhere in the region of $16 billion to $29 billion of funding based on Treasury’s current estimates. Have you asked Auckland Council whether they will contribute to it, and, if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’ll address a number of questions that members have raised. Mr Brown, firstly, asked about the Mill Road corridor, and I’ll just quickly repeat the response that I provided earlier on in the debate. The Government is of the view that it is important to invest in that corridor—we have confirmed that through the New Zealand Upgrade Programme repeatedly—but what we do not believe is appropriate and responsible is simply to turn that road, effectively, into a gold-plated mini motorway. We do not think that will serve the community well. We do not think it will be a safer option. We do not think that it will reduce carbon emissions—in fact, it will do very much the opposite. So we’ve asked officials to engage in further work to make sure that we develop a more sustainable solution for that corridor that is focused on community safety and focused on providing better transport choices.

I’m very pleased to, in response to Mr Brown—but, also, I acknowledge the local MP Terisa Ngobi’s question around the future of the Ōtaki to north of Levin project. I’m really pleased that it’s a part of our New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I acknowledge the local member’s advocacy in respect of this issue, and it’s something that we have been really clear and consistent is a project that we will be moving forward with as a part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. It is a very significant project that involves a great deal of planning, significant land acquisitions, and it’s in that phase now. The expectation remains that it will likely move towards the start of construction in 2025 with an opening date of approximately 2029, in answer to the member’s question.

In respect of State Highway 25A, the question from Mr Brown, we said it in March that this would, effectively, be a three-stage process to work towards a decision, in terms of the best way to rebuild that connection. Firstly, solid geotechnical work to understand the conditions around the road—that took a long time to do because, actually, even up until now the ground is very soft and is still moving, so it’s been important to do that work very carefully, which Waka Kotahi has been working through. Secondly, based on that good data, is the assessment as to what the best engineering solution is—not just to do the reconnection but to make sure that the reconnection is a durable and resilient one, because we do know how important it is for the community. We are acutely aware of the difficulties it creates for the communities on the eastern side of the peninsula to not have that road in place. I don’t think we would be thanked for doing a cheap, quick, and easy option that wasn’t resilient and experienced further damage. So we’re doing that work now. We see that the third stage, then, would be in May, where we would be in a position to confirm the way in which we are taking that solution forward—that remains the case. I expect there to be an announcement later this month around the way that that project is taken forward, and we will move forward with all reasonable speed in order to ensure that that connection is completed.

In respect to the member’s question around Auckland light rail stages, this is the common way that large infrastructure projects are taken forward. You take a big project and you look at how you break it down and deliver it. A good way of thinking about it, which members opposite might feel a little more comfortable about, is the Waikato Expressway. That was a project that, in effect, started in about 1997—

Hon David Bennett: No, it didn’t.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —yes, it did—and it was done in 10 different stages between 1997 and 2022. [Interruption] The member makes an unusual comment—

Hon David Bennett: Point of order. The member is misleading the House in saying that it started in 1997. It’s a common approach taken by the Labour Party—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That is not a point of order. The member can stand and make a speech later on if he wants to have another version of events.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: And the final stage, of course, was opened by our Government late last year. So that was a way of breaking down a large project and delivering it in an efficient and effective way over a period of time. It’s the same with building a mass rapid transit network in our largest city, something our Government is committed to.

Terisa Ngobi also asked about the lower North Island rail announcements that we have recently made. This will be a game-changer for the people of the Wellington region. It will enable peak-hour services to at least double, which means that for those communities north of Waikanae—it was the previous Labour Government that brought electrified commuter services up to Waikanae. Now, for the communities between Waikanae and Palmerston North, at least doubling the peak-hour services—the same on the Wairarapa Line. Also, time savings for those communities, enabling people to connect to work, education, and other social or economic communities. So hugely positive, and, again, I thank the member for her advocacy on behalf of our communities for that one.

Finally, Mr Court asked about Auckland light rail funding. We’ve been consistent about this, that we know that there will need to be a significant funding share from the Crown, and we continue to engage with our other partners as we refine costs and assess what the best way of paying for the project is over the long run.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to ask the Minister in the chair, Michael Wood, about the KiwiRail iReX project, which is intended to deliver new terminals in Wellington and Picton. Minister, is that project on track, and is it likely that the terminals will be completed before the new ferries arrive in Wellington?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Briefly, before my time expires, the iReX project is a really important one to make sure that we do have a reliable ferry service across the Cook Strait—should’ve been gotten on with years ago, and the reason we have challenges across the Cook Strait is because the previous Government didn’t do that. So we’re proud to be making those investments. We continue to work with KiwiRail to make sure that it’s delivered well. Like any significant capital project, it does face cost pressures at the moment, and we’re continuing to work those through with KiwiRail.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, our time with the Minister of Transport has ended. Thank you, Minister. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is now available for 45 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Angie Warren-Clark: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Angie Warren-Clark—we’ll just wait till the Minister reaches the seat, please, but your enthusiasm is to be admired.

Angie Warren-Clark: Thank you!

Social Development and Employment

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to stand and lead off this debate on the annual review for the Ministry of Social Development and Employment as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee.

I’d like to thank, firstly, the clerks and officials and the select committee members for their professional and comprehensive efforts during the annual review period. I also want to thank the Minister for making herself available. The Parliament website contains our theme-based select committee reports and covers the annual reviews for all the ministries that are included, and I recommend that people go and have a look there.

I begin with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and employment. The Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, appeared in select committee for a theme-based review. Minister Sepuloni spoke about the childcare assistance review, the ministry’s performance targets, seasonal work opportunities, and Mana in Mahi targets. The Minister noted the number of policies and financial assistance that can help families. She noted that payments had increased each year since 2017, with the next increase due on 1 April 2023. We also discussed the ministry’s performance targets. The Minister noted that the Government had made investments in upskilling and in trades training. These included the reintroduction of the Training Incentive Allowance for higher education.

Seasonal work opportunities were discussed. The ministry is looking to create better transitional systems to ensure that a person does not need to go back on a benefit between changing industries. The Minister reported to our committee that Mana in Mahi had exceeded its performance targets for the programme in August last year: 6,000 people have been placed in work, and 90 percent of those have not returned to benefit. The Auditor-General issued a standard audit report for the 2021-22 year and rated most of MSD’s systems and controls as good. The ministry spoke to the committee about its non-financial performance as well, and reported that they had achieved 83 percent of performance measures. We discussed the wage subsidy payments made between 2020 and 2022, and the ministry noted that only 1 percent of payments needed investigation—and of that 1 percent, 93 percent, or $810 million, had been paid back.

MSD spoke in detail about their strategic direction plan and, in particular, Te Pae Tawhiti – Our Future, which is changing the systems and procedures so that they become less complex—and, in turn, make it easier to help clients get correct support. In Budget 2020, there was an increase from $300 to $1,000 for dental treatment, as well as the range of treatments eligible for grants. MSD reported that this has made a substantial difference to their clients, and positive feedback has been consistent. For the 2021 year, we noted that MSD has exceeded its target for Flexi-wage and has spent less than half of the funds appropriated. MSD advised that as the New Zealand economy recovered faster than expected, fewer people needed benefits and more people entered the market; young people in particular entered the workforce in high numbers. MSD also mentioned that in the last two years, 113,000 people had left a benefit scheme and begun working.

The committee questioned the ministry about children with parents on benefit. The ministry noted that numbers in this area had decreased slightly. The Auditor-General downgraded MSD’s management control environment to “needs improvement”. This was due to MSD’s calculation regarding accommodation supplement for couples where one person lived in a residential care facility; this has now been rectified by legislation in November 2022. We also reviewed the newly formed Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, the Ministry for Women, and the Social Wellbeing Agency, and our theme-based review contained in this report. There is much to discuss, but time is short—therefore, I recommend that the annual review for 2021 be accepted.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. For those listening, this is the debate on the annual review for the year 2021-22, and I want to bring two matters to the attention of the committee in questioning the Minister about the performance of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

The first was about unappropriated expenditure, and the member before me touched on this very briefly. But this is unlawful expenditure that occurred in 2019. It was not brought to the attention of Treasury, the Minister, the Minister of Finance, or the department’s own auditor until August 2021. I just want to put that on record and I want to ask the Minister why it is that she is confident that the performance measures in the financial accountability for MSD is robust when not only was there illegal expenditure but it was known about by MSD in 2019 and not brought to the attention of the appropriate person—herself, as Minister—let alone others until August 2022, and the Auditor-General was deeply concerned about the fact that this had not been raised to attention. So my first question is about unappropriated expenditure, unlawful expenditure, and whether the Minister is confident that this behaviour will never happen again.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I believe that the select committee has traversed this issue quite thoroughly, but I’m more than happy to speak to it. The ministry became aware of the issue that some payments of the accommodation supplement to some clients had been outside the provisions of the Social Security Act in 2019. They then set about trying to resolve the issue, looking at aligning legislation to current practice via a suitable legislative vehicle.

The issue was that then we got hit with COVID, and I think that everyone in this House—and I also—thinks the general public would appreciate that at that time much of MSD’s resource was then re-diverted to the COVID response, including the wage subsidy. And so there were, I think, reasonable causes for a delay with regards to addressing this particular issue. I was informed about the potential appropriation issue in April 2022 and received further advice in August 2022 on a proposed approach to resolve the issue, which led to the introduction and passing of the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill in November 2022.

I do have confidence in the Ministry of Social Development. If it wasn’t for the pandemic and what they were required to do during what was a quite a difficult time for New Zealand and a time when the expectations on MSD were high, I am confident they would have got on to it earlier. But it was something that was parked whilst they responded to the immediate needs. They have got on to it and it has now been resolved.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I don’t think that that answer was actually addressed satisfactorily. When we talk about illegal expenditure and whether or not the department told the Minister in a timely manner, and, of course—so if the Minister doesn’t think that’s a significant issue, we’ll leave it there.

The other area is the five of the eight outcome indicators, as agreed by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), that are trending downwards, and so I’m interested in the Minister’s response in terms of the performance for MSD, particularly with a blowout in benefit dependency. One is the average time beneficiaries spend on welfare, and that has gone out from 10.7 years to 12.8. Again, in the hearings, the Minister didn’t seem to be concerned about that. I’d like the Minister to explain to the committee what actions have been taken to reduce New Zealanders’ time on benefit, and what is being done that actually starts turning around the benefit dependency crisis, or does she not think it’s an issue?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We currently have about 11 percent of our working-age population that are on benefit. We had Treasury forecasting that, due to the pandemic, we would reach almost 490,000 people on benefit. We never reached that number, because of the investment that we put into employment programmes for New Zealanders, particularly over the course of the pandemic period. That included the $18 billion invested into wage subsidy to make sure that we saved jobs.

The main area that we need to look at with regards to addressing long-term welfare dependency is how much we support people so that they don’t need to come on benefit and they get the employment support that they need right at the beginning of benefit. We know that the evidence shows us that it is easier to support someone into employment when they’ve just come on benefit. We moved quickly with our rapid response programme, when COVID hit, to be able to support those who came on benefit to take up work straight away. We’ve also invested heavily into upskilling and training programmes, and we’ve seen huge success there: over 5,000 people in Mana in Mahi; over 50,000, I believe, in Apprenticeship Boost; we’ve seen around 25,000 in Flexi-wage; and the list goes on with regards to the employment programmes that are in place.

We’ve also reinstated the Training Incentive Allowance, and we’ve seen just under 5,000 mostly sole parents take up that opportunity. That means for that particular group, they are still on benefit, but they are being supported to get into meaningful study that will support their future employment prospects.

It is about working with those that are on benefit to be able to equip them, support them to get the pre-employment support they need and the upskilling and training that they need to be able to go on the jobs that are available. I actually think it’s very clear that this Government has been focused on that and made the investments that are necessary in this space. So I’m very confident that we have made investments in upskilling and training and employment.

Alongside the things that I’ve mentioned, I also do want to note that, when we took office, there wasn’t actually ring-fenced money or support for employment for people that were on benefit. Year on year, we have increased the number of front-line staff who are providing work-focused case management to clients. I’m really proud of that. It was needed, and so, clearly we are focused on upskilling, training, and employment.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. So just to traverse through a few issues that affect our communities, within the annual review, I wanted to point to the paper released by Project Gender and Ngāti Kahungunu around Mako Mama - Mangopare, take time to swim, which details some of the challenges that our single parents experience. For the purposes of the period we’re reviewing, I think one of the things that they raised that is salient to what I’m about to ask is the challenges that sole parents face within the benefit system, particularly how our relationship rules impact sole parents. One of the key recommendations in this paper was to overhaul those rules. So I wanted to get an understanding of whether the Minister is aware of the number of sole parents who may have lost their benefit entitlements because they were deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage—whether the Minister is comfortable with the current relationships settings, and, if not, what work is under way to change those or review those in the processes that we review.

I also wanted to touch on issues around benefit sanctions. I know that we have traversed this topic many, many times. I know that she’s been on the record as not supporting things like the warrant or a sanction, but I guess I wanted to get a sense about whether she agrees with advice that she has previously received around the benefits of the removal of the sanction, which included freeing up administrative resources for the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), the fact that clients can continue to receive assistance from MSD, despite having a warrant to arrest and therefore—a key point—meet their basic needs, and some reflections on some of the issues that were raised regarding the removal of the sanction; for example, public perception risk. If the obligation and sanction were removed completely, MSD would continue paying benefits to those with unresolved warrants to arrest—whether she thinks that the fact that public perception is one of the key risks identified is good enough to continue having that policy and whether, during the period that we reviewed, people could have been left without the ability to meet their basic needs as a result of that.

I guess why I’m asking this is that we know that when people are left without enough kai on the table to feed their families, that actually pushes them into criminalisation. We’ve seen figures of how, actually, the number of people who are a risk to public safety is actually tiny—like, ridiculously tiny. And so the argument that this is actually protecting members of the public or serving actually some greater purpose when it comes to public safety doesn’t seem to stand. So I wanted to get her reflections on the sanctions that were applied to people having a warrant to arrest during the period that we are overseeing.

Finally, I wanted to get the Minister’s comments on the fitness for purpose of the amounts that are provided by hardship grants and, therefore, the civil defence payments. We’ve obviously seen recent severe weather events—and, actually, we may be seeing some in the coming days—and I wanted to get an understanding of the Minister’s view of whether those have kept up with actually the cost of living and whether, if they haven’t, that’s contributing to people ending up going to loan companies to seek support and getting into more debt, or the impact that it is having, therefore, on, for example, the Government’s goals of reducing child poverty.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member covered a lot of different areas in that particular ask of me, so I am going to try and address all of them; apologies if I miss something. Firstly, the member asked about sole parents in relationships and whether or not I have the figures on who has lost their benefit because they are in a relationship. I do not have those figures.

The member asked whether or not I was looking at or considering any changes to eligibility based on relationship status for those accessing benefits. Not at this time. However, I was very clear in the welfare overhaul paper that went to Cabinet that we will be looking at that in the one- to three-year work programme and exploring that particular issue.

The member asked about sanctions. I do want to note that there has been a 78 percent drop in the number of sanctions applied to a household with dependent children since March 2018 and that we prioritised the removal of two sanctions that really did have the most detrimental impact on children. That was the repeal of section 192 and also the subsequent child policy. There is more work to come in the sanctions space.

I think we need to continue to look at sanctions. As Minister, I’ve never said that we would get rid of all work obligations or potential sanctions that are in place, but I’m certainly keen to keep looking at these and looking at where we could make changes. I have said to the member and to the House in the past that we do need to prioritise our work programme, because our public sector agencies only have so much capacity. And so it is one of those things that has been pushed out in favour of other work streams, but it is something that is still on the cards to look at in the future.

Then, also, the member asked about support to those that were impacted by the weather events. With specific reference to the civil defence payment, I think the numbers are about $100 million went to about 64,000 people, from memory. And if I’ve got that wrong, then I will correct that. It’s $64 million—sorry, I got the numbers around the wrong way—I think, to 100,000 people; thank you very much. There were some people that needed to apply for a civil defence payment to support them more than once. That was possible depending on their circumstances. So, obviously, it’s been another area that MSD has been very much focused on. They’ve been working effectively alongside our NGOs and our social service sector. We’ve been providing support to the social service sector as well, because they are on the ground, often supporting whānau, and so there has been the investment that we put into supporting them. I think it was around $14 million that was committed in that space. Much, if not all, of that has been spent to support them with their efforts for whānau and communities during this difficult time.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come back to these impact indicators and look at some of the other data in the year in review. And while I accept the Minister’s comment that the number of beneficiaries or those unemployed after COVID weren’t as great as predicted, they’re still incredibly high: 50,000 more on the job seeker benefit than when they took office, 14,000 more sole parents. The average future year on benefit has gone up to 12.8 years. Under her watch, one child in every five is being raised in a benefit-dependant home. And we know the life outcomes for children in benefit-dependant homes are worse.

So my question to the Minister is specifically this: with the Flexi-wage programmes—which was Labour’s answer to unemployment in the 2020 election—why is it that only 25,000 places have been secured instead of the 40,000 promised, when there are 170,000 on the job seeker benefit and businesses everywhere are closing and working restricted hours because they can’t find enough staff to work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): When we first set out with the expansion of Flexi-wage, we set the numbers according to what the forecasts were. And so the anticipated take-up was based on the number of people we were expecting or had been forecast to come on to benefits. We never reached those heights, thank goodness, but, still, 25,000 is significant, given the numbers that were accessing Flexi-wage before we had put a deliberate investment into Flexi-wage. The member also has to keep in mind that, ultimately, employers choose who they employ. And there are a number of people that come on benefit that don’t necessarily have the skills or experience to take up every available job that is there, nor are they chosen by the employer to take up the jobs that may be there. So there’s certainly the desire, I think, overwhelmingly, for New Zealanders who are on jobseeker support to be work-ready, to be able to step into employment, but they’re not always chosen for the jobs. And not every employer has reached out to take up the Flexi-wage as an opportunity to actually employ someone. The Ministry of Social Development has worked hard to promote the employment products that are available so that we can connect up the New Zealanders who are available to work with the employment opportunities that are there. I think our industry partners and the people that we are working with across the motu would say that that relationship is really strong, actually, but they don’t always have the right skills or experience to be able to take up the jobs. And at the end of the day, the employer chooses the people they want to work for them.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): My question is also around improving employment outcomes. And just looking at the expenditure that’s gone on in that area, it’s actually risen around 108 percent since 2018, from the $273 million we were spending, to $569 million on improving employment outcomes. We seem to have more people who are on job seeker now than when the Government took office. I’m just wondering: what programmes are you confident have made a real difference, and are there programmes that haven’t that you’re looking to relook at? And where are the benefits from this huge amount of expenditure?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I think, just going back to something like I said earlier, part of the reason why we never experienced the level of unemployment or the numbers of people on benefit that had been forecast by Treasury was because of the immense effort that we have been putting in at the front line and the investment that our Government has made into upskilling and training and employment. So I think it was money well spent and I’m certainly not going to apologise for making that investment. It was important.

If we look at things like Mana in Mahi and, I believe, Flexi-wage as well, really what we’ve seen is something like 89 to 90 percent of those that participate in those programmes complete, or, even if they do leave the opportunity that’s in front of them, don’t come back to benefit. So they are having success and they are being effective. The Ministry of Social Development has also moved to be much more transparent around the outcomes and effectiveness of employment programmes. I think we’ve shared it with the committee; I do believe we also put that online to make that publicly available. So there is a level of transparency there around our employment upskilling and training investment that was never there before, too. I’m constantly monitoring to make sure that the investment that we’re making and the effort that we’re undertaking is constructive and effective for the New Zealanders that need it. And it’s important that we do keep our eye on that and continue to remain focused.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to run past some of the answers that the Minister gave me with further questions. Look, I appreciate that she gave me a rundown of how much was spent on civil defence payments, but my question was about whether the current amounts were fit for purpose, considering they hadn’t been reviewed or updated for basically 20 years. And so while, you know, I get that people are accessing it anyway and in large amounts, because of course after a natural disaster people need support, I’m interested in knowing whether she thinks that the amount that people can access for hardship assistance and therefore civil defence payment continues being fit for purpose.

Secondly, on warrants to arrest, I hear the Minister’s comments that there are priorities and competing priorities, but one of the key advantages of removing the sanction that was identified by MSD was to free up administrative resources for MSD. Which means that by getting rid of the sanction that the Minister doesn’t agree with, the sector doesn’t agree with—and MSD has identified one of the advantages, whether that could actually create resources to focus on other things like providing hardship assistance and supporting people into meaningful employment. And I’m interested in the Minister’s views of whether it’s worth keeping a benefit sanction that all it seems to do is not meet the goals that it’s intended to do, and so that takes staff time.

Finally, I guess I’m interested in whether MSD has done any work in terms of tracking the kind of wages that people earn after they go into employment from a benefit, and whether it is the Minister’s aspiration that people are able to access jobs that pay, for example, a living wage if they’re transitioning from a benefit into employment.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): OK, and, again, I’ll try and respond to all of the questions in that particular comment and that bit of feedback that was given.

With the civil defence payment, I have to remind the committee that many were able to access it more than once. Although there was a ceiling that they could access at one time, if they still needed more, they could go back and get that. Civil defence payments are aligned in some way to our special needs grants. The member knows that we’ll be looking to review those. So if those do shift, then so would civil defence payments, but you wouldn’t look to just shift civil defence payments without looking at the special needs grants and hardship assistance as well. So that has to be part of that work programme. In saying that, if you shifted the others, then that would shift because of the alignment that exists between them.

The member asked again about the warrant to arrest sanction. As I said in the House, and I know it may not be the answer that the member wants to hear, we do have to prioritise our work programme. So it is one those issues—other sanctions and reviewing them—that has been parked for now; that doesn’t mean that later on down the track it couldn’t or wouldn’t be picked up.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come back to two figures that I talked about earlier and just simply ask the Minister—and I’d like a straight question—is the Minister concerned that there are still 50,000 more on the job seeker benefit than five years ago when there are employers everywhere desperate for staff?

The second is: knowing that the life outcomes for children raised in benefit-dependent homes are worse than for other children in health, education, incomes, and their contact with the justice system, is she concerned that there is one in five children being raised in a benefit-dependent home, and how much will that number increase, given that the number of sole parents is also blowing out?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m very much focused on the support and trajectory in life of the children that have parents that are on low incomes or are in the benefit system. It’s one of the reasons why, as a Government, we’ve reinstated the Training Incentive Allowance, which had been badly slashed by the previous Government. We know that a mother’s level of education will be a huge dictator with respect to what the child will be able go on and achieve, and so we’re supportive of sole parents who may be on benefit getting access to upskilling and training—including university degrees—and we have reinstated the funding for that purpose. What we need to be mindful of is two things: those that are in the welfare system need adequate income, and we’ve shifted to make sure that we lifted benefits. We’ve got rid of some of the most unfair sanctions that actually were harmful to children that had been allowed to ride for years, and we’ve also done things like we’re now moving to ensure child support is passed on for sole parents. I think that that demonstrates this Government’s commitment to supporting sole parents and their children, and to supporting those sole parents to realise their potential to the benefit of their children.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to the issue of case management. Why is it that with an increase of 1,500 case managers, fewer people are getting case management support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We have very busy work programmes at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Actually, under the previous Government, they didn’t ring-fence any of the work-focused case management, and what we saw—and I think the member has seen the graph—

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’ve asked a very specific question about the annual review in the year in question, and I would ask that the Minister address it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Perhaps if the member would be patient, the Minister is going to answer it. She still has a bit of time.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: So, yes, what I was most shocked by was a graph that I saw. I think that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group had focused on and had included in their report where there had been a steady decline of work-focused support for MSD clients under the previous Government because of increasing income support needs, but a lack of investment in work focus.

When we came into Government, we committed to putting more of a focus on work-focused case management. We can now measure it more effectively. It is ring-fenced. Year on year since we’ve been in, it’s gone up, and when we compare it to 2017, actually, it says that the information for work-focused case managers is not available because of the fact that they didn’t have the ring-fenced support in place.

Also, where the previous Government were providing what they recorded as work focus, often it was group seminars where someone was just showing up and ticking the box, and, therefore, it wasn’t effective in supporting them into employment anyway. So I think we need to actually have some context to the question and assertions that that member is making.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): We’ve talked also about sole parents. I’d like to know, of the case managers, how many are focused on sole parents and supporting them into work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I might need to go through my notes a little bit for that exact number. So I’ll take another question, if that’s OK, Madam Chair.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): My question is around social services that are provided by NGOs and the private sector. Between 2021 and 2020, we’ve spent around $461 million on community support services, and I’m just wondering if there’s any services in particular that are finding that it’s no longer sustainable to provide those services, because they’re struggling after COVID and with the cost of living. A lot of these services are actually providing quite important products to our communities, whether it be to our elderly or whether it be community pantries and things like that. Is the Minister aware of any particular concerns within the NGO and private sector where it’s no longer sustainable, and are any conversations being had there to help in that area?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): When we did take over, many of the NGOs in the social sector that are funded by the Ministry of Social Development had not experienced any increases in funding over that nine-year period. So when we came in, we moved quickly, particularly to make investments into the family violence, sexual violence space; also services like our budgeting services and some of our disability services and a range of other services as well. What we also saw is that there are inconsistencies across the way in which we commission social services for the actual contracts and services. And so we undertook a piece of work, which is the social sector commissioning work; so that started in 2018. There were some things that we could move to do quickly, like provide certainty of contracts so they could get on and do the work. Where some of them were getting one-year contracts and then having that renewed every year and not having the certainty, we moved where we could. And so now there are more social services who have three years or longer with regards to the services that they provide.

As I said, we have also lifted the amount of funding that many of our social services are getting, but it is about that relational approach between the Ministry of Social Development and all other social sector agencies—Government agencies—that are working with our NGO sector. And so we continue to work on that through our social sector commissioning action plan. I know that it was welcomed by our social sector and there’s lots to do through that action plan that we are committed to doing.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister relates to how New Zealanders in the disability sector can have faith in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). And the reason I ask that is because, if you look at the Enabling Good Lives website, it contains links to the MSD website. And an example of that is the link to “next steps in disability system transformation and accessibility”. So, Minister, even though Enabling Good Lives is a commitment that has been made in terms of supporting the content of that—and the Disability Action Plan 2019-2023 has a specific commitment in there that MSD will make their website and the information available and accessible for people in the disability community. So when you go into that website, Minister, you open it up and it’s a MSD website and it’s completely normal to every other website that you see. The font is really small and the only support that is given to disability users is that it has a table of keys that shows you how to operate a keyboard to change the display. So that’s truly not accessible to disabilities. And because it relies on small font and a small font in a table, that means that the blind and low-vision community is literally in the dark when it comes to accessing that website and the information behind it.

Now, the Disability Action Plan 2019-2023 was clear that MSD would accelerate accessibility, including the role of legislation, and it would make public information accessible. I challenge the Minister to defend the work that has been done so far. This is 2023—the end of that four-year period—and it’s still not completely accessible. There is no text-to-voice mechanism on there. So some Government websites do have accessible documents, but the barrier is that those documents are within a website that is not accessible, so, in effect, they are not accessible to many in the disability sector. So, Minister, my question to you is: what are the outcomes and the actions that MSD plans to initiate to meet its obligations under the Disability Action Plan 2019-2023?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you for that. I haven’t looked at the website for quite some time, so I’ll be going away and asking some questions about the work that has been done on the accessibility of the website, but I can’t respond to that right now given that I haven’t actually got any information in front of me on that, but I can ask those questions.

We have put a higher amount of investment into supporting disabled people to be able to take up employment. One thing that is overlooked is that often when we talk about the employment statistics, the focus is on ethnicity. It is also on the age of those that might be unemployed, and what is overlooked is actually the people who have the highest rate of unemployment and are more likely to come on to benefit are people with health conditions and disabilities. So there is a level of focus now on employment for disabled people that was never there before. We also have the action plan for work around disabled people, so there are a number of actions there.

The Minister for Disability Issues is taking the lead on the action plan and also takes the lead on the accessibility work and Whaikaha and also the work around Enabling Good Lives. All of that is under way, but those are not small programmes of work and they need to be done in conjunction with, alongside, and in consultation with disabled people. So they are things that you can’t necessarily rush, and it’s important that we are in tune and working with disabled people to get it right. And where particular ministries, like mine, are not, then I welcome the feedback because there will always be room for improvement with regards to responding to the needs of disabled people, because for too long it has been overlooked.

I am proud of the fact that we now have a Ministry of Disabled People—Whaikaha. That, again, was long overdue and much needed. New Zealand is seen as world-leading in this space, and we need to continue to support that ministry to be able to undertake the very important work that they are leading, but they are not alone in leading it, because it is important they are working in conjunction with every other Government ministry, because every disabled person is impacted by the work that every other Government ministry undertakes.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Supplementary to that, Minister. The Disability Action Plan that specifically related to MSD over the last four years specifically said it would make public information accessible. After four years, do you think that there should have been more progress made to date? And will the Minister give a commitment that it will meet its obligations under the Disability Action Plan 2019-2023?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We’re certainly committed to doing that. And I’ll go away and look at where we are at with that particular work stream.

Just going back to the question earlier from the Hon Louise Upston about sole parents and access to case management: they are a priority cohort, and so of the sole parents getting employment case management, there’s just under 14,500. We do need to keep in mind that some sole parents are not in a position to be able to work, because of their care duties and the obligations that they have to their children. We also do need to keep in mind that there is a number of sole parents who are on main benefit, working part time but still able to get their benefit, and working part time because it is practical and it is what they are able to do while still undertaking the care duties that they have for their children.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call Hon Louise Upston, we have half a minute left for this part of the debate.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So just on that, the report that was out today indicated significant numbers of sole parents who do want to be in work. So I’m interested in what practical programmes has the Minister seen greater success in in terms of supporting sole parents into work.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Certainly the Training Incentive Allowance—which, unfortunatel,y was cut by the previous Government—which we have reinstated. Great success—it means that they actually have the ability to be able to get degree-level training, which will mean that their longer-term prospects in terms of earning and getting into meaningful and sustainable employment are increased, and the opportunities for their children subsequently are too.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, our time with the Minister for Social Development and Employment has now ended.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the committee report progress on the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that that report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 April.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill in its second reading, today. Unfortunately, and I think this is the first time that I’ve encountered this, the select committee report that came back from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this piece of legislation had to be discharged from the select committee without amendment, and that was simply because they could not reach agreement among the members on a position, which, in effect, has meant that all of the submitters that participated in that process on freedom camping, and the provisions explicit in the bill, were not able to be included. I think that makes a real farce of the process that everyone participated in, in very good faith. The reason that the committee could not reach agreement was because there are some polarised views about some of the detail in the bill, and it hinged mainly on definition and the requirement in the bill for fixed toilets.

Now, this has always been a very contentious issue, because, with freedom camping, we know that there have been problems, and, unfortunately, the problems are caused by people who do not use the toilets. And so this bill does not take account of the fact that you can have a toilet and still not use it, but under this legislation, you cannot be prosecuted for that. So we still haven’t got to the root cause of the problems. I know it’s a minority of users that do attract the majority of complaints about freedom campers, but they are the ones who make a very sensitive issue, a very topical one in local communities. Being involved with this type of legislation for 15 years, I am fully aware of the passion that is attracted when it comes to this discussion.

But, unfortunately, this bill today—which is an omnibus bill, by the way, because it amends two different pieces of legislation: the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006. Now, this bill, I think, personifies or demonstrates really clearly how this Government loves to complicate and add cost to something that does not need to be, and it is synonymous with the Labour Government. But we have a problem in this country that is not going to be fixed by this piece of legislation, no matter how well-intended it set out to be.

So the problem that we had with the first piece of legislation, the Freedom Camping Act of 2011, was that it excluded Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) land and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) land from being able to be monitored and policed for freedom camping. So councils went through a hugely complex process to identify freedom camping areas when the first piece of legislation came in, and, unfortunately, it didn’t mean a great deal because those sites were located with GPS, and when someone is driving along looking for a suitable camping spot they are not checking their GPS coordinates; they are looking for the best parking spot. And to then work your way back to find out whether the local bylaws included these particular GPS coordinates or not was not something that was ever exercised. So it still did not capture the pieces of ground that are now covered in this bill, which is NZTA land and LINZ land.

For many communities—you know, I know on the West Coast, for instance; in Tasman; especially areas up around Coromandel, they are very remote pieces of land and there are no monitors out there actively seeking to oversee the freedom camping. And I am afraid that this bill is going to fall into the same problems, in that we are still addressing areas that are very remote. You know, if you ring up and have a complaint about somebody that you believe does not have a suitable toilet fixed in their campervan, you are not going to have people driving 100 or 200 kilometres to have a look at that and, if need be, issue an infringement notice.

We have, in the bill, got some concessions around implementation. One of those is that rental vehicles—so commercial rental vehicles, campervans—will have 18 months to comply with this new piece of legislation. But the non-rental vehicles—so the ones that are owned by private individuals—will get 24 months to comply. I am assuming that this legislation will be passed at third reading whether or not there are any modifications to the bill as a consequence of submissions. It will be up to the Government, but, because they have the majority of votes, I assume that it will be adopted as it sits today without any change at all.

I think it’s worth us remembering, when we are talking about fixed toilets, they are strictly those toilets that are hard plumbed into the vehicles. So that’s where the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board will become involved, and they will be charged with setting up the database of these vehicles and they will do the issuing of the compliance certificates. So they are for hard-plumbed toilets, and that’s what this piece of legislation is demanding. But there are 70,000 other users that use alternatives to hard-plumbed toilets, and those are chemical toilets—the porta-potties that most people will be aware of. They are completely hygienic, they are suitable and adequate for the size of vehicles that they are used in. And as I started my contribution to this debate, I mentioned that it’s actually not about whether they’re hard plumbed into a vehicle or whether they are a porta-potty or a chemical toilet of any sort; it’s actually whether the users use them. And so we need to be clear that we are going to eliminate the activities for a lot of people in this country—70,000 of them that use these vehicles that won’t be able to be plumbed in. And that’s because they are simply a van, maybe with an awning that will extend out. But they are going to be excluded from using them for the activity that they specifically bought them for. And for many, that’s a very significant investment.

In terms of the National Party’s position, we were very concerned that we were going to have the definition of those toilets so constrained that it did eliminate a lot of users. We felt that the definition was too restrictive, and we would have liked to have seen a bit more realistic approach to that. We also contend that the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board is probably not the most suitable entity to be running the certification process. And we also think that the ongoing prohibitive costs of having those compliance certificates issued is going to be prohibitive for some people, and they will have to be renewed.

So I don’t know that we’re going to get to much change in terms of the public pushback to the use of campervans in inappropriate areas. What we will continue to see is the pushback from communities about people not using the on-board facilities, and we will be introducing Supplementary Order Papers at the committee of the whole House stage to try and get some sensible solutions to this ongoing issue. We just want to make sure that we expand the definition of “self-contained”. We also have a great deal of faith in the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association—NZMCA. They have been great guardians of the standards of use for campervans, particularly with their own members. But we think that they should also retain the ability to certify and ensure that on-board facilities are up to the suitable standard. And so we are suggesting that they, in partnership with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, be able to run that certification process. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to remind the House this afternoon of the purpose, I guess—the essence of what this piece of legislation is about. It’s around protecting nature. It’s around keeping New Zealand clean. It’s around showing respect to others. It’s around showing respect to our environment. It’s around being good guardians of what we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand—being that clean, green image that we like to present ourselves with.

Now, this is legislation—and as we listened through the select committee process that I was honoured to be part of—very much around how we support local government. How do we ensure that local government has the tools and the means to ensure that they can keep many of their spaces and places, many of their parks and other areas safe and clean? The sad thing is, as we heard submissions and we listened to councils from all around the country, there were the horror stories of excrement, of rubbish, and of other things I don’t even want to mention in this House being left in places that they should never ever be left in.

This legislation, and in terms of crafting throughout the select committee process, was about ensuring that local government can rely on reducing the negative impacts that freedom camping has come to be known with. We know that most New Zealanders are responsible. We know that most New Zealanders who get out and enjoy our wonderful parks and rivers and oceans are responsible, but, sadly, there are some that aren’t, and we need to make sure that this House creates consistent legislation that will support our councils to make sure that they do, and those enjoying the outdoors do.

I was a member of the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association. I did own my own motorhome a number of years ago. I had my red and grey wings that I was very proud to have, and I was responsible, but, unfortunately, others weren’t. So we need to do this. We need to make sure we get it right. I look forward to our committee stage in terms of getting to a place where we have this legislation fit for purpose.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the second reading of the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill. I wanted to acknowledge the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for the work they’ve done to hear public feedback. And I wanted to acknowledge that the intent of this bill is to create a new framework to regulate freedom camping, which covers a huge range of land, whether it’s public conservation or Land Information New Zealand land as well.

I think we all, in this House, want to ensure that the places where the places that we all enjoy—whether it’s domestic tourism or international tourism—are clean, are available, and are there for future generations to come. There have been reports about how freedom camping as a practice—in its current state—has lost the social licence and that we need new frameworks. Now, what this bill was hoping to do was to, basically, amongst other things, require that any vehicle used for freedom camping be certified and self-contained against the new standards set in regulation. There are other things such as requiring a fixed toilet and allowing enforcements to be sent via email, for example, so that vehicle rental companies receive quicker notice and can recover infringement fees when their rental ends.

I think back to our comments in the first reading. We had multiple concerns, but one of the ones that I wanted to raise was particularly around how this legislation could, in theory, be used to target our homeless population who often live in caravans because of need. This is something that we’ve made clear, and I understand that there’s other constituents of mine and community members who share similar concerns. And so one of the things that we will be looking for in the committee of the whole House will be any moves to address this, and we hope that the Minister has listened to those concerns from submitters, and from the Greens as well, to ensure that this legislation is predominantly focused, actually, on providing a clean Aotearoa for everyone to enjoy.

We also wanted to acknowledge that, unfortunately, this is a narrow bill when it comes to its scope—and it’s limited in its scope as well, and we would have liked to go further. As we’ve said previously, ideally we would have liked to follow on the work that happened in 2017 and 2020, regarding sort of setting a framework around responsible camping, as opposed to just focusing on freedom camping altogether, because we think this would have kind of created a more holistic approach to tackling issues such as pollution and just practising camping more in tune with the natural environment that we live in.

This bill also won’t necessarily increase the extent of the data that we collect on this problem, since it doesn’t necessarily require local authorities to report infringements on these issues, and so we think that more work could have been done on this. But as I said at the beginning of our statement, the key concern that we continue to have is the use of this bill to target our homeless population, and our support of this bill hinges on the ability to make changes that will ensure that our homeless population isn’t targeted. Kia ora.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to make a few remarks on this bill and on our position. I will start by acknowledging the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for the time and enabling all the constitutional requirements that enabled the submitters to express their views, the majority in opposition, and it’s a shame where the select committee process ended up, because I think the bill that we have here today has suffered for that.

Now that the bill has been considered by the select committee and that people have had their voices heard, ACT has adjusted its position and will be opposing this bill at second reading. It is clear that the bill just doesn’t add up, and, while it has good intentions, we have to look at the policy outcome, and question whether the bill is good public policy. Will it solve what it’s actually trying to solve? We don’t think it does. It unduly burdens travellers, be they domestic or international, for the actions of a few, and others have spoken about this behaviour component of this as well. We need to ask what it’s trying to solve and whether it will solve it, and we don’t believe it will.

The problem, as others have said, is something we mostly agree on: poor behaviour leads to bad outcomes which negatively affect the enjoyment of what New Zealand has to offer, but this bill won’t solve it. It will put a significant cost on those doing the right thing, and those who don’t do the right thing will probably just wind up ignoring the law anyway.

So the focus is on the wrong place, and, really, this should be about the behaviour of these people and the context of that behaviour, which is the lack of public toilets up and down this country, which is not the fault of freedom campers. So, based on the research by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the law change would affect, potentially, up to 130,000 self-contained vehicles, based on initial estimates. Converting a van could cost between $1,200 and $5,000. Then there are other fees every few years for the certification, and then the monitoring levy that they would have to pay once every four years at the time of accreditation to recover those costs.

Most territorial authorities who shared infringement information with MBIE generally noticed a decrease in the total number of infringements that were being issued over the past few years in any event, and this coincided with more education around this issue, and Ricardo spoke about the social licence that may have been lost here, and certainly this has been in the media, and perhaps this has actually influenced behaviour as well.

There is no consistent nationwide understanding of what a self-contained vehicle is, and it seems that each territory has a bit of a different understanding of what that means and what they’re going to do about it. What might be totally fine in one area and not gain an infringement might not be in another area, and I just think it’s too much to expect freedom campers and tourists, particularly international tourists, to know the difference between the different territories and the different bylaws. So there are certainly issues there.

As I said in my opening, the select committee process didn’t end up the way it probably should have. Most submitters opposed this bill, and I’ll give just a few highlights from that. The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association supported the intention—again, it’s something that a lot of us agree on—but were concerned over the costs, and they are significant. Tourism Holdings Ltd was concerned over the bill’s focus on vehicles rather than poor behaviour, and that’s certainly our position on this. The Responsible Campers Association opposed the bill entirely, with the founder, Bob Osborne—and I know he’s been quoted already—telling the committee that proposing fitted toilets won’t guarantee that people will use them.

Realistically, how many people currently get infringement notices for this issue? I think the issue is that when it comes to this behaviour and putting this massive cost on freedom campers, actually, if they get toilets installed and then up doing poor behaviour and not using them for various reasons—because they don’t want to clean it or whatever the issue may be—then they’re not covered by this, but for those who don’t actually go to that cost could be covered by this, simply because of the lack of public toilets.

So the summary is that we think this bill has the wrong focus. There is too much red tape. It won’t solve the problems that it’s seeking to solve, and it won’t change behaviour. It will just add cost and compliance for those that are doing the right thing already. So ACT will not be supporting this bill any further. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill, an important piece of legislation to maintain our clean, green image that we have here in New Zealand. I will attempt to flush away some of the odour from the Opposition from what we’ve heard this afternoon.

The Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 to improve the management of vehicle-based freedom camping. Now, we’ve heard from speakers across this House—some who agree with the bill; some who don’t. There does appear to be consensus around the fact that the non - self-contained vehicles appear to be losing the social licence to operate. People doing their business in the woods is not something that we accept as New Zealanders. Obviously, there’s arguments from different sides around whether this bill will fix that, our side of the House believe that it will fix that, and obviously that’s why we’re putting it into legislation. The Opposition have a different view and that obviously remains to be seen.

But the important aspect here is the fact that if anyone goes overseas and they have a look at an advertisement for New Zealand, you’ll often see pristine nature at its finest, often the likes of the Milford Sound. But the reality is: are people, when they come here, receiving what they’re being shown on an image? And the fact that, prior to COVID, the Milford Sound had around a million people going through there every year, which is not sustainable. This is just another example of us holding true to the image that we put out there to the rest of the world. Because tourism is absolutely vital for our economy, it’s vital we protect it. It’s vital that we do it well. I’ll leave my call there, I know others would like to contribute. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m the member of Parliament for Coromandel, and in pre-COVID times—and, indeed, in times before our roading infrastructure was so decimated by weather events—freedom camping and mobile homes were a very big part of the tourist industry in the Coromandel, part of the infrastructure, and very much part of what made the Coromandel, the Coromandel. Sadly, occasionally, there were some people who didn’t act appropriately and decided to use our beautiful natural environment as their personal toilet facilities. And so we in the Coromandel have been very concerned about some of the actions of a minority, I have to say—of a small minority—of freedom campers who have in the past abused the hospitality and the natural environment afforded to parts of the country like mine in the Coromandel.

We, of course, on this side of the House, do agree that there needs to be tighter controls and better behaviour, but this bill actually focuses on the wrong issue. This is a bill that focuses on hardware rather than behaviour. And it’s the behaviour of the campers rather than the facilities that might be fixed or not fixed to the vehicles in which they traverse regions like mine around the countryside. So I am inclined to agree with the previous speaker, Jamie Strange, who said that the focus should really be on behaviour, on human behaviour, rather more than the hardware that goes in the mobile homes and the freedom camping vehicles.

Now, what’s worse about this bill is that, in typical Labour Party fashion, it focuses on a centralised ideological approach that doesn’t take into account human nature, and sets in place a heavy-handed regulatory system that is going to be administered by none other than the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. A worthy organisation, I’m sure, and members will know from past debates in this House relating to the administration of that board that it’s not been without its problems. I just don’t think, and nor do my colleagues on this side of the House think, that this is an appropriate regulatory authority to be, basically, monitoring these new statutory requirements that this Act will bring to bear.

So we are opposed to this piece of legislation, essentially, for three main reasons. Firstly, we think that the definition of “self-contained” is too restrictive and we think that Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board is fundamentally unsuited as an entity to run the certification process that will be required by this piece of legislation. And then, thirdly, we think that this piece of legislation will impose unnecessary and prohibitive costs on the vast majority of responsible freedom campers.

In my part of the world, we’re looking forward to welcoming them back. We are looking forward to having international tourists, in particular, come to see us, but we want to see domestic tourists as well. The vast majority of those people are responsible, they do respect the natural environment, and they are responsible for a very careful use of facilities, whether those are in-vehicle or publicly available in terms of their own convenience needs. But it’s the small number who don’t that we want to focus on. And I’d go so far as to say that, actually, this piece of legislation needs to be rethought, reconsidered.

Now, on that note, I didn’t sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, but the select committee clearly went through some kind of metamorphosis as it was considering this bill, because initially it seemed that the Labour Party was going to use its absolute majority and just push through a select committee recommendation on the legislation. They were going to do it quickly, get down and get dirty and do it fast. Well, the make-up of the committee changed during the process and the net result was that the committee reported back with no change, no report.

So this is a rushed piece of legislation. It doesn’t do the job that I think it’s intended to do. And it’s a good example of ideology versus good practical environmentalism of the sort that we have here in the National Party. We in the National Party are opposing this legislation at second reading.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. As a keen camper—but rarely a freedom camper, because I do like the Department of Conservation (DOC) sites and their well-appointed facilities—I am delighted to stand up and take a short call on this matter, although I was not privileged to be a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It seems to me that the Opposition are fundamentally missing the point, and what they seem to be wanting to do is in some way close the toilet door after the user has fled. There is not a lot of point with suggesting that we try to catch these people after they have done what they do in the woods. That is going to be remarkably difficult and may require some quite advanced DNA testing as well, which I just don’t think that we want to foot the bill for.

The simple, elegant solution is to require the small percentage of people who don’t already have toilets fixed in their vehicles—and I believe about 85 percent of freedom campers currently do, so we have a small percentage here—to do the right thing: have their fixed toilet, and then do the right thing in the right place. It seems to me that this is a sensible proposal, because, apart from anything else, I note that we have 200 DOC camping sites up and down the country. It is not as if those who do not manage to do what they should do and fix a toilet in their vehicle are going to be disadvantaged, because they will have many fine options. I say this as the member for Whangārei, undoubtedly the best place for camping in New Zealand, and I would just point to the wonders of the Uretiti campsite, the Waikahoa campsite near Mimiwhangata—a beautiful place—and, not least, the Puriri Bay campsite, all of which have excellent facilities, which I would suggest any freedom camper not able to fit a vehicle might want to use. On that note, I take my seat.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The only issue I have with the speech from my colleague Dr Emily Henderson is around which is the best camping part of New Zealand. I have just been on a wonderful road trip across what we call region six in the Labour Party, so through Clutha district, through to Queenstown, up to Ōāmaru and down, and it is absolutely stunning—the best weather in New Zealand and some of the best camping sites. But the communities there are frustrated with freedom campers. In fact, Tess Brunton, on a Radio New Zealand story last year on 30 November, quoted a Wānaka resident—Debbie—remembering finding unpleasant surprises around her community and its tracks. It quotes, “You find toilet paper and all sorts of stuff around, and it’s not good.” So that is the experience, and I would remind this House that, actually, it was local authorities and communities who requested this legislation—the ones who had freedom campers coming through.

As far as the argument about hardware versus behaviour goes, if we look at what we would call the theory of change with the logic around why we are doing this, there is a logic to assume that when people have the hardware to be able to go to the loo, they will use that hardware. That’s what this is based on, and, in fact, the stats bear it out: 98 percent of those who have fixed toilets use them, and that’s in the 73,000 self-contained vehicles. So 85 percent of them have fixed toilets, and 98 percent of them use them.

So the best way to change the behaviour is actually provide people with the toilets or make sure they’ve got them and then they will use them. Certainly, toilets are provided up and down New Zealand, as Dr Emily Henderson said—200 Department of Conservation sites. There is funding available for local authorities to be able to get more. So the question is: do we want to keep New Zealand clean and green? Do we want to have a brand proposition that is pooey and gluey? I would say clean and green, and so I support this bill.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems a very long time since I’ve been in the House, I actually—

Anna Lorck: Oh, where’ve you been?

STUART SMITH: I had the last week of the sitting block in Australia, actually looking at renewable gas. I had, on that occasion, to go to two sewage treatment plants, one just south of Melbourne, which handles half of the sewage for Melbourne, and one in a place called Logan City, just out of Brisbane. So it seems ironic that we’re talking about sewage, in a way, in my first speech back, which, as I said, it seems a very long time ago since I was here.

But I want to actually approach the logic, as a very good member—Ingrid Leary—just mentioned, who just took her seat, for this problem and how we approach it. And I want to tell you a little story about my experience with a constituent in Kiwa Road in Kaikōura, where there’s a wonderful beach for surfing there, now, after the earthquake had lifted up the coastline there. All of a sudden, they’ve got extra surfing beaches that they didn’t have in the past. A family living right on that beach—across the road is the beach, and a lot of freedom campers use that site. They have young children—well, not that young but they’re at the end of their primary school years, and they’re quite good surfers. Getting across that road is fine, but then across to the beach, where all the freedom campers are, is really a hopscotch through human waste, and it is appalling.

The logic that I’m coming to is that most of those campervans have contained toilets—plumbed-in toilets—and people just don’t use them. And they don’t use them often, because they have to pay a fee to get the toilet cleaned if they’ve used it—they don’t if they don’t use it. I know it’s crazy, but that’s what happens. Humans do that. It’s outrageous what’s happened there. It took us a long time to try and get that dealt with. But that’s happening all up and down the country. People do those sorts of things.

There’s been some very good initiatives from KiwiCamp in Marlborough, in my electorate, actually, where it started, where they’ve put in camping grounds where people buy a token, they get into the camp—they have to pay to get in—toilets are free, but if you want a shower, you have to pay with a token; if you want hot water to wash your dishes or do laundry, you have to pay. The rationale for free toilets: quite simply, if you have to pay, they won’t use them. Though, they have no choice to get a hot shower but to pay for it, but if they have to pay for the toilet, they simply won’t. It’s just outrageous that people treat things that way. But not everybody’s a reasonable person. And I think that’s the thing we have to remember.

I didn’t actually sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I am on the select committee now, but I wasn’t there to hear the evidence of the submitters, unfortunately. But I understand everyone’s got the right outcome in mind, it’s how we’re going to get there that’s the issue.

These chemical toilets that were talked about before—the porta-potties, I think it was called—they also work and will work well. The issue is behaviour; it’s not the hardware, as has been mentioned. I think, absolutely, campervans should have a toilet of some description in it. But to set up the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board as an entity to police this is just taking a really bureaucratic approach to a problem that is really unnecessary. It’s far better just to prosecute people that behave badly. That is the issue, and it’s been the issue all along with this freedom camping.

Freedom camping’s fantastic for people to get around New Zealand. It started out very well, it’s grown so quickly, and the reputation has grown around the world. Trying to get Kiwa Road identified—as are many other places which have problems with freedom campers—as somewhere that you’re not allowed to go without an installed toilet in your vehicle is a long process. It takes a long time, it’s difficult to deal with, and then, even when you get there, they ignore it. Fortunately, there is now a KiwiCamp in Kaikōura that people can go to if they choose to, and a hot shower draws people in. So I think there are other solutions than this bureaucratic one that we have.

It’s a great pity that after all of the people gave their evidence—took their time out of their day to come and give evidence to the select committee—the select committee reported back without any recommendation. I apologise to those submitters because I think that’s a great pity, because their opinions are valued, and I think that’s something that was not done lightly, but it was done for a good reason.

I think the three things that were mentioned before by my colleague, who just spoke earlier, that we don’t think that this is the right thing to regulate the hardware, we don’t think that’s the right way to do it, we don’t think the plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters—I got that in the wrong order, but it won’t matter—are the right entity to police this. All we need to do is police bad behaviour, because we will still get it anyway. That’s what has to be done quite vigorously to stop this sort of behaviour ruining our beautiful places that we have in New Zealand. I have been to Central Otago, I didn’t know it was in region six, but, as it turns out, it was a lovely area. I didn’t freedom camp there, though, but I did freedom camp going to Bathurst, to the great race, a while ago. If you want to hear about that, I could give you 10 minutes on it.

Anyway, with that, I will end it there. But we oppose it in this form. This is not the right way. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and certainly unnecessary. Thank you.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take the final call on the second reading for the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill. It’s been interesting hearing about people claiming to live in the part of the country that has the best spots for camping. It is difficult for me, living in a place with the most amazing tomos and wild west coast and a beautiful maunga, so I’m torn just within my electorate, let alone amongst other electorates—just saying.

It’s been really interesting hearing about how we solve the problem that we all agree on. We’ve heard that education has helped. The Tiaki Promise that we have brought to our visitors has seemed to really help, but it is not enough. Suggesting that we simply police those who behave badly is a really interesting proposition when most freedom camping spots are quite remote. So it’s a really interesting idea to think that we’re going to get our rural cops out there—who are pretty much sole-charge—to suddenly be going off and policing bad behaviour.

Education is not enough. As my esteemed colleague Ingrid Leary suggested, we need to provide them with the loos. It’s pretty simple. It isn’t enough, and it is important, because the cost is being borne by our local communities and by our visitors. Even though we have invested in a lot of loos in Taranaki - King Country—more than $1 million—Mōkau, Pirongia, and in Te Papakura o Taranaki; for those of you who don’t know, that’s the fabulous new name for our national park. That was great, tripping off the tongue.

What we need to make sure is that we support the people who are camping to do it right by making sure that they’ve got the equipment they need so that when we go and enjoy our beautiful remote places, as locals or as visitors, they are clean and green and fabulous. I support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 73

New Zealand Labour 63; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Customs: I present a legislative statement on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I move, That the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to provide clear arrival information obligations to help with customs-related border management matters. This bill sets out an explicit obligation on arriving passengers to provide their required arrival information that is set out in the chief executive’s rules. This will improve the transparency of the system because the public will be able to see in one place the requirements in law that they need to follow when they travel to Aotearoa.

The bill also improves the enforcement of the arrival information requirement by introducing two new offences: for failing to provide prescribed arrival information, and for providing erroneous information of a material particular—in simple terms, that means that the offence won’t apply if a person just makes a minor error. As part of the offence of failing to provide arrival information, it is also an offence to fail to provide it in the time and way required.

In practice, most people want to comply with the customs requirement and complete their arrival information. Making these into infringement offences will provide a way to further encourage compliance.

Other changes include regulation-making powers to set the timing for when arrival information can be required and to exempt categories of travellers from providing arrival information.

The work that Customs does at our borders is a critical part of managing our border system. Customs has several core functions, such as preventing prohibited goods from crossing our border and collecting revenue. Customs also aims to provide a streamlined border-processing experience for travellers coming into Aotearoa.

The changes in the bill will support digitising the New Zealand passenger arrival card through the New Zealand traveller declaration. The New Zealand traveller declaration is expected to improve border management, integrate intelligence and risk assessment for border agencies, and provide a more streamlined experience for travellers. This contributes to wider work under way to build a safer, smarter, and agile border.

A digital arrival card could be implemented using existing customs legislation. However, this bill is an opportunity to improve transparency around collecting and providing arrival information. These changes will also improve the way the system works and the enforcement of the system.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee considered the bill and reported back to the House on 20 April this year. I want to thank the committee and the chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, for its careful consideration of the bill, and I appreciate its deliberation on the bill over the April adjournment period. I also want to acknowledge all those who have submitted on the bill.

The committee recommended that the bill be passed, and it agreed to some amendments unanimously. In its report, the committee noted that it initially had some concerns in relation to the collection of personal information and the sharing of information.

In relation to the collection of personal information, the committee report noted it was initially concerned that the bill would expand the range of personal information required under the bill. After receiving advice, the committee noted it was satisfied that the bill did not expand the personal information that may be collected. I thank the committee for its thorough consideration of the collection of personal information. It’s important that Customs is able to collect the personal information it requires for its role, but there are also safeguards in place to ensure the appropriate collection of personal information.

In terms of data sharing, the committee noted that some members were concerned that the travel movement information that Customs collects could impact on superannuitants and beneficiaries. As the committee noted, the Customs and Excise Act 2018 already provides for Customs to share information with the Ministry of Social Development to verify eligibility for a benefit, but there are a range of safeguards in place around this sharing.

This bill does not include specific, stand-alone provisions relating to the protection of arrival information collectives. This is because information collected under the new arrival obligation is covered by the existing robust information-sharing framework and protections in the Customs and Excise Act.

The committee also looked at a number of other issues such as digital access, the management of Māori data, and how exemptions would be applied. Concerns were also raised by the Privacy Commissioner and by the committee about using the chief executive’s rules to specify the arrival information required or the way that arrival information must be provided. I consider that it is appropriate that the chief executive’s rules are used in this context as this aligns with the framework of the Customs and Excise Act—that is, where matters of detail are set out in rules. This approach also allows for timely updates to what arrival information is collected, such as when a concession changes—for example, the amount of alcohol that is duty-free.

The chief executive’s rules are secondary legislation, which means that they are also subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Also, section 53 of the Customs and Excise Act sets out the broad purposes for which Customs can collect arrival information. These remain as key safeguards for specifying this type of information in the chief executive’s rules.

The committee has recommended unanimously—and I agree with its recommendations—a number of changes to the bill that will be addressed during the committee of the whole House. One change is to allow for the phased implementation of the arrival information requirements for maritime. This would allow the arrival information obligation to come into force on or after 31 October 2023 for Defence Force vessels and cruise ships. More time is needed in these areas to work on how to operationalise the digital arrival card.

Another minor change has been to where regulations could provide for a requirement to provide information offshore. This provision has been changed to make it clearer. There is also a minor amendment to one of the offence provisions to ensure all relevant offending is captured by the new offence.

I acknowledge that the implementation of a digital arrival card may be difficult for some people. That is why there is a range of measures under way that will be in place for when the New Zealand traveller declaration is implemented this year, such as a call centre to help people complete their arrival information requirements. At some international ports, there will be airport liaison officers and also on-ground support for travellers on arrival in New Zealand. If a person cannot complete arrival information in the New Zealand traveller declaration—for example, they don’t have a device—they can complete a paper arrival form.

In summary, this bill clarifies arrival information requirements and approves the enforcement of those requirements. The amendments will ensure Customs can fulfil its important border management role and support the shift to the digital arrival card through the New Zealand traveller declaration. Ultimately, this contributes to building a safer, smarter, and agile border.

Again, I thank the committee for its considered work, and those who took the time to provide a submission on the bill. I look forward to the passage of this bill through its remaining stages, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, a few introductory comments, but before I get to that, because I’m sure the Minister and the Government’s at bated breath: National will be supporting this bill. So everyone can just chill and relax. I mentioned in my first reading speech how excited I was that we are dealing with a customs bill, and I just want to put on the record that on the second reading, I’m still excited. It’s very good to have a customs bill here. I’m going to go through why this side of the House supports it. The second, though, very quick and general comment, is to thank those on the front line of Customs. As the Minister knows, they are working incredibly hard, with some amazing drug busts of late. But one encouragement, too, because I know—and Barbara Edmonds, the Minister, will know—they’ve just finished training two dogs for Fiji, which is brilliant; Customs dogs, which is excellent. And just an encouragement to the Customs team that they should follow the line of the Fire Service and the Police and get themselves involved with the Friday floof. It’s incredibly popular in the social media space; it genuinely is.

National supports this bill because it’s a sensible set of changes. We all know intuitively, anecdotally and otherwise, that the world is changing to a digital platform and the days of filling out pieces of paper or card are changing. And so for those at home wondering what this amendment bill is all about, fundamentally there are several elements, and they would have heard that from the Minister, but as I understand them, the fundamental change is that people are now going to be asked to fill out their arrival information online. In a similar way, for those who have travelled in recent months, they had to do—granted, it was the health declaration and I know there’s some controversy around that, and so forth. But, actually, you went online and you filled it out and that’s what’s going to happen here. So in many ways, the same questions which New Zealanders and others are familiar with in filling out that blue declaration card is now going to be online.

A little element towards that which people need to understand—I think they need to understand, they can choose not to of course, it’s a free world, but, actually the arrival card is a mixture of information from multiple Government departments. Customs asks a series of questions, the Ministry for Primary Industry is asking a number of questions, Immigration’s asking a number of questions. And so that is pulled together into one card, one piece of paper at the moment. Now that’s going to be manifest online. And that was certainly where a lot of the committee work—and I was pleased to be there—debating and trying to understand first and foremost who is getting to set these questions. And there was a concern—at one level, academic—going, you know, well actually, could a whole series of questions which in some ways breach privacy or are unnecessary, could that be asked? There was concern that actually in this primary piece of legislation, this amendment bill, it does not specify what exact questions should be on the card. A lot of time was spent debating that, and it was quite generally one of my concerns as well. And that’s not a reflection on those who run our ministries, but it’s just, you know, when you pass a piece of legislation, you want it to be as tight as possible.

We were assured time and time again—and it made sense to this side of the House and hence why you have a unanimous report—that actually the existing Customs and Excise Act of 2018 already gives powers to the chief executive, first and foremost, to set what the questions are, but also sets some parameters. They do already set parameters of what can and cannot be asked, and the Minister in her own contribution noted that trying to, if you will, change that aspect through this amendment bill would not make sense. And a good example, in fact it was also used by the Minister—if tomorrow it was the decision to change how much alcohol or tobacco or whatever else you are to bring into the country, that would naturally affect the questions and we’d have to come back into this House to pass primary legislation to make that change, where it seems to be a good principle and subsidiarity to actually allow that to be with the chief executive. So that makes sense to us. And the assurances we’ve been given helps. We also know we can turn up to the Regulations Review Committee, and elsewhere, if there were challenges as well. And I suppose also—quickly, to phrase it in the positive—I think on this side of the House, and I assume it’s the same with the Government, we understand that questions will naturally change over time. There will be other requirements which arise where you go, “You know what? It’s good that the chief executive can quickly introduce those.”

There was also questioning in a similar vein around data sharing. It’s no surprise that, you know, you are giving away quite a bit of information when you come into the country. How is that being used? Posed in the positive, we know from submissions from the tourism industry they are very keen to get hold of that data swiftly and quickly so they can understand who is coming to New Zealand, which countries they are coming from, and so forth. And Customs and our advisers were very, very quick to assure us that access to data is important in an aggregated sense, but also really keen to stress that while this data now is being collected in the more efficient form, it will be shared only by agreement. And really importantly, which I think put a lot of members—well, certainly, I should personalise it, it put my mind at ease that Customs already has a number of memorandums of understanding and agreements with a number of Government departments to share information. So again, I suppose the long and the short of it is it doesn’t matter if it’s the data privacy side or the data-sharing side, the setting of questions—these are already mandated. The way these are operated or operationalised is already current under the excise Act. So, again, the amendment’s not changing any of that.

The fact that there are new penalty offences does make sense. But the committee also spent a little bit of time debating that. And look, I’m not a lawyer—I know you hear me say that all the time—so I’m very happy to be corrected.

Andrew Bayly: Thank God for that!

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know, thank God for that. Unfortunately, I’m a philosopher, which probably makes things worse; I don’t know. That’s off the topic.

At the moment, you fill out your arrival card on the plane as you are coming to New Zealand, as you are arriving. This traveller declaration requires you to fill out the form, arguably before you’ve arrived. You are going to be filling this out hours if not days prior to leaving. So you are doing an arrival card before you are arriving. And so the bill had to tweak some of the language, and thank you to PCO and others who helped—so that’s the Parliamentary Counsel Office, our internal lawyers—just to make sure the wording of the legislation as proposed is rather tight, to say it’s not just in the act of arriving but in anticipation of it. So I myself found that quite interesting. And consequently, too, there’s liability offences for those who do not fill out these forms.

The transitional arrangements which the Minister alluded to also make sense. These arrival documents will need to apply to our military vessels and to those coming from the maritime vector. Making sure that that is done correctly is important. It’s been one of my little bugbears over the years, how we correctly police, for want of a better word, those coming through on seagoing vessels, particularly the cruise ships. Again, for most of us who travel on airlines, you can only come in via one port. You’ve all got to go through those e-gates and hand over your documents and passport. It’s slightly different, when there are the thousands disembarking from the various cruise ships, about how things are done. And I’m very keen to see that travel vector clearly policed and tightened. So it makes sense that time is going to be given there. And again, for people just to intuitively think—I mean, I’m an Auckland MP—how are you going to fill out these forms easily and swiftly online? You can imagine, for want of a thought experiment, if you’re running late at Auckland Airport as you are arriving, you’ll be able to access a terminal. Are they going to roll out said terminals at the Auckland maritime border? Maybe they will. We will see. But it just takes a little bit of time.

And that then leads me to my last thought, and I’m pleased with what the Minister said, which is support will be in place. That’s National’s only concern. But I just want to signal that’s a low-level concern; it’s just to make sure that there is sufficient support in place for those New Zealanders who are struggling to use the online systems. Mum and Dad, I might be looking at you, but I’ll try to be a dutiful son and help them out. But there is actually a group of New Zealanders who will find it difficult to use online systems. And so from the National Party side, we’re just hoping there will be sufficient support in place from those call centres, liaison officers, and just people at the arrival gates to assist those people who need help obviously to use the online system. But really pleased to hear the Minister confirm that there will still be the option of these paper copies.

And so with that, just to thank—well, to the extent that I can—the select committee. Jenny Salesa is a fantastic chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and helped guide this through. We didn’t have a lot of submissions. I think we had five in total, but they were five good ones and actually really got to the core of what needed to be done. And so with that I am happy to commend the bill with the House with the proviso that Customs, as I say, Minister, engages itself along with Police and the Fire Service, putting those amazing detector dogs up on a Friday.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think at the heart of this bill is the safer and smarter passenger experience that will make the border more agile. As we’ve heard from the Minister, actually, the digital services identity card could have been done under the existing legislation. I think it’s a testament to the Hon Meka Whaitiri that she has chosen instead to go through the House, because it does raise the spectre of digital information-gathering and sharing, which are areas that are increasingly in the media, areas that cause anxiety for people, and areas that need significant transparency in order for human rights to be safeguarded. So I think absolutely the right approach has been taken, even though it could have been done under the existing legislation.

As the previous member, Simon O’Connor, has spoken about, those requirements need to be explicit, and particularly around the powers of the Customs officers to be able to share information. We’ve heard that those information-sharing powers are the same or very similar to what are in place now, but people need to know that. So this is about transparency and assuring people of a transparent process.

There are two new offences around not providing information and also providing erroneous information. They are to incentivise people to take this process seriously, to do it correctly. Of course, going into a digital world, I guess a shift to an incoming card that is digital is inevitable, and there are privacy things to take into account, so having a select committee process has been really good.

My final comment is just to say how reassured I am around the fact that there will still be support for people who can’t access the digital service, and that there will still be paper cards available. That’s really good, because like the previous member, I acknowledge those who may never be able to work in the digital space, and I’m sure that the Customs service will performance manage itself to make sure that those facilities are there, that they’re being used, and that support is there. So it seems that there’s a lot of support for this, and I commend it to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill this afternoon around arrival information. Any time we simplify something into digital these days has got to be a good thing. Everyone is getting largely used to digital—with the exception of a few—and I’m pleased to see, like everyone else, that there will be some support for those people who haven’t quite reached that digital phase. But I think a lot of travellers now are certainly in that space.

Customs is one of those areas where often people are very critical of the process because at times it can be slow. You know, when you’re coming back from a holiday and you’re tired—and you do hear people often talking about the different lanes and how long it takes. And part of the paperwork is part of what’s slowing it down. But I think the important thing about it is—from the perspective of the country that we come from, where our main exporter is primary production—a little bit of slowness actually doesn’t hurt, because we don’t want the wrong things to go through. So anything we can do to make sure that the focus is clearly and sharply on looking for the right things rather than people faffing around with paperwork has got to be a good thing. And obviously if it’s digital it’ll be much easier to collate, because it does need to be thorough.

I think back to partway through last year when there was a foot-and-mouth scare in Australia. Albeit, it was a benign scare, but it did come through in a piece of pork and we do import a lot of pork into this country and the stuff that we’re importing through the proper channels is well and truly checked out. But the biggest fear is that somebody is going to come through customs and they’re going to end up having a piece of meat or something in their bag, or a source of plant material that’s going to decimate either our livestock industries or our horticulture industries. That’s the last thing we want and the last thing we can afford. Because many people would have seen the awful happenings over the Mycoplasma bovis incident when many cows were culled and many farmers were under stress. Yes, that was a terrible time in and of itself, and something like foot-and-mouth would be far worse—because Mycoplasma bovis was not ever an issue for trade because there is only one other country in the world that doesn’t have Mycoplasma bovis.

If we were to get foot-and-mouth into this country, we would see many of the same things going on out in our farm base in terms of having to destroy animals. But what’s worse than that is we would have to renegotiate all of our trade deals because we actually have foot-and-mouth disease - free trade deals at the moment. And I understand that even if we were to be able to get it under control through vaccination—and those vaccinations change, a bit like the COVID ones do; because you get different strains and it moves, as anything like that does—even if that was the case and we did get it under control through vaccination, we would still end up having to renegotiate our trade deals because we’d be foot-and-mouth vaccinated, not foot-and-mouth - free like we currently are now.

I thank the House for bearing with me as I worked my way through that, but I think often when people think about customs, they don’t think about the relevance of why we are doing so much checking in a country like ours where food production is so important.

It is of note that it is possible, with the current bill that we have, that we are able to digitise. I wasn’t on the select committee that did this, but it is important to note that the reasons for changing this legislation now are to be able to give clearer obligations and make sure that the penalties are fitting what is going on. Many of us might have heard of a person who’s accidentally turned up and forgotten there was an apple in the bottom of their bag—sometimes there’s an accident, but oftentimes people try to bring things in because they simply don’t understand the dangers to this country of doing so. I can’t stand watching those border control programmes because it totally annoys me, the sort of things that people try to bring in. And so we wouldn’t want to see anybody deliberately having plant material, meat, or anything in their suitcases. I know those detector dogs are very smart and very accurate and have the ability to be able to sniff out lots of things these days as people are walking through the airport, but, you know, we can’t afford to have something coming through that shouldn’t be there.

So it’s good to see these new liability offences that are being put in place. One is for failing to provide prescribed arrival information. It’s really important that people are brought to the fact that filling out either currently a paper form or in future a digital form—so they’re actually really going through it bit by bit and clearly in their mind, recognising the sort of things that it’s not OK to bring in.

The second one is for providing erroneous information. Again it’s just showing people that they really do need to be taking this seriously. I do share some of the concerns around—Simon O’Connor brought it up before—the cruise ships. I’m sure the Defence Force have all their systems in place, but, as Simon said, when you fly into this country: one point, one airport, you get checked, you fill the forms out, everything’s checked then you move on. I’ve been on cruise ships and I’ve actually been on ships that cruise around New Zealand, and you get off at multiple ports on multiple days and there is a lot of food on cruise ships and everyone’s told to do the right thing. And we hope that they do. But it is that multiple-entry nature of cruise ships—and I really do hope that something can be sorted out quite soon in terms of being able to make sure that those ships are really checked when they come in, because they could be quite a source. People actually do get off and they’re in the streets quite quickly, out and about, off on tours. They all try to sell you different tours. I went on one once where we were stopped at Tauranga and you went on this food basket tour—so you could be in a kiwifruit orchard or you could be in a place where there’s fish or butchery or whatever. There’s quite a risk that actually goes on with those cruise ships. And now that they’re back—and we welcome they’re back because they’re a great tourism opportunity—we just need to make sure that this system is put in place as soon as possible so that we can monitor what goes on more carefully with those ships.

I also hope—I’ve seen a lot of digital things being planned in the past and attempted to be implemented that don’t quite work as well as they’re supposed to right from day one. So I really hope that the system, before customers are exposed to it or people travelling in and out of the country—I hope that it’s been critically tested and tested and tested just to make sure that it’s not going to fall over. Because the last thing we want to do is have people lined up at the border for hours on end for a system that’s not working, because that could be extremely frustrating.

So with that, I would reiterate the point that National does support this bill. It’s one that’s actually building this into the new phase of technology, but also just adding those extra couple of penalties that we talked about. And I do hope that whatever we do in this space keeps our New Zealand primary industries as disease-free as they currently are. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin my contribution this afternoon by thanking the Minister for bringing this bill to the House, and thanking members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I wish I could have joined you for this one but, alas, I’m not on the committee. But it looks like you’ve done some incredible work over the last wee while. Thank you to everybody who has submitted. It sounds like there have been some very robust and considered submissions made on the bill.

I do just want to begin by acknowledging the difference between the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and their biosecurity function and New Zealand Customs functions. Biosecurity is a function of MPI. It’s their role to try and prevent those apples in the bag from coming through. Customs’ core role is to facilitate travellers through the border. Once they go through Customs, it’s then at the MPI checkpoint that travellers will engage around the biosecurity risks, and it ceases to be a Customs process and begins to be an MPI process.

So I think it’s really important that we make sure that credit is given where credit’s due and really acknowledge the work that New Zealand Customs do as well, in particular, around catching prohibited items at the border. So what we’re talking about in that instance is making sure that firearms, illegal firearms, aren’t coming across the border; making sure that drugs aren’t coming across the border. So that’s the role they play in that space around prohibited items, less so in terms of catching those apples or food in the backpacks of travellers. They also play a crucial role in collecting duties and levies from people bringing alcohol and tobacco and other products across the border to make sure that we are collecting that revenue.

I also want to acknowledge the questions that have been raised about the collection of personal information. So under the Privacy Act, you can only collect information for which you have a lawful purpose that’s connected with your function and activity as an agency. Customs have long-established robust practices in that space and they work very closely with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and with the other border agencies—the Ministry for Primary Industries, Immigration New Zealand—and I know that for a fact, having worked at both New Zealand Customs and at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

I also want to acknowledge that I’m actually quite excited to see Customs move into that digital space. This isn’t a new process. This has been a long road to move into that digital space—one that began beyond five years ago, even, because it was five years ago that I was sitting at Customs drafting the privacy impact assessment to do our first trial of a digital arrival card, where the goal was to get a one-touch process for travellers through the border. So they would scan their passport and their digital QR code from their digital arrival card at the e-gate, and unless that raised any flags, they would be able to progress right through, including through MPI, without further contact from officials. So I am very excited to see the progress on this bill and I commend it to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, second reading. I do want to acknowledge the wealth of knowledge around the House tonight—this afternoon, as well. I don’t sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, so I want to thank the members for doing the due diligence on all of our behalf.

It makes perfect sense to actually move the system to a digital system. I think we can all agree on that. I was just reflecting on the chaos that that was created by COVID, and the amount of work that that had created for our front-line workers. So I also support the calls to acknowledge our front-line workers at Customs who would have had a very challenging—challenging—job over the last couple of years with COVID as well. So acknowledging that when you move things to the digital sphere, that if you have a really changing set of international circumstances which will impact your border as well, that being able to change that digitally is really, really, really helpful. I’ve been to a few places and I’ve met a few people as well, and the amount of data that different countries collect is different no matter where you go. I think one of the last time I was in—I think it was in the States, they would still ask a question about whether you knew anybody that was involved in World War II and had Nazi sympathies or something like that. Is that—I see a nod around the House that that still is in play over in that particular regime as well. So situations change, so making sure that when we move to the digital sphere as well, being able to move and actually meet those changes as well is also very, very important.

The issue of data sharing was, I see, brought up in the select committee. It’s something that not only impacts upon Customs but it impacts upon every single sphere of life in terms of the way that data is shared as well. So it’s good to see that there are some restrictions or some guidelines, if I can put it that way, that will be put in place to make sure that we retain some of those privacy measures, which is really, really, really important, particularly when we’re living in a world where basically everything on your phone is through multinational corporations. Most of us don’t want to have our private details shared far and wide, because that is really personal to ourselves as well, but I trust a lot of the officials more than I would trust Facebook or Twitter or TikTok or whatever. So just acknowledging that that is a very, very real concern, and good to see that the select committee had gotten into there as well.

I see that the select committee also made some recommendations, and it was good to hear from some of the members of the select committee because I hadn’t thought about it. Right, so you’re on the plane; you’re coming over; you haven’t actually arrived, but you’re in anticipation of arriving as well—making sure that that is considered in terms of the way that that wording has been made in the legislation. So good to see that that recommendation has been picked up as well.

I did have one question—and if there are other members from the select committee here who might be able to enlighten me—around the penalties that could be put on people that breach one of these new offences as to what those amounts might be. Is it a thousand bucks, 600 bucks, is it $400, is it more? And what is the rationale behind those different costs, if the select committee got into that more specific detail? Because for me, I’m thinking, if you’re going to ping someone for a particular offence, what is the rationale for that amount of money and why, and so on and so forth. And will it actually help to curtail that sort of behaviour? So I would be interested to hear views on that particular point, and maybe that’s something we can also bring up and the committee of the whole. On that note, the Greens will be supporting this bill.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT this evening to support this bill—to continue to support it. It’s one of those odd situations where Parliament is legislating technological change, but it is what it is.

I think we all agree that Customs do an incredibly important job protecting our borders, and ACT certainly supports the modernisation and the digitisation of this Customs declaration. It enables agility to be built into the system, and changes can be made in a cost-effective manner if they are necessary. It’s going from sort of a slow-changing environment to the more agile environment where this can be more responsive. So these are all good things.

I do have maybe an unpopular opinion, which is, personally, myself, I quite like the paper forms. Whenever I suggest that to someone, they think I’m out of my mind, but on a long eight-hour flight, it can give you something to do. The main gripe would be nobody seems to have a pen! Hopefully this will solve that problem.

The data sharing was something that I raised at the first reading, and, certainly, it’s been talked about in this reading and also in the select committee process regarding the scope of that data, how that may change, but, ultimately, it would seem that there’s assurance that the powers aren’t changing too significantly and that while the platform itself will change, the powers will just be kind of as they are.

The new infringement regime—I think we’ve had some assurance around how that can be responsive to how this rolls out, because while the questions may be the same, the circumstances of the person filling it out are quite different. They’re going to be doing it at a very different time; it could be days beforehand and circumstances may change, and so what happens in that case? Can there be a bit of allowance in the system or the ability to update and so on?

I think, separate to that, also, the paper form—it’s good that they’re going to stick around for people like me but also as a redundancy. I think as this system rolls out, like all IT systems done on a large scale, it could be a bit of a kerfuffle. We certainly hope they’re on to it. There will be complexities.

One little thought is: I hope there isn’t a mismatch between the digital form that someone signed—their declaration—and specific individuals. Someone coming off a plane holding a piece of paper that they’ve just filled out is very obviously—they say, yes, they filled this out, this is all true and it could be a bit different to a situation where someone maybe got some help from someone else or someone else did their form entirely for them. So there could be some teething issues there, but I’m sure—these are not reasons to not do something when it comes to technological progress, but they are things to be mindful of. Overall, the ACT Party is perfectly pleased to continue to support this to third reading.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always an honour and a privilege to take just a short call tonight in the House. And it’s good to be back after three weeks of recess in the beautiful Ōtaki electorate, for me anyway.

While I didn’t sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, it’s obvious to me that this bill, the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, absolutely makes sense. It supports the fantastic work that Customs and their team were already doing to make sure that we keep the borders of Aotearoa New Zealand safe—so a no-brainer for us.

As people have already spoken to tonight, we’ve heard that this bill provides an explicit obligation on arriving passengers to provide prescribed arrival information. The bill also includes two new offences, as we’ve heard tonight. One is for failing to provide prescribed arrival information, and the second is for providing information that is wrong or incorrect.

This bill creates a new regulation-making power to set the time by which arrival information must be provided to the New Zealand Customs Service and exempt persons from the requirement to complete arrival information. This also provides the power for Customs to collect certain information about persons arriving in Aotearoa New Zealand to verify compliance with traveller requirements set out in the legislation administrated by other agencies.

Again, as I said, this is just a short call to say, again, this is a no-brainer. This is a great piece of legislation to make sure that we support our Customs team that are already doing a fantastic job to keep Aotearoa New Zealand’s borders safe. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon David Bennett—five-minute call.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it is a very short speaking list from the Labour Party, isn’t it? And it just shows that they’re not really doing anything to keep this country from the economic decline that it’s facing at the moment, and small bills like this are all that they can put up at this stage. We need to keep our borders safe; there’s no doubt about that, and it’s important that we are up to date technologically and that offences do reciprocate for the nature of the issue that can happen—and New Zealand, being an agricultural country that relies heavily on biosecurity, needs to make sure that the customs and excise system is something that is effective.

However, in saying that, the Labour Party really should be looking at—and the Government should be looking at how it keeps those borders safe at a time where travel is starting to open up again, the risks are starting to come through for incursions, and we know that there’s a greater risk at a period of time when probably our infrastructure hasn’t been as tested during COVID, and now it is back to being tested and is slightly stretched. And everyone can talk about the queues they hear about at Auckland Airport and the inefficiency they see there, and that no doubt will lead to potential mistakes at our borders due to the stress that this Government has put on the system and not being ready for an open border as the rest of the world has been for some time.

So it’s important that we do keep up to date in this area, but really what we do want to see is actually the Government invest some serious money and resources into our biosecurity. They talked about it over the last two election campaigns and really tried to promise everything but haven’t done anything, and there’s been no significant increase in biosecurity that I can see. And the nature of what’s happened under Labour is that we’ve got a very strong risk profile building up. Imagine the stress on those Customs officers that are at our borders now because of the queues that are being created; the inefficiency in the system that’s there at the moment. And it’s no doubt that there will actually be a breach at some point, and that’s to the detriment of our New Zealand economy.

So it’s important that we do update, but at the same time, there were hollow promises by the Labour Party in the last two campaigns around biosecurity; their Minister hasn’t delivered. They are just hoping nothing comes up before the election to demonstrate the inefficiency and incompetence that they have shown in most of the areas of Government, and it’s no doubt that you’ll see the same in the biosecurity—and they may shake their heads, but we all know what they’ve done, and anybody that’s talked to somebody that’s been through the borders at the Auckland Airport will know how inefficient it is at the moment, and that anecdotal evidence is something the Government should be acting on because it’s going to be a precursor to something happening. Bills like this are important, but the real obligations that are out there haven’t been dealt with, and we look forward to the Government actually doing the proper thing in this area.

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

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora koutou, members. Before we went to the dinner break, we were debating the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. This next call is a five-minute call to the Labour Party.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. I was not a member of the select committee who considered this bill, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. However, it is an extremely important bill as we reopen our borders to the external world. This is a bill that amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to provide for clearer arrival information obligations, to improve the enforcement and functionality of the system, and improve border management and passenger experience by supporting a safer and smarter border. It’s also a bill that supports modernising our border by making improvements to support the implementation of a digital arrival card.

A few specifics about the bill are that it provides an explicit obligation on arriving passengers to provide prescribed arrival information, and it includes two new offences in the bill, one for failing to provide prescribed arrival information and one for providing arrival information that is “erroneous in a material particular”. It also creates new regulation, and as a member of the Regulations Review Committee I will be keeping a close eye on the utilisation of these regulation powers. The new regulation-making powers set the time by which arrival information must be provided to the New Zealand Customs Service and exempt persons from the requirement to complete arrival information. Interestingly, there are a number of exemption provisions within regulations and rules that guide when you can and should, and how you should, be making those exemptions provisions.

So this is a very practical bill. It will help us keep up with modernising our requirements at the border, and I commend it to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m standing up slightly earlier than expected, but I will take the call anyway. This is a solid bill, and the National Party supports it, but there has been a bit of a pedestrian debate, frankly, from the Government, as they have slowly stepped through the merits or otherwise of this piece of legislation. It, frankly, talks to their inability to crack on with things that need to be done and actually focus on the larger issues that are befalling this country—be it cost of living or, frankly, any of their portfolios that they’re struggling to deliver on.

The guts of this, for those at home who are wanting to know what this is all about, is that the New Zealand Customs Service have said, “Look, we’d like to move to a digital model”—which you’d think, in 2023, is about time—“and, by the way, as we do that, we’d like to have some tweaks with respect to the liabilities that currently exist if you do not fill out the Customs form appropriately, and some technical amendments that we will need to make to the legislation to ensure that we are following the law when we move to a digital model.” So here we are, spending, you know, close to two hours debating what is a simple, concise change to enable the modernisation, frankly, of Customs and the accumulation of data.

The select committee has gone through it well—I’ve only just joined the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; I turned up, essentially, as they were concluding this. They had a handful of submitters, one oral submission, and—as you would understand, Madam Speaker—there are a couple of clauses that have been suggested to just tighten the definition. Apart from that, we’re all in fierce agreement.

So rather than spending 10 minutes stepping through the ins and outs of Customs, I’m going to repeat that the National Party thinks this is sensible. We support it. Crack on with it, and, in the next six months before this Government runs out of time, actually focus on something that matters to the rest of the country. How about cost of living, housing, law and order, education, health—the list goes on. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Very good of the member from the Bay of Plenty to recite the Government’s work programme and the many achievements that this Labour Government has racked up over the last three years.

I’m going to lament the demise of the blue arrival card, just as I grieve—I grieve—for the demise of the men who walked up and down the aisles of arriving aircraft with aerosol cans, spraying aerosol through the cabin of the airplane.

Simon O’Connor: You’re not that old, surely!

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That was Simon O’Connor in his job before he became a politician. Good to have something to fall back on, Mr O’Connor. And I was thinking, actually—contemplating the debate tonight—one of my favourite Tom Scott cartoons—is there anybody in the House who’s old enough to remember Tom Scott? [Interruption] Sounds like there are a few people—yes, yes. So this particular cartoon—which is highly relevant to this bill, Madam Speaker—depicted, actually, a version of the famous Goldie painting, called “The arrival of the Māori”, but it was an allusion to classical paintings. And it showed the sort of emaciated and starving bodies, leaning forward in the bow of the waka as it crashed on to the rocks, in one of the first arrivals in this country. And there in the Tom Scott cartoon was a Pākehā man in a shirt and walk shorts and long socks, holding a clipboard saying, “Have you got anything to declare?” So that’s one of my favourite Tom Scott cartoons, and it speaks to the great contribution that Customs have made to the history of this great nation.

I’m very pleased to take a call in this debate, however briefly. The bill’s been considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—a very well-chaired committee, as is known. And as the previous speaker, Todd Muller, noted, there’s broad support across the House for this bill, which will allow the digitalisation of the gathering of information off people arriving in this country. Like SmartGate, that will actually make the process of arriving in this country by sea or by air a much better, more streamlined experience for people. So I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill. It’s always a joy on a Tuesday evening when peace and love break out in the House and everyone can agree that the Government is putting forward an excellent bill tonight to help protect the borders of our wonderful country Aotearoa New Zealand.

Many of us have now been able to travel since we’ve come out of the most difficult parts of the pandemic. Can I just comment that our teams at the border do a fantastic job. They process thousands of passengers every week and they do a fantastic job guiding people through the process and ensuring that they are doing everything they can to track down anything coming into the country that could harm New Zealanders or our country.

Others have mentioned tonight that one of the main things that this bill achieves is the ability to move to a digital declaration. We saw recently with a temporary measure that was used following the borders reopening that, as well as using your declaration card, travellers leaving New Zealand before they left had to actually complete a declaration for an electronic measure as well. That was the very beginning to this process so that we can make it more efficient and easier for people to be able to enter the country but still declare the information that they need to declare.

I just note from the select committee report that there were some queries there around privacy. It’s important that privacy considerations are always given due diligence by a select committee to ensure that we are protecting people’s privacy. The challenge in this type of setting is that not only do we need to consider the privacy of individuals entering New Zealand, we do have obligations to ensure that people who are entering are giving us the correct information, are coming in for the right reasons, that they’re compliant with immigration purposes, and that they’re not bringing anything in that may cause harm to New Zealanders such as drugs, for example, or anything that could harm our biodiversity. So we have these requirements to protect our country. But I do note from the select committee report that the advice received by the committee was that the bill wouldn’t expand any of the privacy obligations, but it would make it more transparent in terms of being aware of the information that was required to be provided. It’s an excellent bill. I’m pleased to hear that other parties will be supporting this bill and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill, the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill, and the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill, the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill, and the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.

Bills

Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come first to the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. We begin with debate on Part 1.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. I move that we hear all parts as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): “I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.” Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be here for the committee stage of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. I propose this bill amends the Forests Act to establish a new regulatory system that enables the forestry and wood-processing sector to provide domestic consumers and export markets with greater assurance that the timber products they are purchasing are from legal sources.

The question of how New Zealand responds to the issue of illegally harvested timber has been debated in this House for the last 10 years, and it’s good to see this bill being progressed. It has been the culmination of a lot of work by many groups of people, and I’m grateful to them. Can I acknowledge all members on both sides of the House for engaging constructively with this important piece of legislation. I’d like to reiterate my thanks to the Primary Production Committee for their examination of the bill during the select committee stage, and all submitters for their time and contribution to this bill.

Through the select committee process, several technical changes and several policy changes were recommended to help ensure the new legal harvest system will work well with the new registration systems for forestry advisers and log traders, which were introduced by a 2020 Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Act. These changes will reduce regulatory burden and compliance cost for regulated parties.

I’ve tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on this bill which makes changes to the bill as reported back from the select committee. The SOP strengthens the bill by making further changes to align the new registration systems for forestry advisers and log traders, with a proposed system for legal harvest, and other technical amendments to improve the efficiency and workability of the new regulatory systems.

I won’t go into the background of the bill as it’s been well-canvased across members here, but I do want to speak just a little bit more—if the Chair will indulge me here—on the SOP. As mentioned, the SOP which has been tabled—most of the changes included in the SOP are to better align the regulatory systems for forestry advisers and log traders, with the proposed regulatory systems for legal harvest. The new registration systems for forestry advisers and log traders are being implemented now. Registration will become mandatory in August of this year. The purpose of the 2020 amendment was to introduce a professional registration system to ensure forest owners receive better advice and there was more transparency in the market. It is important the legal harvest system works well with these new registration systems to save on regulatory burden and administration costs. These changes had to be made via the SOP, as they have become visible during the implementation of the new systems.

There are a couple of other changes that need to be mentioned. One is to allow the regulator to suspend a registered forestry adviser or log trader for non-payment of fees or levies. This will make compliance more efficient and effective. Another is to clarify the meaning of “legally harvested” by moving a reference on right to access the land from one subsection to another. This is a minor change but will make the definition clearer and therefore easier to comply with.

The SOP makes some other technical amendments. Two of these were recommended by a submission by the New Zealand Law Society, which was not considered during the select committee stage due to an administrative error. The chair of the select committee reported to the House on these changes and recommended I consider addressing these issues in an SOP during the committee stage. These are on (1) fixing a duplication in the bill on immunity from liability for assessors, and (2) amending offence provisions to allow for judicial discretion when determining whether a defence is available to a person. There is a further technical amendment which removes a requirement for confirmation of instruments for three levy-making powers.

Although there are a number of changes proposed in the SOP, these are mainly on technical issues and are aligned with original policy intent. These changes are needed to improve the workability of the new legal harvest assurance system and make sure it complements the existing registration systems for log traders and forestry advisers.

In closing for this part of my contribution, I want to reiterate the importance of having a legal harvest assurance system that will shut the door on illegally harvested timber products imported into New Zealand. The harvest assurance system will further provide the international market with confidence in New Zealand’s wood and wood products and show that New Zealand is taking all appropriate measures to combatting illegal harvesting and eradicating the problem. It is absolutely essential that we have a statutory framework for legal harvest. I end my contribution there.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Forestry for that explanation. Minister, I just want to ask you a few questions around the Supplementary Order Paper that has been filed, and I note that the point from the Primary Production Committee has been addressed, which was removing duplication of provisions that protect assessors from personal liability. So that’s good. I’m just wondering—the change here—what the rationale was to remove from the definition of when timber is legally harvested, the phrase indicating the right to harvest timber includes the right to access the place of harvest. If you could just clarify, for those listening, the rationale behind doing that.

I note one of the other points that was raised, and the select committee reported back on this point, was the concern about having a defence—two charges brought, or providing the court with discretion to allow defence to be put. I note that this appears to have been considered here, and new clause 30, I think, replaces section 63ZK of the principal Act, and the new section 63ZK specifies offences relates to the provision of a forestry adviser service only, and I note that it now says, “It is a defence to a charge”—in that section—if the offence is caused by “another person … an accident” or something else “outside the defendant’s control”. The defence in the current section 63ZK(2) is carried over. Either defence is available only if the defendant gives 15 days’ notice of the intention to rely on the defence, or the court otherwise gives leave. If I can ask the Minster if that intention there for the court to otherwise give leave was intended to address that concern raised about defendants being able to potentially raise the defence, and the court having the discretion to hear that defence.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll address the first question and I do apologise as I missed quite a bit of the member’s second question. But, if I can, I’ll address the first one and hope we can have an exchange to clarify for that member the matters he raised in the second question.

The right to access the place of harvest was being asked—what our rationale was. In discussion with the advisers here, taking it out of the primary legislation and placing it into the secondary was about trying to make the system—as I explained in my opening remarks, just to improve the workability of it, to make sure that the new legal harvest assurance system complements the existing registration systems for forestry advisers or log traders in order to make sure that it’s just a bit more streamlined. That’s certainly the advice that’s been given to us, and that’s the rationale that for making sure we take it out of there and put it into the secondary legislation.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s lovely, Minister, to finally engage with you in the committee of the whole House about all things forestry. I bring your attention to new section 77, inserted by clause 42. This was well canvassed, I think, with the officials in the Primary Production Committee, which I sit on, as you’re well aware. What I was trying to ascertain—and it seems like this problem has been ameliorated when it came to harvesting timber on what would be lease land. If I can sort of draw your attention to a theory, if you will: in this instance, the landowner owns the land but does not necessarily own the timber therein. Should there be, as a question—and I think you may have addressed it, but I just want some clarity on this. Should a person be accessing that land for the sake of removing that timber, though they are the lessee of the land—the owner of the timber but not of the land itself? Would that then be in contravention of the law—i.e., that timber has been harvested illegally because right of access? There might be some prosecutorial reality between partners, in this instance. By virtue of logic, are they not then in contravention of this bill, which is going to be an Act, by accessing private land?

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, in the report back from the Primary Production Committee, there is a recommendation that new section 145, inserted by clause 42, be amended to allow for judicial discretion when determining whether defence is available to a person after the 15-working-day period for notification has elapsed. So I note in this Supplementary Order Paper 349 that “Section 145 is amended to allow a person to rely on defence in new section 145(2) if the court gives them leave”, and “a similar amendment is made to new section 146 in relation to strict liability offences”. Is the Minister satisfied that the issue raised in the report back from the select committee—that section 145 be amended to allow for judicial discretion when determining whether defence is available to a person after a 15-working-day period for notification has elapsed—is addressed adequately by this Supplementary Order Paper?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Kia ora and thank you again, Madam Chair. Just to the point, with respect to the right of access: like most of the arrangements that are held between those who own the land and often those who hold the lease on the trees or the ability to harvest, most often they’re not the same people. So with respect to the right of access, it would be our expectation that that would be held in the agreement between the landowner and those who hold the lease in order to be able to access the trees—whether for harvest or for other purposes. So I hope that addresses the member’s question. If we want to flesh this out a little bit more, of course, that’s our right and that’s why we’re here.

I do apologise to the member Mr Mooney here. Once again, I missed the bulk of his question and so if he doesn’t mind asking it again, that’d be great.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much. And thank you, Minister, for engaging with this point. I’m referring to the report back from the Primary Production Committee which raised an issue around new section 145, inserted by clause 42, and recommended that it be amended to allow for judicial discretion when determining whether a defence is available to the person after the 15-working-day period for notification has lapsed. I note, in the Supplementary Order Paper, section 145 has been addressed by that, and I’m just wanting confirmation from the Minister that this is intended for the court to have leave as recommended by the select committee to allow a defence to be available for a person after the 15-working-day period has lapsed if leave is given by the court.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Look, thank you to Mr Mooney for his indulgence here in continuing to raise this question with me. The rationale here is to provide more flexibility for the defendants and to align with other pieces of legislation here. That’s the reason why we’re doing this, to allow that flexibility. With respect to the amount of days, if the member will indulge me here, I might ask the advisers for a bit more clarity on that particular matter, but that’s the rationale for why we’re doing it, and we believe that this bill will allow that flexibility.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, Minister; I apologise. I may not have been very, very clear, and I appreciate your answer given, and it was very succinct and it made sense to me.

To reiterate, my line of questioning was more in the sphere of should a lessor and lessee be in some, you might say, contractual difficulties, and some prosecutorial reality was potentially in play—that person, the said lessee, was accessing the land to harvest those trees whilst there was an issue over the said harvesting, it may be in contravention of this bill. I was just going to go back to section 77, where you removed it. Was that the reason that was removed, in so much as that someone accessing land where they see that they’ve got a legal obligation to remove the timber, but is still contractually bound and is finding themselves in some sort of prosecutorial reality in terms of who owns what—you might find that there were court proceedings in play or something to that effect that ameliorated the normal function between two partners. If you could just clarify if that was the reason why this was put in there or edited out.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): I thank the member Mark Cameron for the clarity in their question. I’m going to try and attempt to do this, and I beg their indulgence here. So if there is a dispute between a landowner and those who are looking towards accessing the trees by way of the lease that they hold, the right to access that land, they would have a legal right and would not be in contravention of any law as it currently stands at the moment, and this bill doesn’t change any existing laws in that respect. Whether or not that answers the member’s question, I’m not too sure there, but I seek their indulgence here.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I am going to ask a concern that was raised by the New Zealand Law Society in a submission that, unfortunately, made its way late to the Primary Production Committee, but was eventually considered. That was the concern about the protection of persons outside the Public Service in clause 6. I’ll just read it out and just ask how you have addressed this in the Supplementary Order Paper that’s before us today. The New Zealand Law Society—their concern was, they said, that this clause extends the protection of Crown officials from personal liability to those outside the Public Service, as a result of section 63D of the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Act 2020, which delegates “any or all of the Forestry Authority’s functions or powers” under Part 2(A) of the Forests Act “to a forestry industry body or other person outside the Public Service”.

They went on to say that this raises constitutional questions about the use of the Crown protection from liability in tort for the benefit of private actors. The regulatory impact statement does not address this feature of the bill, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 consistency advice does not consider whether doing so is consistent with section 27(3) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It went on to recommend that the committee consider this.

So I would just ask the Minister for comment on the response to this concern raised by the New Zealand Law Society on this particular feature of delegating powers to a forestry industry body or other person outside the Public Service, therefore extending the protection of Crown officials from personal liability to those other bodies.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Sorry, can I just ask the member for clarification. Which part were you talking about in the Supplementary Order Paper, sorry, that you said at the top of your contribution?

Joseph Mooney: Sorry, from reading this, it looks like it’s clause 6 under “Legal harvest assurance”—there has been an amendment there. I’m just asking if that has been made to address that concern raised by the New Zealand Law Society—or a potential issue raised by the New Zealand Law Society—about extending the protection of Crown officials from personal liability. I note in the Supplementary Order Paper, “Clause 6 is amended to remove assessors from the list of persons protected from personal liability under section 13 of the principal Act. The immunity that new section 117 confers on assessors who are outside the public service is retained. That section is amended to clarify that the immunity applies only when they act as an assessor under new Part 5.” So I’m just asking, has this been to address this concern raised by the New Zealand Law Society?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Can I thank the member again. To clarify: yes, it does. To be rather specific, on the point that the member makes around the Public Service, having protection from liability for assessors outside of the Public Service is in line with similar legislation. They are doing a public function so should be protected as they would under the Public Service Act, which is why this makes it quite clear with respect to how they are providing a public service here, so they should be, by these reckonings, covered under the Public Service Act.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m a commentator, not a lawyer, so it’ll take me a while to get to the question. I wanted to refer to an issue that Mark Cameron raised in a slightly different way, in that one of the really interesting submissions that came in on this bill related to legal harvest but not to legal harvest in the term of the bill. It was a very interesting submission—came out of Southland, interestingly, for Joseph Mooney’s benefit—and it related to someone who had, effectively, harvested the timber legally but then didn’t pay for it. It was quite a large submission, and I thought that was quite an interesting interpretation of legal harvest.

I suppose that leads me on to the topic I wanted to really talk about, which is fees. Fees are always of concern in the course of us putting these bills through Parliament, but the interesting thing about the fees in this case is that they, effectively, relate to the sale of wood, and those exporters never get to pay the fee, because the person who pays the fee, inevitably, is the forest grower. So it’s all very well to say that the benefits of harvesting that forest sheet back to the forest grower, but the people who make all the money out of it are the people that harvest it, the people that carve it, the people that transport it and send it overseas, and the people that clip the ticket on the way past. This doesn’t affect them at all.

So I suppose my concern is—and there was quite a bit of concern expressed in the course of the submissions on this bill—related to the fees and the way we set fees. This is a topic that comes up with every one of these bills that we put through Parliament, and there’s some frustration, of course, that those fees are not ever able to be identified prior to the bill passing, because, of course, until the bill’s passed, there’s not the ability to set the fee, which I think’s probably logical, but that’s the logic we use in this Parliament.

So I suppose my question for the Minister of Forestry was: does he have concerns around where these fees might get to and how they’ll be managed? I think, as I said, those fees will always sheet back to the person who grows the trees. It’s not possible to clip the ticket on the way past, because we would’ve just passed the costs straight back to the grower of the trees, and that’s quite a significant problem. It’s quite a significant problem for our whole primary industry in New Zealand, actually, because, at the end of the day, the grower’s always, basically, the price taker, and so we end up with that being quite challenging. I don’t know whether the Minister’s got any comment to make on the fees and the way they might be set, but it’d be really interesting if he did have and I’d be very keen to hear about that.

But I think the bill, from the experience I’ve had of the forestry industry, is a good bill, and it’s logical that we should put it in place. It’s just how we manage those costs that would concern me.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Kia ora, and can I thank Mr McKelvie for that contribution. He always gives very meaningful contributions in this House, alongside good commentary. I understand through the submissions some of those matters that have been raised, and what I want to make clear to that member first off is that I share, like many others in the sector, the concern that a vast chunk of the value of what we’re growing here in this country is being exported offshore. The member will have heard my question in the House today about our desire to process more of that here onshore, which is going to be an important way that we can grow and develop and support the sector into the future. While we want to get more of the value chain out of forestry—I think that’s something that we’ll all agree on—it is important that we do that and that we do that with the sector as a whole. One of the key lines that was raised with me last week when I met with the Wood Processors Association is that if we continue to innovate in silos, all we’ll have is really innovative silos. So I take the member’s point about looking towards making sure that the value actually is shared equally or at least distributed more equitably across the country as we look towards getting more out of that value chain.

When it comes to the fees framework around the processing, my understanding, Mr McKelvie, is that the cost to the owner of the forest is actually the compliance on being clear on exactly what it is that they’re harvesting, making sure that it fits with what’s required in order to report on what is being harvested here. But, look, we also have a part of this particular bill that gives a little bit of time as we let some of these things sink in, and I’m sure at some point in time, when we look towards whether or not the fees framework for those assessors is fit for purpose into the future, I’m certainly, as the Minister of Forestry, keen to make sure that that is, and we’ll continue to look towards making sure that we work with the sector on that.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. For the sake of just indulging me, if you would, Minister, I bring your attention, just very quickly, back to new section 77(3B), inserted by clause 42. It says, “In this section, harvest includes any work on the land that is necessary to prepare for the harvest or to stabilise the land after the harvest.” I’m interested in the scope or the length of the time, if you go back to my previous iteration where I offered an example of a lessee and a lessor working as a partnership—how would that play out? What sort of time frame do you think, in terms of, perhaps, stabilisation or remediation work post-harvest? The scope of that is wide open, really, and you could see that potentially being problematic for the landowner, once the lessee has left and harvested the wood. So do you want to give some clarity about the length of time that you think this bill, and its oversight in terms of stabilising the land and in its interpretation with harvest, would be? Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I’ll follow the honourable member from the Far North, and, I suppose, comment on an issue that’s very topical today with respect to legal harvest. I guess it could not lead to a question, but it’s really interesting when you look at the integrity of our agricultural or food-producing sectors, that a lot of what we do in those sectors adds to the integrity of the product we produce. I suppose you could think about where we’ve got to in the recent weeks or months with the discussions around slash; the integrity of our wood products is probably going to come into question if we don’t manage that in an equitable way.

So I think there’s a whole lot of issues raised by the question that Mark Cameron asked, which, while were never the intention to be part of this bill initially—and still aren’t, of course, but actually are very relevant to the sector and to the issue we’re dealing with. So I think it’s quite interesting how this has moved on, with quite a bit of pace, actually, given the events of the last few months in New Zealand and particularly relating to the New Zealand forestry sector.

So it’s a very interesting topic for us as a country, and the integrity of all of the products we export are dependent on a lot of things, but particularly on the manner in which we either harvest them or, I suppose, in the case of all of our grain and seeds and things like that, harvesting’s a relevant topic, too. So I’d be interested to know whether the Minister had any comment to make on that issue. I know it’s part of a bit of work being done at the moment with respect to the, I guess you could say, integrity of our harvesting methods and how we get on, but it is a very big topic in New Zealand, and one of significant interest to New Zealand.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just the question with relation to stabilisation, the time frame for stabilisation of land would be a reasonable time to clear the timber and stabilise the land, including allowing ground cover to grow. And I guess the key term here would be “a reasonable time”, as the member will well know when quite often as larger blocks in particular are being harvested there is both things going on at the same time—where harvest continues while stabilising of those blocks continue to go. There is potential in lease agreements to make sure that as you look toward stabilising, that it’s done effectively and it could impact on how further harvest or the harvest might continue.

If we look towards the matter that Mr McKelvie has just raised about, you know, dare I use the term “slash” or wood debris as they look towards the stabilisation of the land that’s just been harvested. So I guess that’s probably a little bit more into the detail of how the lease arrangement might look between the forest owner and the lessor. And, yeah, so “reasonable time” is, essentially, what’s being given there.

But I do want to just touch briefly, before I end my contribution here, to the very important matter that Mr McKelvie did raise, it is topical, it is important—particularly to those flood-affected areas and those cyclone-affected areas, but right across the entire country, as forest is a huge part of our primary sector here in this country. The member is right, there has been an extension simply because of the sheer volume of interest in the matter for that particular panel to consider before they come back to Ministers and this Government on the full report with respect to the slash matter that’s currently plaguing the East Coast.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, just to finish off that questioning I had before, just about the immunity from liability for assessors outside the Public Service—just for the record and for anyone watching, can you just advise where else this is used in other regulation or similar legislation? I note the comment before that it’s not unusual for this provision for liability to be extended from the Public Service to those who are exercising the powers of the Public Service but who are outside of the Public Service. Just for the record, could you just clarify examples of that?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Two examples. The first one was the one I mentioned which is the Public Service Act; that’s rather broad. The other one, though, is—which the advisers have just told me—the Animal Products Act does something very similar and, as I understand it, it’s quite a common feature in a number of bills or legislation that govern the Ministry for Primary Industries and the work that they do in the primary sector.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, Minister, I’m just going to turn to your Supplementary Order Paper again, and this is on page 4 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 349, near the top where it’s just talking about clause 26 replacing section 63Y of the principal Act—it’s on page 4 near the top. It relates to the revocation of a forestry adviser’s registration and it says, “New section 63Y enables the Forestry Authority to revoke registration if the person has failed within a reasonable time to take appropriate corrective action to remedy the deficiency or failure that caused the suspension and the person has not sought a review of the decision to suspend registration.”

Now, I would just be interested to know what definition, if any, there is in terms of guidance around what a reasonable time would be to provide some certainty. It may be in the Supplementary Order Paper and I may not have seen it—with a brief look—and I didn’t notice it. I just think it would be helpful to have some clarification about what is meant by a “reasonable time” in terms of this new section 63Y, because that could be, no doubt, quite an important question for folks who may be facing revocation of their licence.

The other point related to this is: I note that it says “if … the person has not sought a review of the decision to suspend registration.” , and is their time frame in terms of when that decision can be proceeded with to revoke it, if the person has not sought a review? So question one is: what’s the definition of a reasonable time for the person to take appropriate corrective action? And question two is: what is the time frame that’s considered appropriate? So if a person has not sought a review, when the registration can be cancelled or revoked.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): I thank the member for the question. The first part: I would like to say that the reason that the term “reasonable” is in there is because it is too arbitrary, depending on the nature of the reason for the revocation of their licence. It could be minor things such as not keeping up with their fees. It could be more serious misconduct that might mean that the use of reasonable time in working with the agency and with the officials on the matter is probably more suited to a bit of a blanket catch on all of these matters, instead of being too specific, given the arbitrary nature, depending on what the offence might be. So I want to just leave that one there, but say, as I did in response to a previous question, that as Minister—and I’m sure the officials will feel the same—we must continue to make sure this is fit for purpose and if we find that there seem to be regular occurrences of a certain offence, then we might start shaping some time frame or the ability to be able to prosecute or to be able to revoke a licence in this particular case to make sure that that particular framework is fit for purpose. But at the moment right now, it is just simply, as the Supplementary Order Paper states, with respect to the time frame around it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Mālō e lelei, Madam Chair. Minister, I just want to touch on section—I’m in the wrong part, my apologies. I’m looking at Part 2 now, and I just realised. I’m going to sit down, Madam Chair, because I was in the wrong part.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can I seek leave to hear all parts as one?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Let’s try that one again. Minister, I just want to reflect on Part 2, clause 15, because during the select committee process, this was really gone through by both the Justice Committee, and also we had submitters who were quite concerned about the restrictions that we were going to put on some objectionable materials. There was concern from some submitters that this would actually make criminals out of people who inadvertently perhaps, say, just imported a game that was particularly violent, and it would put them into the scenario of being potential criminal terrorists that needed designations on them. We fleshed this out as a select committee, but I think it would be great if we could actually flesh it out so that it’s covered in here to alleviate some of those concerns that those submitters had, because it was made very clear to us that it wasn’t the objectionable material itself that would cause a person to be designated as a terrorist, but, rather, other activities too. I just wonder if you would be able to respond to that and give clarity to those submitters, please?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much to the member. We were just actually having a conversation about this. So it’s two-gate or two-tier in terms of how it works in the legislation, and you’re right that a significant number of the submitters felt that objectionable publication offences should continue to be limited to publications that have been deemed objectionable due to their explicit support and promotion of terrorism.

The expansion of deeming grounds is based on advice from law enforcement agencies that the possession, the consumption, or the use of those objectionable publications that depict extreme violence or cruelty can indicate terrorism risk, and they are a feature of cases where people have been investigated for violent extremism or have committed a terrorist act. But it’s important to note that this change is limited to the types of publications deemed objectionable under the existing offence, rather than introducing any new qualifying offences—and I think that’s really important to know.

So a conviction for an objectionable publication offence is not sufficient for a control order to be granted on that alone—you don’t get a control order just on that. It must also be proven that the person presents a real risk of engaging in terrorism activity, and that harks back to the primary legislation of the control orders Act.

So, number one, you have to be engaging with that material; number two, that has to be tied to a real risk of terrorism. So I think it’s important to reiterate to people who are concerned that it’s not enabling people to be subject to a control order just for the fact that they have engaged in some objectionable material alone.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very happy to stand and take a call in the committee stage of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill.

Look, can I firstly just thank Minister Ginny Andersen for the clarification. I think that was a very good point that was raised by my friend and colleague Nicole McKee, who, of course, is on the Justice Committee with myself. I think that at the end of the day, there is always an opportunity through our justice system that should the intent of legislation or the intent of this House not be followed, there is always an ability to come back and look at that and make any changes or address it. But I think that the Minister’s response to it can give us some sense of confidence that we’re not going to capture or catch people and designate them as a terrorist because they’re looking at some objectionable material or accessing that material but that there actually has to be a link to the planning of a terrorist act.

Can I acknowledge the chair of the committee and the rest of the committee and our advisers—thank you for the work that you have done. This is really important legislation for us as a country, as always. National security is one of the primary responsibilities of any Government, and I think it’s always incumbent on the Opposition, and certainly the biggest Opposition party, to try and work with the Government as much as possible around national security. I think that starting right from the original meeting with the Minister and myself and my friends and colleagues Christopher Penk and Paul Goldsmith, and actually engaging in this genuinely, taking some recommendations that we’d made—and we wanted to see some changes. They were made, so we acknowledge that.

But my departing comment, Madam Chair—if you will allow me—is just to quite simply say that the LynnMall attack was horrific for us as a country, and we’ve been very lucky and very fortunate that we haven’t had another attack like that since LynnMall. I want to acknowledge all of our security and intelligence agencies, which work hard to protect us and make sure that that doesn’t happen again.

It’s OK for the rest of the country to forget about it or form some sort of complacency—that’s a good thing. But, as lawmakers and as the people responsible for making sure that we remain vigilant and we remain focused on making sure that there isn’t another terror attack, I would draw our attention to the royal commission of inquiry, and I would ask the Government to remain focused and vigilant in expediting the implementation of those recommendations, because there’s still a majority of those recommendations that haven’t been implemented. There are three that we feel very strongly about: recommendation 1, which is to appoint a Minister to lead and coordinate counter-terrorism efforts; recommendation 2, which is to establish a new national intelligence and security agency; and recommendation 4, which is to develop and implement a public-facing counter-terrorism and countering - violent extremism strategy.

So I’ll finish on that point. I would ask the Government—rather than slow down—to speed up the implementation of these recommendations from the royal commission. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m actually wanting to follow up on what Nicole McKee was asking, and as it was very much teased out in the Justice Committee while trying to get to the heart of it around objectionable materials—and I know the likes of the Free Speech Union here in New Zealand were quite hot on this about clause 15.

So I think we’ve got in the right space, and I think I want to say that first and foremost, but I think it’s important to get it on the record, and the question—if I can articulate it right to the Minister—is ultimately that it’s not so much that the material is objectionable, though that’s part of it, but what really triggers the dynamic here is the person who is accessing it. So it’s sort of the Free Speech Union’s objection—sorry, there are too many objectionable words there. The Free Speech Union and others’ concern was that we are widening the notion of what is terrorist material, with their basic concept being that this bill could now make a whole lot of other materials be deemed objectionable and then, consequently, terroristic, and they had a whole lot of examples of very violent video games and the like. As I’ve mentioned to the Minister and others before, I don’t want any of that stuff—period—but in some ways, in a free speech environment, it’s not for me to decide.

So their concern is that we are expanding the notion of what’s terrorist into objectionable materials. I think we heard clearly in the select committee—and Nicole McKee was touching on it too, and I think we heard it from yourself, Minister—that what will trigger a control order is that the person already has crossed a threshold when it comes to terrorism, and, consequently, should not have access to these materials now deemed objectionable. To put it another way, the ordinary citizen—while we wouldn’t want them to—could still obtain those objectionable materials and not be deemed a terrorist.

I don’t know if I’m articulating that OK. But, if so, I’ll sit down, see how the Minister goes, and hopefully—yeah.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr Simon O’Connor. Look, I think I recall the submission in relation to the Free Speech Union, and I take note that what this legislation aims to do is, number one, respond to an increasingly complex global terrain in terms of what those terrorism risks are in the way that they present. It’s important in that context that we are equipped to respond readily, but it’s really important that not only do we make sure that our legislative settings are clear but that we also protect the rights and freedoms of those designated individuals—so striking that balance, to be clear.

So to go get to your point, which is the same point I made in relation to the member Nicole McKee, it’s really important to note that a conviction for an objectionable publication offence is not sufficient for a control order to be granted. So it is important that we go back to the primary legislation—the Act related to control orders, which has been passed by this House already—to look right up front in that bill to show that there are some very clear grounds that a real risk in terms of terrorism must be presented. It is really crucial to reiterate to submitters such as the Free Speech Union that just accessing the objectionable material alone is insufficient. It must also be in that second tier in which it poses a real risk outlined under that primary legislation. So I hope that addresses the member’s question.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m 99 percent sure it does. So, in effect, and, again, for the listeners at home—[Another member drops a glass of water] I’m just making sure colleagues are OK. In effect, the control order has already been triggered for a New Zealander or an individual, and, consequently, this bill is going to limit a little bit further what they can access—that’s the important part. The control order is already triggered. This particular person is already, if you will, on the radar, and, consequently, we are slightly expanding the definition of what they can or, in this case, cannot access.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 63; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 63; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move and seek leave to have all parts read as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair, and it’s good to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. That’s the full name of the bill, by the way, unless anyone should think I have a stutter—a stutter.

The background to this bill—as members will know and as members of the legal profession and, more importantly, even families throughout New Zealand and children particularly will know—is that we have in this country a Family Court system that is creaking under the strain of a huge demand. The supply—if I may put it like that—of the service, namely the Family Court processes, simply does not keep up. It’s well accepted and understood—and it’s not a matter of debate, I think—that changes are needed, and we owe it to New Zealanders who find themselves in the situation of needing the Family Court services that improvement in this space is needed. It’s been a longstanding problem.

The members of this House—some of them have spent considerable amount of their professional lives dedicated to working in the Family Courts, researching them too in at least one case. I myself am not particularly familiar with the operation of the Family Court—certainly from the perspective of not having practised in that area much at all—but it’s obvious enough to anyone who pays even scant attention to the matter that change is needed.

The National Party has supported, from the outset, this legislation because it does promote some change, and a positive change at that. It will, we hope and expect, provide at least some benefit in terms of timeliness of outcomes for those who are proceeding through the Family Courts.

I do have a series of questions, and a few comments too, of the Minister in relation to how and what is expected to be achieved, and these will be offered in the spirit of constructive engagement to try to understand how much help the Government thinks can be provided in this space, because it seems to me—and it seems to National—that while this is a positive change, it does not nearly go far enough to help the Family Court system get over the difficulties that it’s facing. So to quantify at least the help that will be given by the creation of this new role, the Family Court Associate, will be helpful, I think.

So my first question, then, is: whether the Family Court Associate is a—well, it’s a creature of this legislation; is that person designed to be more of an administrative-type role or a judicial role? And the reason I ask is because the concept came out of a report into what was needed to improve Family Court processes, and it was noted that a significant proportion of Family Court judges’ time was being occupied with effectively administrative functions. So it seems reasonable to create a new role to relieve the judges proper of some of that burden, but it seems to me, looking at the provisions of the bill, that most of the work is of a judicial nature. Now, that’s not a problem in itself, because, of course, if we have, effectively, more judges or more judicial officers conducting the work that is currently done by this certain number of Family Court judges we have, then there’s a benefit.

So I don’t offer this as a criticism but just to try and understand what the Government thinks is going to be achieved in relation to whether it’s administrative or more in the judicial realm that the work will be done by associates. I’ll just pause to see if the Minister is minded to answer that question at this stage, and I think that she is.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you to the member. Look, I think that’s a really important discussion to have in terms of when we were establishing a new role, particularly in the court room, that we’re clear about what that role is and how it will operate. The way the new role—the Family Court Associate role—will sit is in between a judge and a registrar. So it will sit there to take away some of the more administrative work that judges are doing in order to free up judges to focus on the more meaty issues.

The aim of this bill, really, is to reduce some of those delays that we have seen build up in the Family Court so that the process works better for participants—and particularly children—to make sure that if there are some of those lower-level decisions, they are able to be moved through the court at a quicker pace without requiring the time of a judge. The bill does this by amending the primary Act—the Family Court Act 1980—to establish a whole new role. And it spells out quite clearly what those powers are of the new role. I see this as a good change. I think it enables our courts to be freed up to be using our judges in the right spaces at the high level, while the more day-to-day administrative work that doesn’t require that level of expertise should be—these roles will take up that part of the work. I hope that addresses the member’s question.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, it’s a privilege to actually support this bill, because when we look at what’s happening within our Family Court system and the delays that have been occurring, to be able to instigate Family Court Associates in the same way that we have with the coroner’s courts—we’re dealing with a lot of the delays and when it affects so many families in so many different ways, we’re glad to be able to support this.

But what I do have a concern about, Minister, is the Supplementary Order Paper that came through, because while most of it is tidying up, there is a whole section in there that is removing the Family Court Associates’ ability to deal with matters that would come under the Oranga Tamariki Act. And there is no explanation for why there is the removal of those clauses specifically for the Oranga Tamariki Act. When I went to look at the legislation.govt.nz website, it took me to a page that is non-existent, as well as taking me to another document which does not address the reasoning why.

So everything within this entire bill we would like to support, but the removal of the powers to deal with children that are caught up within the Oranga Tamariki Act is concerning, especially when the associate will no longer be able to direct persons to attend counselling. They won’t be able to grant people leave to make representations. They won’t be able to direct the registrar to convene a mediation conference. They won’t even be able to adjourn proceedings. And we have heard that we’ve got some children that have been caught up in the system for eight months or more. With the ability to have a Family Court Associate to speed up the processes, why then, Minister, is it that we’re removing Oranga Tamariki from this bill?

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m indebted to our friend and colleague Nicole McKee for asking that question, which had also crossed the minds of members on this side of the Chamber. I won’t add to it further, except to say that I think that with this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 350 having been introduced at the committee of the whole House stage and—to the best of my knowledge as someone who sat in on, I think, most of the consideration at the Justice Committee—without knowing the background, it would be very helpful indeed to know what’s intended but also where that’s coming from, so to speak.

Also within the SOP, we see that there is to be a report made, following the introduction of the Act, on the subject of how much delay is going to be reduced by the Act coming into force. I think I’m right in saying that the effect of the SOP will be to say that the report doesn’t need to be produced within five years of the Act coming into force; it’s just that it needs to have started within the five years, and so it could be produced at some point after that. It does strike me as a bit ironic that if we’re going to have a report into whether delays have been reduced, the report itself can be delayed. But if the Minister of Justice has got any comment on that and can put our minds at rest, I suppose that, from the Government’s point of view, it would be a matter of some urgency to assess the effectiveness of the Act. That would be helpful.

The other one, I suppose, just within the SOP as well—and I’ll sit down after this point, because these points are sort of bundled up together by reason of being, in the SOP if not otherwise, thematically linked—would be that in Part 2 of the bill we’re going to have a new Subpart 6A, it seems, and this is going to require the judicial oath and the oath of allegiance to be taken by Family Court Associates. The oaths of allegiance—they’re very much topical at the moment, but I presume that the idea of this is very much consistent with the idea that these Family Court Associates are, effectively, judicial officers. And, again, I would suggest to you and to the committee, Madam Chair and Minister, that, actually, we’re really creating a new judicial officer - type role.

For that reason, I would also just add in—while I’m on my feet—that it seems to me that if the administrative burden is high, then in addition to providing additional personnel to administer the processes, actually the processes themselves can likely be simplified and improved.

So, with that somewhat mixed bag, I’ll resume my seat and invite the Minister to respond, particularly on the point—I think, actually, the most substantive one of those was the one that Ms McKee raised regarding the Oranga Tamariki regime and the Family Court Associate processes now being disconnected.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m hoping this question, which is more a small curio, is more articulate than the last bill. I’m looking at Part 1—well, clause 4 which is inserting your new section 7A. In particular—actually, I don’t know how you use nomenclature—it’s the one that says that “A Family Court Associate” needs to have been “for at least 7 years” someone who has held a “practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor”. Then, further down, that their term is “of not more than 7 years”.

Very quickly—I’ve got no quibble with that—I’m just curious, because we passed a piece of law recently for associate coroners, which, I would argue is a similar role, but, why I’m asking, because it’s a curious thing, an associate coroner only needed five years’ experience and is to be reviewed every five years. So, again, it’s not a quibbling or an argumentative point; I’m just curious with what, to me, is two similar bills—why is it seven years for Family Court Associates but only five years for associate coroners?

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would have happily deferred to the Minister but you’ve provided me the opportunity to ask a couple more questions, still. So a couple of questions that are in the arena of wondering how the bill’s provisions will play out, practically speaking, in the court system. And particularly, I’m wondering about workforce issues. I note that the bill says quite explicitly that a person who is a Family Court Associate cannot also be doing employment that the Governor-General considers would be inconsistent or detrimental to that. Fair enough; that makes sense.

But also, that the person cannot be practising as a lawyer during that time. And, obviously, if someone is to be inducted to the role of Family Court Associate, as my college and friend Simon O’Connor has pointed out, that would be after a certain amount of experience and qualification as a barrister, or barrister and solicitor, I think he said. So if we are going to have someone go from a pool of lawyers to a practising—an expert in the space, into a Family Court Associate role, then that is what colloquially is often referred to as “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. I do wonder if we are going to make the error from a system-wide perspective, if we’re not careful, of having more hands making light work on the judicial side, but fewer practitioners who are available to do that work.

Unless, of course, the Minster can put our collective minds at rest by suggesting that there might be some way in which this is not the case. For example, by encouraging young, or not necessarily young, law students—I say that as one who was a mature student myself at one point, which sounds ridiculous now at the ripe old age of 28, I think it was, but I certainly felt my age at that point. Anyway. So workforce issues associated with the fact that the Family Court Associate would no longer be practising as a lawyer by definition, or indeed as required.

The other one would be just in terms of courtroom resources, for example the physical courtrooms themselves, and the space needed to practise law and to make these decisions, or facilitate these outcomes. I wonder, if we’re not providing any more resources or any more opportunity for the matters to be heard, then, while we might have more warm bodies engaged in the task—that is, effectively, deciding the matters as a judge or Family Court Associate—we might not be very much better off for it. We might have a logjam in terms of the physical space and administrative support—dare I mention it—from registrars and others who help out as well, as opposed to having the pressure point merely being the personnel requirements at the judicial level.

So, with those practical questions—courtroom and resources on the one hand, and the workforce issues on the other—I’d be grateful for the Minister to explain how the bill might affect the system that we have at the moment.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much. There’s a number of questions, so I’ll try and work my way through all of those. So, in response to Ms McKee, in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper making specific reference to the Oranga Tamariki Act and why that has been taken out, I recall we had several submissions that were really concerned that some of those really significant care and protection issues should stay with a judge. That when you are talking about the potential uplift of a child from their biological family or from their home or their whānau, that that was a significant issue. In several of those submissions, the Justice Committee discussed that, and the Minister of Justice has considered it best to remove those clauses from the bill that give a Family Court Associate the powers of a judge under the Oranga Tamariki Act. And I think that’s just due to the weightiness of making that decision around care and protection of a child.

The other question that members provided was the other two minor amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper, specifically clause 70B, which amends Schedule 2 of the Oaths and Declarations Act and also clause 7K, which is the report relating to Family Court Associates. The Supplementary Order Paper makes two minor amendments to the Family Court Associate. So the Family Court Associate can take the oath of allegiance and judicial oath in line with judicial officers. So it adjusts the timing of when the Family Court Associate role is reviewed, in order to ensure the role is fully embedded before the review commences. And that’s that five-year period that’s been already discussed tonight.

The discussion around—sorry, there’s another question before that. There was the seven-year question that Mr O’Connor provided that there was a difference between the Coroners Amendment Bill, which provided that four years’ experience, I think, in comparison to this piece of legislation, which, under new section 7A, will provide that lawyers with at least seven years’ experience with suitable training experience and personality for the role can be appointed. That’s the same as a Family Court judge. So the reason for the seven years is the same level of experience required for a Family Court judge. And that takes into account that some of those decisions: while they are intended to be administrative and a lower level from a judge, it’s still important that the requisite skills are in place and the requisite experience to respond to those issues are there.

I think that leads in quite nicely to Mr Penk’s question in and around what difference is this going to make—by having this additional resource in the courtroom, what real difference will this make in terms of the current waiting times. And the estimation I’ve been provided advice for by the Ministry of Justice is approximately a 25 percent change in the existing wait. So the additional resource will have roughly one-quarter of a difference in terms of that space.

I think that’s all of the questions but I’m happy to take some more if I’ve missed anything.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister Andersen, for answering those questions. I am a little bit confused, however, around the Oranga Tamariki Act, because the reference that has just been made by the Minister referred to the uplift of children needing to be commissioned by a judge, but we’re actually retaining that within this bill.

Sections 39 and 40 are specifically being retained, which relate to—section 39 is the placement of safety warrants and section 40 is about the warrant to remove a child. So they’re actually there and being retained, and what’s being removed is the ability for the associate to appoint a lawyer to assist the courts, as well as the associate being able to direct the registrar to appoint a lawyer, the associate, being able to review the declaration of lawyers’ payments—all of that’s being removed, along with the direction to persons to attend counselling, leave to be given to make representations, the ability for the registrar to convene a mediation conference, and also the ability to adjourn proceedings. These are what I would’ve thought were aspects of the bill that would speed up the process without causing harm to the child or individuals caught up within the Oranga Tamariki Act.

So I am confused, because the Minister said that this was actually about removing the warrants and warrants to remove a child, but, actually, those are the only two aspects that are being kept within the bill. While there was some consideration had at the Justice Committee, we had decided at select committee to not impose these changes.

So, at this stage, Minister, I’m loathe to actually support the Supplementary Order Paper, because I think the removal will be detrimental to our children under the Oranga Tamariki Act. I just wonder, Minister, if you’re able to clarify that a bit more.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. My point in relation to the Oranga Tamariki aspect was slightly different from that of Nicole McKee, which is just to press the Minister a little bit on her answer, which was—and I think I genuinely characterise this fairly—that these changes are being proposed by the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because these are very “weighty” matters that are involved. And it seems to me that all the matters that the Family Court undertakes are weighty matters; they are important, they are serious, whether or not under the Oranga Tamariki regime—and even accounting for the fact that there seems to be a difference of opinion about what exactly is in and out. But if all of these matters are weighty, then I don’t think, with all due respect, it’s enough to justify the SOP change that’s proposed, simply to say, “Well, these matters that it is proposing to deal with are weighty”, as though to imply some others are not.

I do also want to ask the Minister for an answer on those questions that I put forward before. Unless I’m remiss and actually missed those—and I apologise if so—I don’t think that we heard an answer on the subject of the workforce issues, potentially of lawyers becoming Family Court Associates and therefore, you know, being removed from column A, albeit to be put in column B. And also those supporting resources that are going to be needed: if those are absorbed, or more to the point, not available to the Family Court Associate because there’s only a certain number that are associated with the work of Family Court judges, then I’m not certain that we’ll be very much better off. Albeit that, as I say—and I’ll try and strike a brighter note to finish this contribution—that I think there will be a positive change, but I’m just trying to get my head around exactly what that will be.

And on that note, before I resume my seat again, I think I’m right in saying—albeit that I now doubt myself, having heard the Minister say differently—that the figure of 25 percent is the estimate of the amount of time that Family Court judges spend doing administrative tasks which, you know, might be able to be relieved by the Family Court Associates. But I think that’s a different question from the extent to which we can expect the backlogs to reduce.

I really hope and expect that the backlogs will reduce by more than 25 percent. But I do wonder—and I appreciate that the Minister has not been the sponsoring Minister and has sort of come in, and I want to say this as kindly as I can: she’s doing that role in place of the Minister who has been the sponsor, albeit that as the chairperson of this committee, she is already familiar with it. So I welcome any addition or further information she can provide on all those points.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): With all due respect, Minister, I have huge concerns around the changes with this Oranga Tamariki and, really, I’m looking for an explanation, as Nicole McKee has pointed out, because I feel these changes should have had a bit more discussion. What are we going to tell parents and what are we going to tell the young people that are coming before the Family Courts—that they can’t have their delays reduced, they can’t have a quicker pace of having their cases seen, because it’s to do with the Oranga Tamariki Act? And many of these families wait months to even get before a judge.

I just don’t feel this is good enough. Many actually have their cases moved again and again and again every time a judge cannot see their case or they are moved to a different court. And what’s the difference? You know, are we going to create a two-tier system: one for kids that aren’t under the Oranga Tamariki Act, and one for kids that are? It just seems a bit weird that this was not discussed more and we couldn’t have a bit more public consultation around these changes, because they don’t seem like minor changes to me.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t want to appear greedy or over-eager, but I’m also conscious that if no one stands up to take a call, then the process comes to an end, and I think it would be fair to the House and, again—more importantly—the users of the system and those who find themselves unexpectedly, or unwillingly, even, involved in the process to make sure that we understand clearly what it is that we are proposing.

I for one came to the Chamber genuinely unsure whether I should recommend to my party that we support Supplementary Order Paper 350. I was inclined to say that we should, but I did want to have a bit of comfort about the rationale behind the Oranga Tamariki aspect that, again, the ACT colleagues have outlined more fully and more clearly and in more detail as to the substance. So my point there, I suppose, is one more of process, but I’m genuinely seeking some guidance there about the meaning and the intention of that.

So, in addition to those questions that I’ve previously put and do seek an answer to, I have a couple more before I would expect that the committee of the whole House stage could reasonably finish, and it’s really to do with the way that the system will come into effect. So, in thinking about recruitment and thinking about training of these Family Court Associates, it’s inherent in the concept of the bill that we are going to have people who come in to do these roles, and I think we can agree that there is merit—indeed, we’ve said that we do agree that there’s merit—in the roles being created and performing the duties of the Family Court judge. But surely that can’t be immediate, and I just wonder: has there been any guidance from officials about the amount of time that it would take to get people on board, what kind of training regime would be required, and whether there are internal processes that would be needed to make sure that they are operating in a safe manner—I mean, in a way that would reflect people feeling comfortable that justice is served within the Family Court.

Presumably, there might be court rules, or other regulations—just to use that term in a general kind of way—that sit within the courts, rather than in Government. So if the Minister would say that there’d be court rules that aren’t appropriate for Parliament to impose or for the Government to impose, then that would be fine; that would be acceptable. But nevertheless, I think it does go to that point again that it won’t be merely at the stroke of a pen by way of Royal assent for this bill that would see it enacted in a way that will make a difference immediately.

So will there be a lag time, and, assuming that there will—I think the Minister would agree, and I think everyone would agree, that there’ll be at least some period of time that it will take for the system to get up and running—do we have any feel for what that is? If it’s six months rather than a year, that’s good, I suppose; if it’s three months rather than six months, that’s better still; and so forth. So some guidance there in terms of the advice that officials may have been able to provide about how quickly we’ll get these benefits that we’re all hoping and praying will be available to users of the Family Court system—again, I would welcome that.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. They are good questions, Mr Penk. I understand that the Ministry of Justice has undertaken consultation specifically with the New Zealand Law Society on the development of the new role that this legislation is proposing. The Law Society broadly supports the new role.

I am aware that the Family Court Associates will come from what is potentially a relatively limited pool of family lawyers. We are not aware of any concerns through that consultation that that would put additional pressures on current workforce.

During consultation, I think it’s worthwhile noting that the Law Society advised that there were approximately 173 presently practising lawyers who would meet the requirements of the role; that seemed to indicate that there would be a level of interest and, potentially too, a groundbreaking and new interesting role to play. I would anticipate that within the legal profession, there would be some interest in taking up this new opportunity, particularly if it’s part of a pathway to deliver more efficient and better justice outcomes for our community.

In terms of the total number of Family Court Associates, it’s still to be confirmed. It will be influenced by the Remuneration Authority’s salary determination that is yet to occur. The Ministry of Justice does anticipate that up to six Family Court Associates will be established as part of the initial tranche of recruitment, and the remaining positions would then be filled over the following two years. So that is the aim. The training, as you requested to know, by judiciary will be similar to that of a judge.

I just wanted to pick up on one other point made by Nicole McKee, and I probably should have been clearer in my response to your question. In relation to the Oranga Tamariki Act, if a judge is not available, a Family Court Associate may issue a warrant—I should have been clearer on that—authorising the search for and, if necessary, the uplifting of a child or young person suspected ill-treatment, neglect, deprivation, abuse, or harm.

If authorised by the Attorney-General, registrars, deputy registrars, justices of the peace, and community magistrates may also exercise this power only if a judge is not available. I understand that that is a rare occurrence that that’s not there. An independent judicial officer with legal training and experience is appropriate for the Family Court Associate to exercise a power when a judge is not available.

I’d like to make clear that this clause is not removed through the Supplementary Order Paper because the power is equivalent to that of a registrar. Under the bill, a Family Court Associate will exercise all the powers of the registrar.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Minister, for that further clarification. Would the Minister be able to speak to the reason why the other Oranga Tamariki clauses have been removed? You’ve clarified what is staying, and the reasons why—and I thank you for that—but why are we removing some of those other clauses which are available to associates, Family Court Associates, in other jurisdictions? What I mean by that is, in being able to implement the ability to make some of those decisions in other aspects of law, why are we removing it from the Oranga Tamariki Act specifically?

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister of Police and other colleagues who’ve been engaging in the debate—I think it’s been a helpful one. Important as this area is, I’m sure we would all agree.

In terms of the urgency that’s going to be needed for these changes—and I do acknowledge the response that the Minister has given regarding the number of potential new Family Court Associates, by which I mean people who would be available for that role and the initial roll-out of some six initially, I think she said, and more thereafter. That’s helpful information and I’m grateful for it.

But a related question would be in terms of the bill being able to be implemented as quickly as possible. I note that the commencement date has a number of provisions coming in more or less immediately—which is, I think, really positive—but the remainder of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, other than those that are specified to come into effect immediately, would be four months after the date of the Royal assent.

It just seems to me, given the severe difficulties in the current Family Court system and the delays that are being experienced, that’s the problem. The solution, we understand, is at least partly in this bill. Why would it be that we would wait for such a long time before it is given full effect? I can’t think of a reason that we shouldn’t have much more immediate effect given to the bill, albeit that it will then take some time to on board the new Family Court Associates and so on.

One related point, if I may, is just in terms of that review that we hear will commence within five years. The Minister said that the reason it wouldn’t commence sooner than probably towards the end of the five years is for changes to be bedded in and for a proper assessment to be made of the difference that it’s making. But I just can’t help but feel as though five years, in the context of enormous delays that are currently being suffered within the system, is far too long to start learning the lesson.

So can the Minister give us some assurance that while the formal review—with a capital “R”—as required by the legislation, may not be in place and reported back for at least five years, that, nevertheless, some feedback will be taken into account as soon as available, in terms of the system getting under way, and even the performance of those first six Family Court Associates will be monitored in a way that will suggest how they could operate in the most efficient manner possible.

Of course, not so much from an evaluation of their effectiveness point of view—I’m sure that the first half-dozen will be, probably, excellent candidates for the role. No doubt they will be wanting to make a contribution that’s very positive in this groundbreaking way, to use the Minister’s phrase. But, nevertheless, we do need to understand the value that they’re adding. It might be that they’re adding huge value and we can double down, so to speak, and have many more such positions filled as quickly as possible. But it might also be that the benefits are marginal for the reasons that I’ve highlighted before, at least as possibilities—the courtroom resources and so forth.

So if the Minister can give assurance to the committee that the Government will carefully monitor—in a way that’s appropriate, acknowledging separation of power between branches of Government—the effectiveness of the scheme so that that can be used for the benefit of those in the system, that would be very helpful indeed.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for that point, Mr Penk. I would like to respond to that by outlining that the four months that’s under the commencement is simply to allow for recruitment of those roles. So that’s important for that to be able to take place.

Responding to your concerns around wanting to have a commitment from the Government to make sure that this is implemented quickly, I think it’s really important to remember the genesis of this piece of legislation. It responds to a specific issue that was identified by the review that took place in 2019. That review specifically examined the changes made to the Family Court, the family justice sector, back in 2014. While those changes in 2014 were intended to save costs in one way or another, they had some really significant negative impacts upon our families and they caused significant delays in that space.

We know that the Family Court deals with really diverse issues, including family violence, relationship property, and care and protection of children. These are some complex issues that can’t be dealt with quickly in some instances. So the changes back in 2014 brought specific recommendations, and this legislation is in fact responding specifically to those detrimental changes to our Family Court system.

This bill establishes the associate in order to take some of that workload off Family Court judges, to free them up for those bigger, more significant issues. And let’s remember that the delay for our children not to have contact with whānau for significant periods of time is damaging for our community, for our young people. It can be detrimental to the wellbeing of tamariki. So the point I really want to get home today is that this will assist young people to have these issues dealt with in the courts in a far more timely way, to reduce the harm that has already been occurring in some of these families’ lives.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, that was a great speech that you just gave. It talked about our children and the care and the protection and the importance of making sure that their cases are heard quickly as well as properly, so that the detrimental effects that you referred to are not an issue for them. So, again, Minister, I come back to the question of why we are removing Oranga Tamariki clauses from this bill, specifically Oranga Tamariki Act clauses from this bill, which, in turn, must have a detrimental effect on the children that are coming through the system if, for example, a judge is not able to have a registrar appoint another lawyer to assist the courts or even help with adjournments—the actual paperwork that a Family Court assistant was set up to administer to help the judges to process the work, to enable our tamariki, our children, to get through the system in a timely way.

Minister, I put it to you that if we do actually have the removal of these clauses of the Oranga Tamariki Act away from the Family Court Associates, we are delaying some justice to some of the victims of crime that absolutely do need it. So in order to support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the Minister, we would like to have clarification on why this has being removed, because if it’s a good enough reason why, we would really like to support it.

The Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill is a good bill. It’s going to help get families through the system very quickly—or more quickly than they are currently experiencing—and yet we have a revised position by the Government in their SOP that we feel will be detrimental to our children going forward. Minister, you’ve just spoken about how important it is that we make sure that our kids are front and centre of this system, so this does not make sense; it almost is contradictory. I just seek that further clarification, Minister.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. The final point that I would make in relation to the report that will be undertaken not later than five years after the commencement of new section 7K inserted by clause 4—“K” for kilo—is in relation to the point, really, of the report, which is reviewing whether the appointment of the Family Court’s Associates “has reduced delays in the Family Court”. That’s reasonable; indeed, it’s desirable for there to be a mechanism that says we’re going to decide whether this piece of legislation or the new role is actually having an effect.

But we don’t have language such as “significantly reduced the delays” or “reduced the delays by a more than a trifling amount”—and I’m not saying that I’m necessarily drafting this on the fly better than others would or should, but it just seems to me that to review merely whether there’s been a reduction at all isn’t the right measure. If nothing else, it would be, I think, a mistake for us to regard the new regime as being successful if it only reduces the delays by a small amount for an exchange of a lot of additional resources. So I think perhaps a better measure would be whether (a) the delays have been reduced significantly, and (b) reduced by an amount that justifies the investment.

Of course, it’s not to say that we could save some money by not appointing Family Court Associates. The point is, really, if we’ve got a certain amount of resource available to the Family Court to improve the outcomes, to reduce delays, then, actually, we might be better off spending it elsewhere—maybe just additional judges, or maybe, you know, new courts, or some, for example, audiovisual technology that would enable more cases to be heard more remotely.

So I don’t think there’s any change particularly that’s needed to the legislation, but I think, in relation to the way that that’s framed, it would be helpful for the record. Because at some point in, you know, let’s say 4½ years’ time, the Minister of Justice, whoever that may be, will receive a report from the Ministry of Justice on the effectiveness of the regime—the report relating to the Family Court’s Associates and new section 7K—and I think it would be helpful for them to know that their remit is to quantify the reduction in delays. First of all, to decide that it’s, you know, significant—if indeed it is; if they can make that kind of determination—and, secondly, to therefore be able to allow a calculation that this is the best possible bang for buck, if I can use that vernacular, to assess the effectiveness of the system.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 73

New Zealand Labour 63; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Grocery Industry Competition Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Grocery Industry Competition Bill.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Grocery Industry Competition Bill be now read a second time.

It’s actually a really momentous day to move this important bill along, in this time when the cost of living is front of mind. I would like to thank the members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their collaborative consideration of the bill, and I would like to acknowledge the chair, Naisi Chen, and of course the former chair, Jamie Strange, who did great work.

The committee’s unanimously reported this bill back to the House, and recommended some amendments which I endorse. But I’d also like to thank the submitters on this bill, who took time to provide comments to the committee, especially over the tight holiday period. The committee received 32 submissions on the bill and heard oral evidence from 12 interested parties. Most of those submitters—it’s really important—supported the bill, including the major players, and I know that many submitters and all of the consumers want the benefits they can get from more competition in the form of better prices and more choices as to where to buy their groceries.

This bill is really needed to benefit consumers by improving competition in the grocery industry. We know from the Commerce Commission’s market study that consumers aren’t getting a fair deal at the checkout due to systemic competition problems in that grocery sector. The sector is dominated by a duopoly of Foodstuffs and Woolworths. Between them, the duopoly are taking home more than $1 million a day in excess profits from the money that consumers spend buying groceries. So that’s an unfair transfer of $1 million a day from consumers to duopoly holders, and that’s not good enough.

This is at a time when food prices are rising faster than inflation and, at the end of 2022, the Consumers Price Index measuring inflation was 7.2 percent, but the food price index was 11.3 percent. So consumers deserve and are going to get a more competitive grocery industry. We’re advancing this bill because we want grocery retailers to genuinely compete against each other to provide consumers with the best price, the best quality and the best range of food. We want to create an environment in which new entrants are not scared off by high barriers to entry or the prospect of unfair use of market players by other players.

We want a sector where the grocery retailers have to give a fair deal, both to consumers and to suppliers. We want a grocery industry that is innovative and provides consumers with clever ways of shopping that save time and effort, and we want a grocery industry where suppliers have more grocery retailers that are interested in stocking their products and selling them to consumers.

So this bill has real impact for everyday consumers—everyday New Zealanders doing their normal weekly shop; buying necessities and making those trade-offs at the checkout. I think about constituents I’ve talked to—Sarah, who talked about the increasing financial strain of cost of living that her grocery shop is causing her. She said it’s not about skipping luxuries any more—it’s not about skipping the ice cream or the treats—it’s about the affordability of good, healthy choices for her food, for her family. That’s why this bill is important.

We need more competition and a fairer playing field to drive prices down. By this Government making these changes, we’re already seeing confidence in other players—like The Warehouse investing in their grocery range and providing a different offering, and other newer internet providers trying to do things a bit differently. I encourage new entrants to the market, and new innovation—just different offerings so that families have choices and can help their families eat well and properly. With this bill going through, we will see more and fairer wholesale agreements in place so that small businesses can compete with the big guys too.

So this Grocery Industry Competition Bill will regulate the grocery industry to benefit consumers by providing a platform for retailers to enter and expand in the grocery industry, and to compete directly with the existing duopoly. The bill will create a grocery commissioner to monitor and regulate the industry and keep the New Zealand public informed of what is happening. The bill will impose new requirements on the duopoly to facilitate commercial agreements for wholesale supply of groceries to other grocery retailers on the same advantageous terms they give their own supermarkets.

The bill will provide a flexible toolkit as a grocery supply backstop to allow the commission or the Government to impose additional regulation if improvement is needed, and it will provide new protections to suppliers such as a grocery supply code to limit the ability of the duopoly to pressure suppliers into accepting contracts that are wholly one-sided. The bill will pave a way for a new dispute resolution scheme to quickly resolve issues that arise.

I’d like to speak to some of the changes made by the select committee. I fully endorse the committee’s recommendation to provide the commission with greater monitoring powers and to clarify the objective of its reporting obligations. This will ensure that New Zealanders have the best information about what is happening in the industry and that the commission will have all the tools it needs to improve competition for consumers. I’ve asked the Commerce Commission to act confidently in exercising its powers across the board, and ensuring that they have the right powers in the grocery sector is critical.

The committee has recommended that the commission should be in charge of making and reviewing the grocery supply code but the Government should continue its work and make the first grocery supply code. It also recommended that the code should be able to regulate businesses that are under the influence of the duopoly, to ensure it protects suppliers.

I endorse these changes. In particular, I think it’s great to have the commission responsible for the grocery supply code in the long term. It will be best placed to ensure that the code achieves what it’s intended to and that it addresses any creative, shall we say, new conduct that may arise.

The Government has undertaken significant work to develop a grocery supply code and this needs to be put into use to make the first code as promptly as possible. Given the importance of the first code and the work that has been done to date, the first code will be drafted by the Government and ongoing responsibility for it will be handed to the commission. We will work very closely with the commission in getting the first code right, but I think it important that the initial rules are created by the Government. This differs slightly from the approach suggested by the select committee, and a supplementary order paper (SOP) will be introduced to make this minor adjustment.

I support the committee’s changes to the wholesale supply regime. In order for the wholesale regime to benefit consumers, it’s clear that wholesale customers need reasonable access to the benefits of scale and efficiency-based discounts or rebates by suppliers. Wholesale customers also need to be able to buy a reasonable range of groceries, either from the duopoly or directly from suppliers.

I note that the wholesale code may now regulate suppliers in the event that they are creating problems that limit retail grocery competition. There are some suppliers that themselves have such market power that they may be able to distort the market. They may be near-monopoly suppliers of some goods or have such brand presence that some people wouldn’t go to a retailer that didn’t stock them. It’s important that a grocery retailer, especially a new entrant, is not hindered from making a competitive offering due to the market power of any given supplier.

This regulation has a civil liability for a supplier contravention, and I think that we’ve struck a fair balance there and one that no reasonable supplier should have any difficulty with. Now that the wholesale supply regime is clearer, I expect that the supermarkets, as well as suppliers and wholesale customers, will do their very best to engage with the reforms for the benefit of consumers.

So the committee’s made some really excellent adjustments and improvements to the bill, especially in that wholesale supplier space, and balanced the views of suppliers, Foodstuffs, Woolworths, and prospective wholesale customers. So thanks to the committee for its efforts.

But this bill and continuing with this bill signals how serious this Government is and how far we will go to see a more competitive market with new grocery retailers, to ensure Kiwis can buy groceries at affordable prices. I think this bill is making real change. The market and the changes to the market that we’re seeing shows that we’re making real change. If the change doesn’t happen, there are more tools in the tool box, and we won’t shy away from continuing down this path if we need to. But, for the time being, this is a massive step forward for New Zealanders—one that this Government is proud to take. I commend this bill to the House.

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

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has been an interesting bill to have an involvement with and we will be supporting this bill tonight. But I’m going to talk about some of the caveats that we have in terms of our support. But we do agree with the general thrust of this bill, which is about bringing better outcomes for consumers and more product range at prices that are competitive.

It is interesting that this bill has been introduced on the very day that there was a press announcement saying that Countdown’s average food prices have risen 9.5 percent this year. The other suppliers, of course, also have had similar arrangements. That’s not all down to the structural arrangements of the industry, but certainly it is a huge cost to mums and dads who’ve got to look after their families and young kids, and buying the weekly groceries is a huge cost. So it is important we get this correct and appropriate.

I just want to reflect back on the Commerce Commission market study in 2021. The Commerce Commission recognised that there was insufficient competition in the grocery trade and their efforts were towards improving price, quality, and range of groceries for customers. Three big things came out of that report. The first one was the imbalance, as they perceived it, in the bargaining power between the major grocery retailers and many of their suppliers, and this needed to be addressed. And also related to that, there were the Fair Trading Act business-to-business contract term provisions. The second thing was the difficulty of competitors entering the market, particularly around getting access to premises and also to supply, and the third was ensuring fairness to suppliers.

So the result was that there were four crucial recommendations in the report. The first one was to make it easier for competitors to set up and expand. And there are two bits to that. First of all, it was to make changes to the land availability provisions. The Commerce Commission suggested making changes to the council planning laws and also banning restrictive lease covenants—glad to see that both the major grocery retailers are making good progress on it.

The second one was to improve access to wholesale supply. And I’m going to talk more about this shortly; about some of the conditions of that. The second big recommendation was about improving the relationship between retailers and their suppliers, and this involves a mandatory code of conduct and strengthened protections against unfair terms.

The third big thing is to help consumers make more informed decisions. Of course, that’s about display of unit prices when you go to the supermarket and making promotional and pricing practices easier to understand, and also that consumers are aware of the terms of loyalty programmes much more explicitly. And the final thing was better regulation, requiring the establishment of a dedicated regulator and the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism.

So this bill really picks up on those four big, crunchy areas that the Commerce Commission addressed, and it does address those issues. The first one is that the committee focused very much on the supplier code of conduct. And it is important that there is proper, fair supplier conduct that everyone should be aware of. The big concern—and particularly from National Party members—is that this should be a living document. It shouldn’t be just developed in isolation. So we particularly pushed for a change for it to move, once it’s been initially prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to actually be managed and overseen and updated by the Commerce Commission, because the Commerce Commission would be seeing what was happening, real practices happening in real time, and have the ability to update that code of conduct to reflect current practices and not to see it set in stone and only periodically updated. We thought that was a very important thing, and indeed it’s been reflected in the legislation.

The second thing is that with regard to quicker resolution process, we were particularly keen that there was a clear, crisp process to make sure that issues could be resolved quickly. The legislation now picks up the compulsory resolution, through a dispute mechanism, whereby if the dispute is under $5 million, it has to be resolved within 28 working days and factors cannot be taken to a higher court other than in respect of matters of law. The whole intent of this is to make sure that if there are disputes between suppliers and the retailers, they are dealt quickly with and there’s a clear process to do so. And I’m, again, glad that that was picked up in the legislation.

The third thing is around the wholesaling, and I just note there’s no real independent wholesale chain outside of the duopoly supermarkets. And one of the things we were very keen to make sure of is that where we’re allowing, in this bill, for the retailers to move back into wholesaling, it actually captured all the operations, not only their own companies but subsidiary companies and companies that they have an interest in or in fact where they control them. We thought it was a very important aspect.

However, I now want to turn to some of the concerns. The first thing I’m going to say is not covered in the legislation, but we believe it’s absolutely essential that the regulator is someone from the industry who has very specific skills and knowledge of the industry, someone with the appropriate skill set. The terms and the conditions in this bill, which shortly will be an Act, are unlikely to be realised, and it’s very important that the Commerce Commission appoints the correct and appropriate person who is going to be forceful and robust in managing and overseeing this grocery trade.

The second thing we note is that wholesaling is a big risk and the areas that we’re really worried about is that this bill permits—and in fact encourages—supermarkets to move into wholesaling, move out of retailing and extend back into the value chain into wholesaling. So the areas of concern: the prices which the grocery retailers are able to source their own brands—known as “home brands”—are not now, and won’t be, available to other competitors. What the arrangements provide for is that the supermarkets will have to offer, transparently, any other price arrangements with other suppliers—and in some cases they are the same suppliers to their home market or home brands—and make those prices available to competitors. The issue of home brands is they’re normally a cheaper product and a competitor product to branded products, yet the pricing is not available to other competitors who may want to enter the market.

The second thing is the potential loss of independent market places in determining what the price of a product is. And, for example, in the fresh produce market, traditionally you had markets like in Mount Wellington where there’s an open market and people bid openly for products. Now what’s increasingly happening is a lot of the trading of products is on an online basis and no one has visibility around it other than the retailers themselves who have all the knowledge and the suppliers don’t see and don’t have access to all that information. We want to make sure that a move to tendering to where this retailer has access to all the market information is appropriate and ensures that there is an element of transparency over time.

The third thing is that the wholesale supplier logistics are a natural evolution as the major grocery chains move into wholesaling, but, of course, they want to manage the logistics of that. We are cognisant that Foodstuffs North Island made clear that suppliers can supply directly to individual supermarkets, but this is not necessarily the case across the whole industry. And whilst we understand there is significant cost in managing and establishing logistics, we’d be concerned if retailers propose excessive cost-to-serve fees on suppliers. They need to be reasonable, and in some cases there’s an issue of whether in fact the supermarket should bear that cost rather than the supplier at all.

The fourth one is retailing. With the move to supermarkets increasingly controlling the logistics chain, we would also be concerned if there were constraints around the merchandising of those things. Finally, there is the issue of the regulatory backstop. The bill assumes that the only answer if these measures fail is more regulation. We don’t think that’s the case. We think that the bill should provide the Minister with other options to look at regulating the industry, and in fact maybe curtailing certain aspects of the grocery trade. We will support the bill, but we do have some concerns.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): I am so excited for this speech. Finally, we’re at the second reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. This whole entire recess, I couldn’t help but keep talking to New Zealanders that I had met on my journey over the last three weeks about this bill, because this is a game-changer bill. This is a bill that will radically change the way the grocery sector will be organised.

Can I just first start by putting on record my thanks to the members opposite for their work in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. During our whole entire select committee process, we had been very collaborative in the way that we dealt with some of the really meaty issues, which were actually covered, probably, by Andrew Bayly in his speech, so I won’t traverse all of the issues that we had talked about. However, there are some things I do want to highlight. In our grocery sector right now, there is a supply chain issue. I went into Central Otago, and met with some of the farmers, some of the beef and sheep farmers, and they said to me that the prices they were getting weren’t changing but then, at the same time, in the supermarkets it was getting more and more expensive. They were asking me, “Where did the money go?” They weren’t getting it at the farm gate. I just had to say to them, “Well, according to the Commerce Commission investigation we had done last year, which has been completed, supermarkets earn an excess profit of $1 million - plus per day.” I just really want to make sure that New Zealanders know this is the place we started on this whole entire journey. There is a trifecta of legislation to regulate the grocery industry, and we wanted to make sure that every single New Zealander gets a fair deal at the checkout.

During the select committee process, we heard people from the industry, including people who were almost victims of supermarkets, in the sense that, for instance, supermarkets were buying out the cold chain transport infrastructure. They were able to charge people for promotion at the end of each aisle when it’s a sale—they charge people extra. So it’s not just about unit pricing. So the fact is that we’ve now instigated a grocery sector commissioner, which is possible in this bill by being able to put in those legislative anticipations. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is quite a bit to agree with the Minister on in his second reading speech. There are systemic issues in the sector, and it has been created by what is generally agreed to be a lack of competition in the grocery market. And I agree with him when he says we do need to be more competitive and have an even playing field.

But I think it’s worth bearing in mind why we are where we are. And that is because we have a duopoly, and we have a duopoly because the Commerce Commission, under the previous Labour Government 22 years ago, allowed the purchase of Woolworths by Progressive Enterprises Ltd in what I thought then—and continue to maintain—was one of the dumbest decisions ever made by the Commerce Commission. They’ve made a few in that time—the purchase by Southern Cross Healthcare of Aon Insurance for medical insurance also substantially reduced competition in that market. But competition exists because there are more players, not fewer. That’s why we have the Commerce Act. Actually, the Commerce Act has, in my view, endured for many, many years—37-odd years since it was passed—and those key points on restriction of competition, sections 27 and 36, I think, are pretty enduring and well written. But what it needs is a competition watchdog with teeth. And I have to say, in my experience—and certainly we’re talking nearly a generation ago—there were decisions that were made that in large part led to the situation we find ourselves in. And it’s easy to see when we compare ourselves with other OECD countries. There is a very, very high correlation between the number of players in the grocery market and the extent of competition in those markets.

And we are in an inflationary environment. It’s not only for that reason. We’ve had weather events that have caused seasonal supplies to grow in cost and therefore price. We are in the middle of an inflationary cycle that I attribute much of Government decision-making to, and that’s not controllable necessarily by the grocery markets. But had we had more competition, then we may not have had the degree of inflation in our groceries that we are seeing.

But the Minister talked about tools in the toolbox as if one can hammer markets into submission, that they can regulate them into lower prices. And we’ll see, because this bill will pass, and it will pass with the support of the National Party, but I do have serious concerns about the degree to which this will have any material beneficial effect until we broaden competition.

Damien Smith: Why pass it, then?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s a very good question, Mr Smith, and it’s one that my party has considered very carefully. And on balance and on the basis that to the degree that there are marginal improvements, we will continue to support this. But I say this: when we get to Government and if we see that this is not working to the degree that it should and the lofty rhetoric that the Minister has just waxed, there will be changes to it, because we need there to be greater competition—in all markets, not just this one.

In terms of anecdotes to stress the degree of market power that some of these players have, I remember some years ago when the previous Government was considering its response to the Law Commission report Alcohol in Our Lives, and one of the things that was being considered at that time was a material increase in alcohol excise as a way of moderating, using price as a signal to moderate behaviour. And I was at a function where a relatively senior member of an organisation in the alcohol industry relayed a conversation that he had had with one of the major players in the grocery sector that said simply this: “If the Government puts an alcohol excise on the price of beer and wine, that cost comes off your margin, not ours, and if you don’t like it, we just won’t stock that product.”

And that was the degree of the strength of the belief of the influence that the grocery sector had on that one supply chain, one product—that if there were cost pressures, then that was just going to be borne by the supplier. Mr Bayly started to touch on margins. I think it’s important to recognise that size has benefits for consumers, potentially, because that purchasing power does enable bulk purchase and lower prices. What I’m not sure is happening is whether or not the consumer ultimately benefits when there’s only two or three major players in the market. Indeed, the committee—of which I wasn’t a member when the submissions were being heard; I was a bit of a tail-end Charlie, coming on to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—looked very carefully at some of the frameworks for wholesaling in that supply chain. I think that supplier code is going to be very important as it relates to the degree of transparency about margin management, and I’ll be watching that very, very closely.

I think the other thing that we heard—not so much during the consideration of the bill, but it was certainly an issue that was raised in the context of the Commerce Commission’s work before they published their final report, and that was the extent to which we make it harder for overseas investors to introduce grocery chains into New Zealand. I think the Overseas Investment Act and the Overseas Investment Office may be a barrier to increasing competition. The very thing that we are trying to do is actually being prevented by what I believe to be overly restrictive barriers in place on foreign investment into a number of sectors, but certainly this one. When you’re thinking about some of the big international chains like ALDI, like Costco, they’ve had a look at New Zealand and it’s simply just too hard for them at the moment. One of the litmus tests of the effectiveness of this bill, when passed, is going to be the degree to which those major global chains suddenly see New Zealand as a more attractive destination to invest. If they don’t, or if they can’t, then we will fail to achieve the lofty goals that the Minister set out: more competition and an even playing field.

The areas, again, that Mr Bayly did mention and that I think are going to be as effective as anything that we’re doing in this bill are certainly the removal—and, indeed, it is happening voluntarily now, I think. Supermarket chains may have seen the writing on the wall in respect of land acquisition covenants and restrictive lease covenants. They are simply barriers to competition. I think we’ve all got stories of examples in electorates up and down the country where the Resource Management Act was, frankly, used as a tool to delay and deny and defer and deflect the ability of competition to come in to the market. It’s certainly been the case that I could think of in two areas that I know very well, Dunedin and Central Otago. Thankfully, tenacity prevailed, but it shouldn’t have to. This is one of those areas where we actually encourage and welcome the sorts of competitive endeavour that will, I hope, be improved by this.

The last thing I would say—and I think I’ll just come back to the grocery supply code—is that sunlight is such a great disinfectant. One of the things that I think the supply code needs to do is to highlight the degree to which there are elements of pure competition versus pure collusion. One of the things that commodity products like oil, like petrol, for example, and to some degree groceries—because they are the same product being sold in two different places; two, three, or four different places—is that absolute competition moves in the same way as a collusive environment and it’s really hard to tell the difference. When Z change their price up or down 10c a litre, suddenly BP do the same. Why is that? Because of competition or collusion? Well, we’d like to think it’s because of competition—that there aren’t phone calls going on in the background. One of the things the grocery code, I think, will enable the commissioner to do is to actually highlight and shine a light and make more transparent the practices that go on in terms of price setting and margin management. So with a reasonable amount of caveats, we’ll continue to support this bill at second reading.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call in relation to this very significant bill. I just want to start by acknowledging Mr Woodhouse—I often enjoy his contributions to the House because they do reflect a lot on decision making and the history of decision making, which I do think is important for us to consider. He did say that it was too hard for Costco to exist in New Zealand. But Mr Woodhouse, you’re very welcome to come to the northwest and I will give you a tour; it is a wonderful part of our community.

But I think I wanted to carry on the same tone as Mr Woodhouse and reflect on history. One of my most vivid memories as a child was walking into Big Fresh—whether it was the giant grinning pear or the dancing broccoli, fruit and veggies took on a distinctly appealing sense in those days. And I’m not alone. Many of us, as children, were used to walking into a Foodtown or a Big Fresh, a Write Price, or a Price Chopper. And Mr Woodhouse is quite correct that in the 1980s and 1990s there were a series of mergers and acquisitions which led to Woolworths—well, what is now Woolworths—purchasing Foodtown, and that left us with basically just one brand standing. And as Consumer NZ’s Jon Duffy has said, “That was the beginning of the end, that was the beginning of the status quo, which is New Zealand’s grocery sector being served by a duopoly.” And since then, I think what has been equally alarming is the vertical integration, and so what that means is one entity controlling every element of the supply chain. Again, Jon Duffy says it beautifully; he said, “Right from the moment a fish is caught through to the moment it is scanned at the checkout, that’s fully owned, in one case, by one entity. When you own the entire supply chain it makes it a lot easier to control the prices that are charged through that supply chain”, and that’s why we end up with higher prices.

This is a Government that is addressing that. We’ve already introduced legislation to ban restrictive land covenants, and this bill will introduce a number of further changes, including—as members have spoken to—the grocery commissioner, which means that we won’t just be floating in a space where we don’t understand what the implications are of our duopoly. We will know. There will be reviews every year, and we’ll also be imposing obligations on the major grocery retailers through the wholesale supply regime. And that will—as Mr Woodhouse rightly identified an issue—make it easier for foreign companies to come into New Zealand and enter the grocery market. This is a bill that is literally about bread and butter issues. It’s about making basic goods more affordable for Kiwis, and I commend it to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the second reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. I just wanted to, first and foremost, acknowledge the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their very chunky report and the substantive amendments that they have provided.

The Greens supported this bill at first reading because we’ve always stood for enacting laws that support fair trade, fair food prices, and local sourcing and we do think that this bill goes some way towards that. Personally, I want to dream of a world beyond just reforming capitalism, but I want to acknowledge that the supermarket industry is absolutely broken and the duopoly hasn’t served us. It has created the conditions where ordinary people are being ripped off at the counter. A big part of this is around lack of regulations to enable fair trading and a better balance between the retailers and the suppliers. So we welcome the introduction of, say, the grocery supply code, which will be mandatory for major grocery retailers. And we acknowledge the changes that were made by the select committee—for example, switching the power to make the code from the Governor-General to the Commerce Commission. I think this is a good change and it’s kind of where it should be.

There are other changes as well, where we’ll introduce a dispute resolution scheme for the grocery industry, as well as extending the protections in the Fair Trading Act to cover the relationship between major grocery retailers and their suppliers. Ultimately, what we hope this bill will do is deliver fair prices for consumers. And, yes, I acknowledge the National Party’s comments that perhaps some of those changes are yet to be seen at the extent, but I think no one in this House will be thinking that this bill is a silver bullet to address cost of living pressures. It is a necessary reform to address what has been longstanding, unfair competition, and the member who spoke previous to me, Vanushi Walters, talked about some of the history in that regard. I too want to acknowledge Consumer New Zealand’s strong advocacy on this to get major changes through. And so it is good the Government has listened to some of that advocacy as well.

As was said by other members who argue that the effect will be truly seen, I think this is why, from the Greens’ perspective, we’ll be needing further investment in urban food gardens, papa kāinga, and other initiatives to provide alternatives to supermarkets. So we look forward to the Government enacting this bill and for other holistic approaches to be brought forward so that everyone has access to an abundance of kai. Kia ora.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party on the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, and this was the day for Mr Duncan Webb, as the new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, to roar like a lion through this industry, because that’s what it would take to actually increase competition. He had the opportunity, instead of choosing regulation, to actually understand what competition is in this sector, and he hasn’t had the ability tonight to discuss supermarkets and how they should actually be interacting with new entrants to come into this country.

At the moment, let’s take the bill as it exists and the bills that have passed, and if you take the supermarket that already exists, they have removed all restrictive covenants, they’ve already calculated and displayed unit pricing—they’ve gone digital with that. They’ve created a wholesale business unit and they’ve signed agreements with customers, and they’re working to the code of conduct and they’re actually working to the Grocery Commissioner’s vision. So that’s what happening, but it’s not actually creating any competition.

ACT has actively been following the Commerce Commission’s market study process investigating retail grocery competition. We keenly support, as a party, measures that would facilitate greater competition in this sector by lifting barriers to entry, which leads to customer benefits via pricing and choice over the long term, and that’s what’s missing from Labour’s vision and the Green Party’s vision. In 20 years’ time, will we actually have a new supermarket chain in this country? That’s a question to think about, and when Naisi Chen is popping down in 20 years’ time to get noodles for her party, or James Shaw and Ricardo Menéndez March are popping down to get a nice, juicy steak with a bottle of Pinot noir, will they actually be in another supermarket chain, or will it be just the same ones? I would argue that it would be the same ones, given the fact that at the moment there are so many barriers to entry in this country.

ACT opposes this bill on the ground that for a new international grocery to enter the New Zealand market at any reasonable scale, this is just not helped by this bill. The National Party needs to have a look at this and address the fact that at least regulation—currently not excluding zoning rules and consenting processes—make it so close to impossible that it might as well have actually been legislation founded to stop competition in this country.

So ACT has disagreed with the Commerce Commission’s draft report. There were flaws in its analysis and opportunities earlier on to strengthen competition by focusing on easing regulatory and legislative barriers to entry—matters noted in chapter six of that report. But in backing a New Zealand initiative, ACT warmly welcomed the commission’s final report focused on easing regulatory barriers to entry, which actually said that unless structural change occurred in the industry, there would be no new competition introduced to New Zealand.

The grocery industry bill revisits matters that were less favoured in the Commerce Commission’s final report while ignoring measures more fundamental to enable real entry. Worse, the bill’s recommendations will actively discourage entry by international grocers while potentially running afoul of international trade agreements. We urge that the bill be withdrawn or rewritten in favour of measures recommended by the Commerce Commission that will mitigate real barriers to entry and enable greater competition. If the Government does not recommend that the bill be withdrawn, it must at least make or recommend changes to the bill that might reduce some of the worst harms it will otherwise cause.

Tex Edwards said that there’s a level of fantasy surrounding this bill, and I think he’s right. His view is that only a breakup of the two supermarket groups would needed to entice a third like-for-like challenger, and this could bring down grocery prices. But, actually, it’s more sophisticated than that. To get a Lidl or another supermarket chain here involves a complete strategy by the Overseas Investment Office and the Government to be friendly and open for these businesses to come here. And I’ll point out a few barriers in entry to that actually happening.

Relatively few sites in New Zealand are sold for use in grocery retail. Organic growth on sites is already happening because the institutions that are the existing supermarkets have already got their hands on that. Then, you move on to local councils where city planning and zoning has intended to set zoning to accommodate the number of grocers that planners believe its neighbourhoods might need, rather than the numbers that might enable effective competition. In doing so, they’re effectively and invariably creating conditions enabling local monopolies. And that’s the issue when you drive your car down the road: who is in that area? Is it a monopoly? Is it competitive?

New Zealand’s planning system considers competition as a harm to be mitigated rather than a boon to be encouraged. If resource consents can be secured, a full-service grocer will also need to seek an alcohol licence. They can expect opposition from the local health officials, the police, community groups, and the Green Party. Is it actually possible for a potential international entrant, due to regulation and market structure, to set up here?

This was a day for Mr Webb to at least open the door to go back to the drawing board and emphasise easing zoning and consenting barriers against entry. Why can’t he turn around and tell Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), which operates the Overseas Investment Office, that entrance for retail grocery chains is in the national interest? In a period of cost of living crisis, this Government has moved as slow as Mr Robertson in a lamington race on a big spoon. We have now a situation where food prices are actually inflationary, and margins by the grocery supermarkets have remained the same—so inflation has been caused by another route here. Otherwise, an international applicant would see the Overseas Investment Office, which I do in a lot of cases, as a source of potential risk.

The breakup of cartels of existing connected property owners, who collude with councils to set anti-competitive zoning rules to frustrate entry in their local areas, is a must as well. So the Government must ask itself, LINZ, and the Commerce Commission to give a clear line to entry without interference. We also urge that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee seeks input from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) on potential trade implications on this bill. Australia simply could raise Government-to-Government concerns for one of the supermarkets that is Australian-owned. I don’t think anybody’s thought about that at the committee. And should the United States succeed with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Costco’s potential inclusion as a regular grocer could also create issues that would make already difficult negotiations trickier.

Finally, and more substantively, the compulsory wholesale access regime, as described in the legislation, would make it incredibly risky for new entrants, and new entrants should not be bound by this mechanism. It’s a new barrier to entry, and Dr Webb has taken a communist view that this is a good thing, and it’s not. So, then, we may—may—get a third New Zealand - wide player with market power, leading to competition and reduced prices.

Intended measures proposed in this bill risk increasing the cost to grocery consumers. Compulsory wholesale access regimes are particularly risky, and the Commerce Commission recommended against them. So ACT urges the Government to take up measures to reduce barriers to potential entry in the draft Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, to instruct the Overseas Investment Office to approve grocery applications involving retail grocery, and to consult with MFAT on potential trade implications and other options that won’t do much harm.

I’m going make a prediction today: a new entrant, if they can get the right to set up locations, will easily have over $100 million capital tied up in sites it’s purchased, with having no clue when it might actually be possible to start building grocery stores. Try planning a distribution network when you can’t tell when different stores might be allowed to open. So the Overseas Investment Office has its hurdles, and if you have more than a trivial amount of foreign backing and you want full-service stores, you need to get a liquor licence and permits and process. So it’s hardly a surprise that international retailers like ALDI and Lidl have decided New Zealand is not worth the pain. Costco is a different business model, with three new sites, but it’s a not a full-service proposition.

So we’ve asked the Minister to put a stop on this bill. And we’ve asked the committee—even with the job it’s done, it hasn’t done the job of providing long-term benefits over the 20-year view. And I guarantee you, we will be going to the same supermarkets unless we change those things. So the ACT Party opposes this bill. We encourage everybody to oppose this bill and to create trading environments where businesses can participate with confidence and have a positive effect over 20 years towards reducing prices or maintaining stability for the New Zealand consumer.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call tonight on the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. This is a bill whose time has come. It will be no surprise to any New Zealander that Kiwis pay far too much at the supermarket. Many of us have travelled across the Ditch or have family in Australia who remind us regularly—and I must say regularly—just how much more we pay for food at the checkout, especially when compared to our Aussie cousins.

In my view, it is quite outrageous that there are some goods that are made or grown here in New Zealand that are cheaper to buy overseas than here in New Zealand. That is one of the issues that this bill seeks to address.

I’ve spoken a number of times in this House about the supermarket duopoly we have in New Zealand. The Australian-owned Countdown chain and the New Zealand cooperative Foodstuffs and their major chains, Pak ’N Save and New World. This duopoly hurts everyone who participates in the market, it hurts suppliers who don’t receive fair prices for their goods, it hurts consumers who pay too much, and from my experience as a union organiser in this sector, it hurts workers, many of whom don’t earn as much as they should from working in a supermarket in New Zealand.

The high cost of food in New Zealand hurts our most vulnerable. When we have a situation where people on low and middle incomes can’t afford to buy New Zealand butter, milk, and cheese or New Zealand - grown fruit and vegetables, we have a problem that we need to fix. This bill will help to fix this by taking further steps to allow new entrants into the market because that is how we create more competition, end this duopoly, and bring down prices for consumers.

One of the key measures that this bill does to address that is to impose obligations on our major grocery retailers through the wholesale supply regime. One of the issues we have is that our supermarket duopolies and our chains not only control the retailer but they control the wholesale food price that distributes to that retailer. And this bill makes changes to that regime which will increase competition, allow new entrants into the market, and ultimately bring down prices.

As I said, this bill is one that has been a long time coming. As the MP for Nelson, I’m regularly asked “What is this Government doing to end the high food prices that we have in supermarkets?” And it’s a pleasure to be able to speak tonight on one of the measures that we are taking to do just that. With the current cost of living and high inflation challenges we have in New Zealand, this bill could not come at a better time, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tama Potaka, five minutes.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Ngā mihi manahau o te pō roa nei. [Good evening during this very long night.] Great to see the people from Waikato here today. I’ve heard some views tonight—some were balanced, some may be competitive in the “Hyperbole Olympics”, but I don’t want to get too enthusiastic, lest I get a medal in those games. Now, when I was a little man in Rangitīkei, our food source, our groceries, were grown outside or running around the window, and long may that last. There was the ability to grow and catch your own kai from the awa or ngahere, from the farm, or from the māra kai, or the veggie garden. Rakiraki, or ducks—paradise or mallard—were on the menu in May. No kererū, though. We used to go to the grocer once a week to what we described as Auckland food, like kedgeree and watermelons.

The supermarkets and grocery industry generates many diverse perspectives. Some view the industry with pride, as it creates a proven pathway to individual and corporate wealth and wellbeing, and provides produce and other goods for the masses. There have been some outstanding role models, people like Jason Witehira, who have worked hard to own shops and franchises—he’s now across the other side of the Harbour Bridge. They’ve demonstrated excellence and innovation by taking on produce from all over the world, but also from all over the country—unusual places like Te Tairāwhiti, out in the regions and giving new suppliers a chance.

Others—in fact, many others—view the industry with some scepticism, considering it uncompetitive and making it harder for Kiwis through pricing, and in the case of the hard-working people of Nawton and Hamilton West, they’re actually shutting down Countdown Nawton this August, the only mainstream supermarket in that suburb. What a consumer calamity for those people, most of whom probably prefer utes over Teslas, and some who cannot even drive to Countdown Dinsdale or Te Rapa because they have no waka at all.

This bill is geared to improve competition and efficiency in the industry for the long-term benefit of consumers and to tautoko a trading environment where businesses can participate confidently. As a result, our party does support this bill, albeit with caution—he mea whakatūpato, e hoa mā. [with caution, dear friends.]

Whilst we tautoko the view that proposed changes like the code of conduct and the Grocery Commissioner will increase competition, the impact of the changes on the food prices will be inconsequential, particularly given the severe cost of living crisis facilitated in the current climate. Poorly constructed policies, suboptimal spending, Resource Management Act settings, employer-employees settings, more taxes, and deleterious regulatory barriers to overseas market entry all conspire to cause the fundamental problems we face. On top of these unconstructive factors, we have witnessed extraordinary monetary interventions that have gone a step too far, causing price rises, and this bill has indeed landed beyond some of the Commerce Commission recommendations.

The heavy-handed approach with the regulated grocery retailers echoed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), who warned that introducing a mandatory wholesale access regime could create “a disproportionate intervention with highly uncertain consequences, including the risk of disrupting significant efficiencies and introducing costs that could be passed onto consumers.”

The idea of a forced sale of supermarket assets is also poorly thought-through. Forced divestment of private assets reminds me of decades of underwhelming treatment levelled against some fellow Kiwi landowners. It impacts on market confidence and needs no such provision here.

Duress is something that people in Waikato and Hamilton West have faced over time and continue to face regularly with food prices, and they would be very open to seeing supermarkets such as Costco and Aldi being able to enter New Zealand far more easily. In fact, I’d love Costco to come to Hamilton West, once we have better roading in and around that great electorate, the home of the best rugby team in the Anzac countries.

The overseas investment framework does need tweaking further to fast-track greater and deeper provision of grocery goods to our communities. Not unlike other legislation proposed in my short time in service in this House, the Government presumes regulation to be the only genuine answer to facilitate wholesaling, and we disagree. Why let the supply code be delivered and overseen by MBIE when we could have had the commissioner update and oversee their code? We sought a binding dispute resolution process, and still consider that it is more appropriate for both the retailer and supplier to initiate those claims.

I tautoko the wisdom, the innate and elderly wisdom of my colleagues sitting here, and support with caution, and I look forward to how this legislation can encourage a grocer to replace Countdown Nawton, come August, and support the hard-working people of Hamilton West, the best place to grow up and grow old, New Zealand.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity. I first want to acknowledge the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, because I know that he is particularly passionate about this, as we’ve heard earlier on. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, because I remember them being very passionate about this landing on their table as they thought about the opportunities that it provided them to make a step in the right direction.

I think we have to always remember that at the heart of this bill is the fact that the Commerce Commission found that New Zealand supermarkets make in excess of $1 million in extra profits, over and above what we’d expect if there was appropriate competition.

This bill, as other contributors have mentioned earlier, acknowledges that you can’t run a supermarket on empty shelves. It gives a leg-up to the likes of those smaller retailers, those smaller players in the market, to give them a hand in terms of that competing on an equal footing and to do something about that duopoly. It also means that other retailers will be able to sell a wider range of groceries at better prices.

For those reasons, I think this bill is a really good idea. I think it does something tangible and something really important for every day New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption] I’d like to acknowledge the enthusiasm on the other side of the House at 10 minutes to 10 this evening. I would also like to acknowledge my fellow MP from Hamilton and commend him on how many times he fitted the word Hamilton into his speech. I think the member set a new record there. I won’t try and challenge that one, but it also looks like another record’s been set, as the member acknowledged the rugby field with the Waikato Chiefs. But I turn my attention to the bill—the Grocery Industry Competition Bill.

I’d also like to commend the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, for bringing this bill to the House—well, the previous Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark, initially brought this bill to the House, and at the time I was the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I was very pleased to see this bill introduced to the House and to see this bill come to the committee because there is no doubt—and there does seem to be broad agreement right across this House—that food prices are too high. They are unsustainably high. And I would like to acknowledge the support of the National Party opposite, who support this bill, with their reservations, as they say, but nevertheless support this bill because they know as well that food prices are too high. And I’m proud to be part of a Government who is doing something about that.

We do have a small market here in New Zealand. And the reality is that small markets are prone to a lack of competition, which often means that a Government needs to step in in order to promote that competition. We all bemoan the fact that we only have two main supermarket chains here in New Zealand. We have one Costco store, I believe. The reality is it’d be great if we had 50 Costco stores here in New Zealand. Not just Costco—other stores. We do have examples of that in Australia. I was recently in Australia and I did take interest in the prices over there. And the reason Australia has lower prices is primarily because of the competition that we don’t have in the market.

But this bill will promote that competition. This is the second reading of the bill. We heard from submitters—I’ll just mention one submitter that sort of stuck in my mind. It was a gentleman who owned a small dairy. And when he had to buy food for his dairy, he had to go to the wholesaler—the wholesaler was owned by one of the duopoly—and, basically, they dictated the prices to him in terms of what he had to pay for the products. So many of us have been to a corner dairy and thought, “Why are these prices so high?” Well, one of the reasons is because they actually can’t get the equivalent prices that the supermarkets get. Now, this dairy owner, if he goes directly to the producer, then the producer will go, “Well, what do I do? Do I give you the product or do I stay in with the duopoly? Do I risk being ostracised by the duopoly?” So there are serious power imbalances all over the place here.

I think I’ve probably articulated enough there—I’m looking to my left and I think we’ll finish there. I certainly commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair—an absolute pleasure to rise on the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): “Madam Speaker” will do.

SIMON WATTS: —second reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. It’s interesting—I just acknowledge the last speaker’s contribution in terms of this important topic, in articulating that good example about that dairy owner. I was thinking the only thing that dairy owners in this country are worried about is when the next ram raid is going to happen for them, sadly. That is the reality, but I love that little articulation of the dilemma of trying to get goods from a producer or going direct to the duopoly.

But the reality is that the cost of this Government is driving up the cost of living. That is the simple fact. We can all talk about the implications of the grocery chains driving up food prices—it’s absolute bollocks, right? This Government, and this Labour Government’s policies, are the reasons why we’ve got a cost of living crisis, so don’t fall for this little distraction that it’s the big, bad grocery organisations that are causing all of our problems—oh, no, no. Of course, that sounds good on paper. Next they’ll say it’s Air New Zealand, or next they’ll say it’s another big monopoly, a petrol company—surely not, surely not. No, the reality is quite simple: it’s this Labour Government’s policies that are driving up the cost of living—12.1 percent is the increase in food prices, according to Statistics New Zealand, and a large contributor of that was grocery prices. A 12.1 percent increase from this time last year is a massive jump. But, again, that is driven by policies set by this Government.

The other thing I heard as well this evening is about the million dollars of extra profits. I think one of the speakers said that—who was it? I can’t recall, but it was one of them on the other side. Well, do you remember when the Government locked down and said the only place where Kiwis could buy their groceries is the supermarkets? Do you remember that? I remember that. And do you know what would happen when you shut out all the other providers—all the butchers, all the bakers, all the small fruit shops? Do you wonder what would happen? You don’t have to be an accountant to work this out. Well, I’ll tell you what will happen. It’ll mean that those grocery chains get all the business, right? Everyone goes and shops there.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah.

SIMON WATTS: So I ask the Hon Mark Mitchell: what happens to their profits? They go up, don’t they? And I tell you what: they’re on that side saying, “Oh, the grocery chains are making a million dollars a day.” Well it’s because of their policies—that’s why the grocery chains saw an increase in their profitability. So I think we’ve just got to get a little bit back to basics in regards to this.

While National will be supporting this, this isn’t going to solve all the problems around competition within the grocery sector. That is mythical thinking. The Minister was in La-La Land, as he usually is. But don’t worry: his runway is running out pretty rapidly, and he can find something else to do beyond October. We’ll be supporting this bill. Just looking at the time, we will be making sure that it’s going through, but we do have reservations. We’ll be commending this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s lovely to rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. I didn’t quite understand everything that the previous speaker, Simon Watts, was saying because it just seemed like the usual rah rah that would go on from that side of the House. We do have support on this tonight. I’m glad to have worked alongside our new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Duncan Webb, and obviously being a member and being a keen, engaged member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it was a pleasure to be on there—

Andrew Bayly: Very keen—very keen.

GLEN BENNETT: Measured and thoughtful there, Mr Bayly. Always considered in what goes on.

This is good legislation. This is legislation that is going to be transformational for people in New Zealand. Communities like mine in Marfell, in New Plymouth, will benefit from this. So I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Grocery Industry Competition Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 63; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.