Tuesday, 6 June 2023

TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 2023

TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Justice Committee on the rleport of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Brian Webb: Require political parties to work together in national emergencies

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Point-of-care Tests) Order Revocation Order 2023 (SL 2023/57).

SPEAKER: The reports of the Justice Committee and the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the policy to add 1,800 extra police officers to the beat, which was achieved last Thursday during the graduation of wing 366. I also stand by the policy to ensure an ongoing ratio of one police officer to every 480 New Zealanders. This compares to the ratio of one police officer to every 544 New Zealanders when that member was last supporting a National Government.

David Seymour: Does he believe building light rail to the airport will raise the value of Auckland Airport shares, and, if so, can he think of any ways to motivate Michael Wood to hurry up with that project?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not a stockbroker.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that his Government will “focus on the issues that matter to most New Zealanders”, and does he believe his Government has been careful about the cost of red tape and regulation it puts on New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, if the best the member can come up with is to create a ministry for bureaucracy in order to deal with the bureaucracy, he perhaps needs to go back to the drawing board.

David Seymour: Is he aware that early childhood education (ECE) providers need to comply with 303 different regulations before they can open their door in the morning, including keeping records for three months of all food they’ve served and the time they served it to whom, and is he aware of any situations where keeping these records has justified the cost of doing so?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The safety of children in early childhood education is something that all parents will prioritise, and therefore the regulations in this space are designed to ensure that our most vulnerable young children are kept safe while they are in early childhood education. There has been extensive consultation in recent years around the food safety guidelines in early childhood settings, and it happened after a child was brain damaged during an ECE service whilst eating.

David Seymour: If he really cares about kids in early childhood education, why is it that he puts in place regulations that he cannot demonstrate the benefit of since they’ve been in place—not even once?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe I just did.

David Seymour: Has the ban on pseudoephedrine and over-the-counter cold and flu medicines stopped or even slowed the P epidemic, and, if not, why is that law still in place at great cost to Kiwis who just want to blow off a winter chill with the most effective medicine possible?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the good news is that those who are getting prescription pseudoephedrine for a cold or flu from their doctors now won’t have to pay the cost of picking that up from the pharmacy under this Government. I note that it was the National-ACT Government that banned over-the-counter pseudoephedrine and required that people have to go to their doctors in order to get it.

David Seymour: Does he agree with Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown that “Auckland Council Group spends at least $145 million on temporary traffic management each year, and utility companies have seen a fourfold increase in traffic management costs” while his Government has been in place; if so, what is his Government doing to ease the orange cone pandemic plaguing every New Zealander trying to develop absolutely anything anywhere?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member has a concern about road cones in Auckland, he should raise those with the Auckland mayor and the Auckland Council.

David Seymour: Is he not aware that the Auckland mayor and Auckland Council are following statutes made by this House that his Government’s responsible for?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is referring to health and safety laws, I’d expect all councils across the country to be following them.

David Seymour: Does he think lawmaking is good enough when stock exclusion rules are now in their third rewrite in as many years and southern farmers were forced to plant winter crops before 1 November, even though the crops would freeze when planted before that time and their animals would starve through the winter?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’d be fair to say that’s not an issue that I have spent a great deal of time looking at.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes.

Christopher Luxon: Why did Michael Wood fail to disclose his ownership of shares in Auckland Airport, despite being responsible for major decisions impacting the airport?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My understanding is he did disclose it to the Cabinet Office—in fact, the Cabinet Office have verified that to me. In terms of whether it was disclosed in the register for pecuniary interests, that’s not a matter for me as Prime Minister.

Christopher Luxon: When did Michael Wood first disclose his shares in Auckland Airport to the Cabinet Office?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My understanding was when he became a Minister.

Christopher Luxon: Why doesn’t Michael Wood’s ownership of Auckland Airport shares therefore appear on the Cabinet Office’s register of ministerial conflicts of interest?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated, that was declared to the Cabinet Office. The Minister indicated to the Cabinet Office at the time that he was in the process of disposing of the shares.

Christopher Luxon: Has Michael Wood been involved in any Government decisions with potential financial implications for Auckland Airport?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the broad conversations that I’ve had with Michael Wood, we have not identified any issues that that would be relevant to.

Christopher Luxon: Why didn’t he stand Michael Wood down as Minister of Transport as soon as he was informed last week that he had failed to disclose his shares in Auckland Airport?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I believe in natural justice.

Christopher Luxon: What new information has he therefore received between Friday, when he was first informed about Michael Wood’s shares in Auckland Airport, and today, when he finally stood him down?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve had the opportunity to meet with him and have a conversation about that. I do believe in a process of natural justice.

Christopher Luxon: Why is Michael Wood still the Minister for Auckland, when Auckland Council is actively considering the sale of its shares in Auckland Airport?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As Minister for Auckland, Michael Wood will have no role in those conversations.

Christopher Luxon: Why does he always wait for his Ministers to be caught out publicly before he reluctantly takes action?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I completely reject that.

Question No. 3—Energy and Resources

3. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government extending the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Through Budget 2023, the Government has committed to delivering over 100,000 more insulation and heating retrofits to lowincome households over the next four years through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme. This Government programme makes it far more affordable and accessible for homeowners to make their homes warm, dry, and healthy, and reduce their spend on power bills.

Rachel Boyack: Will there be any changes to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While Budget 2023 provides certainty for the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, we’ve also expanded the programme to enable minor repairs to bring homes up to the necessary standard to allow for retrofits. This will help thousands that could greatly benefit from heating and insulation, but issues with housing quality mean that that can’t be currently installed. Funding will help some homes that, for example, need minor maintenance repairs to leaking roofs or damaged pipes in the underfloor that would normally require fixing before insulation can be installed.

Rachel Boyack: What has the Government’s Warmer Kiwi Homes programme achieved to date?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Budget 2023 extends the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, enabling 100,000 more retrofits on the top of more than 117,000 upgrades that we’ve delivered since 2018, and we know the programme works. Motu’s independent review of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme found those in upgraded homes experienced an electricity reduction of 16 percent through the winter months, supporting households to spend less on their power bills.

Rachel Boyack: What energy efficiency and health benefits does the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme provide?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: An independent review by Motu also found that Warmer Kiwi Homes were delivering better outcomes, with homes being, on average, 2 degrees Celsius warmer, 89 percent of homeowners reported less condensation on windows, and around half of homeowners noticed a reduction in dampness. Warmer Kiwi Homes improves health outcomes for New Zealanders, contributing to fewer doctors visits and hospitalisations being required, with research finding that this equates to over $15 million per year saved in avoided health costs.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac senior economist Satish Ranchhod that “the pressure on households’ finances will become increasingly stark over the year ahead”, and how long has inflation been outside of the Reserve Bank’s target range?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, as I have stated many times in this House, we are acutely aware of the cost of living pressures faced by households now and over the coming year. That’s why we’ve taken steps to support New Zealanders, including through measures the Government announced at Budget 2023. In terms of the second part of the question, as the member well knows, managing inflation is primarily the responsibility of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. As the member has not specified a time frame in the second part of the question, I can inform her that inflation has been outside the target range on a number of occasions in recent decades, including four quarters from December 2010, four quarters from September 2012, eight quarters from December 2014, and eight quarters from June 2021. I would further note that the Reserve Bank and Treasury both forecast inflation to be back within the target range from the third quarter of next year.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think he got it wrong when he reassured New Zealanders in May last year that inflation was only going to be a short-term challenge, and does he expect the cost of living crisis will become better or worse this year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, advice that we were receiving in the early part of last year indicated that inflation was coming towards its peak. That is not what turned out to occur. Across the world, we’ve seen inflation stay higher for longer than had been forecast.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned by reports of an apparent surge in the number of New Zealanders leaving permanently for Australia, and does he think it says good or bad things about the relative position of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the years, there has been significant migration between New Zealand and Australia. What I would say to the member is that if she is here today advocating for policy settings that exist in Australia, I look forward to her advocacy for a capital gains tax and for a much higher top tax rate.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that mortgage holders in Australia are much better off than mortgage holders in New Zealand, with the official cash rate in Australia at 3.85 percent, compared to 5.5 percent here?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary question, the official cash rate is set by the Reserve Bank independently of the Government.

Nicola Willis: Has he seen reported comments by Wellington City Missioner Murray Edridge, who says there has been a tripling in demand for these services compared to three years ago—“we’re seeing a demand that we haven’t seen before. People who would just get by before are now getting to the point where there’s just not enough money to go around.”—and does the Minister of Finance realise that that’s an indictment on his economic management?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, I’m very aware of Mr Edridge’s comments and have spent a significant amount of time with him over the years, and have a great deal of admiration for the work that he, and the Wellington City Mission, does. The reason why the Government has stepped forward over the last year and at Budget 2023 to help ease the cost of living pressure for New Zealanders is because we are fully aware of the pressure on households. I would note that most of those measures that we have proposed to take pressure off people have been opposed by the National Party.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he think allowing average income New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn by reducing their income tax burden would put them in a better position to deal with the rising cost of living, and, if so, why has he refused to prioritise tax relief but has instead prioritised capacity relief for just about every single Government agency?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say is that on this side of the House, our strong belief is that the way for people’s incomes to rise is for wages to rise. The member might believe that the only route to that is tax cuts; we do not.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she think current income support levels allow everyone to live without debt and out of poverty?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This Government has lifted the levels of main benefits higher than any other Government, but we also acknowledge that there is more to do. During the last Budget, we took another step by waiving the $5 co-payment on prescriptions so that New Zealanders don’t have to miss out on the medications that they need. I’m also reminding the House that the most recent Budget was what funded the 1 April changes, which included increases to benefits, superannuation, and student allowance, as well as the minimum wage. We continue to introduce legislation that raises incomes for New Zealanders. This week in the House, we have the third reading of the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. This change will lift as many as 14,000 children out of poverty and give affected families a median of $20 extra per week after the abatement of income-tested financial assistance.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned that debt to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for things outside of benefit fraud and overpayments has now reached over $1 billion, and, if so, will she lift base income levels so that people do not need to get into debt to cover basic essentials?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said in my answer to the primary question, we have significantly increased benefits. We’ve also increased Working for Families and the minimum wage; we have been very much focused on lifting incomes in New Zealand. We still recognise that there are some—particularly those on low incomes—who may need to access support for things like whiteware, for things like dental care, and for other things, and that support is available through the Ministry of Social Development. In some instances, they do need to pay back those grants, but they are interest free and we expect case managers to work with clients to ensure that they are able to pay it back at an affordable rate.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that poverty is a political choice, and, if so, is her Government committed to ending poverty, rather than simply alleviating it?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One of the first choices that we made as a Government was to introduce child poverty reduction thresholds through legislation. That really does demonstrate this Government’s commitment to responding to the challenge of child poverty in this country. We now see 77,000 fewer children living in poverty because of the initiatives and policies that we have implemented, but the job is not yet done. We still remain focused on reducing levels of child poverty in Aotearoa.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Government be able to end poverty with the current levels of investment in the welfare system and Working for Families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member knows that we have been reviewing Working for Families. That work is still under active consideration.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she believe that disabled people need to continue proving their disability to continue being eligible for income support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As a Government, we have made changes to the amount of time someone on a jobseeker - health condition, injury or disability exemption needs before they require a new medical certificate. We now look at how long their doctor says their condition will last before asking for another medical certificate. Medical certificates for supported living payment assess work capacity, as the payment requires people to be permanently and severely restricted in their ability to work. “Severely” means that they cannot regularly work 15 hours or more per week in open employment. Some people receiving the supported living payment will never have their work capacity reassessed if they meet the criteria for simplified access. This includes clients who are terminally ill, totally blind, or have a severe intellectual or cognitive impairment. There are other clients on the supported living payment who may be assessed every two years, but that’s also to ensure that they’re getting access to the supports that they should be accessing through MSD, as well as access to support for employment if that is what they wish to do and are able to do.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does she say to the 70,000-plus recipients of the supported living payment who have long-term health conditions and have been on the supported living payment for over five years, yet have to continue proving that they are sick or disabled in order to continue receiving that support?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s not just about proving that they’re sick or disabled; it’s also about the system responding to their needs and actually proactively interacting with them. It’s important that we meet with clients to ensure that they’re getting access to what they are entitled to and, if they are able to work, support them to do that.

Question No. 6—Regional Development

6. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister for Regional Development: What progress has been made on water storage projects in Northland?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister for Regional Development): Recently, I had the privilege of announcing the delivery of a significant water storage project in Northland, boosting regional business and climate resilience with the opening of Matawii reservoir. Water plays an integral role in ensuring our regional economies are equitable, sustainable, and productive. As a result of the flood and drought cycle in Te Tai Tokerau, there needed to be a reliable water source to unlock the potential of the region’s land, which has rich soils and an incredible climate for horticulture. As a result of Government investment, this potential will now be fully harnessed.

Dr Emily Henderson: What will the Matawii reservoir mean for local communities?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Supported by $12 million in Government investment, the Matawii reservoir covers 18 hectares and has a capacity of 750,000 square metres, which is 300 olympic-sized swimming pools, and is located 3 kilometres east of Kaikohe. Not only is it going to help unlock the horticultural potential of land nearby but it will also supply water to the neighbouring Ngawha Innovation Park and can augment the town supply for Kaikohe.

Dr Emily Henderson: How was the Matawii reservoir consented, Minister?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Matawii was the first project to be approved through the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act. This ensured the vital piece of community infrastructure was able to be completed at pace while providing immediate job opportunities during a time of great upheaval. The site was once a dairy farm, and, in just a few years, despite the pandemic, the project transformed the land from paddocks to water.

Dr Emily Henderson: What other water storage projects have been delivered for Northland?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: An overall $68 million of Government investment in October 2018 supported the construction of Matawii reservoir, along with other water storage and distribution projects being developed in Kaipara and the mid-North. Once the remaining projects are complete, Northland will have the infrastructure and water to develop approximately 7,000 hectares of horticulture, creating hundreds of jobs and contributing to regional economic output. The Government has also contributed over $153 million to 30 projects in the water storage and management sector across New Zealand’s regions.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, Budget 2023’s ongoing investment in Māori housing. Under this Government, we’ve approved or contracted 1,018 homes, enabled infrastructure on 1,615 sites for houses, and we’ve made 415 repairs for homes in Māori communities across the country so far. We should also note that Māori communities were particularly affected by recent extreme weather events. To support the recovery for these communities, 400 relocatable cabins are being delivered in Tairāwhiti, Wairoa, Napier, Hastings, and Te Tai Tokerau to assist those whānau who have been displaced from their homes.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he stand by his Government’s record on homelessness, given the recent release of the Waitangi Tribunal’s stage one report on Māori homelessness, which found that the Crown has breached its Treaty obligations in failing to address rising levels of Māori homelessness?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That, of course, has happened over many, many decades, and it is something that this Government is committed to addressing. It’s one of the reasons that we have built more new public homes in our five years in Government than at any time, I think, in recent history. We’ve got more work to do, there’s no question, but it’s also a reason why we’re partnering with Māori communities to build more homes, because fundamentally that’s how we will deal with homelessness.

Rawiri Waititi: What is his response to the findings of the tribunal that the Crown has continued to breach the Treaty through failing to consult, its ongoing failure to collect thorough homelessness data, its continued failure to reform the welfare system, and its lack of support for homeless rangatahi?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I hope that the member will see our response in our actions in terms of the by Māori, for Māori approach that we are taking to dealing with Māori homelessness. We are absolutely committed to getting more homes built and more people homed.

Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government adopt the recommendations of the tribunal “that the Crown and claimants now work in partnership on a new definition of homelessness that incorporates Māori perspectives.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As with all of those reports, we will go through a process of appropriately responding to it. But I hope that the member will see in the actions that we have taken so far to date that we are absolutely committed to partnering with Māori communities to address homelessness.

Rawiri Waititi: What does he say to Māori housing advocates, such as Hurimoana Dennis, who have said that the Crown must immediately establish a Māori housing authority to lead the efforts to address Māori homelessness?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say that the establishment of a new authority isn’t necessarily the best way to deliver a by Māori, for Māori approach, and that actually working with grassroots local organisations in the way that our Government is doing is probably the best way forward. But we’ll continue to have that discussion.

Question No. 8—Tourism

8. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Tourism: How is the Government supporting better education and career opportunities in tourism?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the resilience of our tourism workforce who have supported us through COVID-19; their work has not gone unnoticed. Through Budget 2023, this Government announced $18.2 million in funding to support the implementation of the Better Work Action Plan. This action plan will focus on the foundation of the sector: its people. It will ensure we create a stronger, more resilient, and sustainable tourism workforce across Aotearoa New Zealand. This investment highlights the Government’s backing for the tourism and hospitality sector, and our commitment to transforming the sector into a regenerative one.

Ingrid Leary: Why is there a need for a Better Work Action Plan?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Perceptions and evidence indicate that workplace standards in tourism and hospitality are often lower than other industries. Post COVID, we have had a unique opportunity to rethink our approach to tourism and to rebuild differently—with sustainability, regeneration, and innovation at the industry’s core. The Better Work Action Plan will do just this and help transform the tourism sector into a resilient, high-wage, productive industry that gives back more than it takes.

Ingrid Leary: What is the significance of this announcement for the tourism sector?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We know that, here in Aotearoa, we have amazing people working in the tourism sector—some are world-class innovators—but we also know we can do better. The funding secured from Budget 2023 will see more New Zealanders pursue jobs in tourism, like the young leaders from Dunedin in the gallery who are supported here by the Otago Community Trust. They can do this in the confidence that they will be supported through training, decent pay, good working conditions, support from employers, reliable work, and good career prospects. The adoption of technology and showcasing innovation will help to boost business efficiencies and capabilities, and improve productivity. Partnership between Government, the tourism industry, Māori, and unions, all work together to build tourism back stronger and more resilient for the future.

Ingrid Leary: What feedback are we hearing on the ground around this announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The feedback I’m hearing is very supportive of the Better Work Action Plan, with tourism stakeholders saying the action plan is both practical and transformational, forming a holistic package of proposals that should bring about positive changes to the tourism industry. There are many positive stories of people with fulfilling and rewarding careers in tourism, and showcasing these people, their careers, and the variety that tourism has to offer should help attract more workers to this important industry in our economy.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: Is he confident that all real or perceived conflicts of interest relating to the Transport portfolio have been appropriately managed, and how many times, if any, has he or his predecessor met with Auckland Airport leadership?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the first part of the question, the appropriateness of management of conflicts of interest are a matter for the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister. In answer to the second part of the question, I am advised that the previous Minister met with Auckland Airport eight times. In my role as Acting Minister of Transport, I have not met with Auckland Airport.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I understand the difficulty the recent changes may have had with his primary question, but it was on notice and calls for the Minister to express confidence or otherwise. The way that first part of the question was answered did not address it.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. The first part of the question asks about the appropriateness of the management of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Those are matters, as the Minister said, that are in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. Whether something has been appropriately managed is not a matter of judgment for a Minister.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point. That was an excerpt from part one—the last words in part one of that question were relating to the transport portfolio. It is definitely within the Minister’s wheelhouse.

SPEAKER: I thank the member the Hon Michael Woodhouse for raising the issue. It’s a difficult situation because, as members will know, the portfolio at the time the question was asked and written was occupied by a different person. In this instance, I think it’s reasonable for the Minister who is now acting in that position to answer the way that he has, but I also think that members should be able to examine closely those issues. For that reason, I will give the Hon Paul Goldsmith two additional supplementary questions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why did his predecessor fail to sell his Auckland Airport shares after he undertook to do so to the Cabinet Office in late-2020?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: In so far as I have responsibility as Acting Minister of Transport, I am not in a position to answer that question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it is appropriate for the Minister of Transport to own shares in Auckland international airport without declaring that ownership publicly?

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not wishing to challenge your ruling, but this does raise the difficulty of the line of questioning around the appropriateness in the management of conflicts of interest. I just reiterate what I said in my earlier point of order: the way conflicts of interest have historically been managed is via the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister. The decision about whether one should or shouldn’t do something is not actually a portfolio Minister’s matter; it is a matter for the Prime Minister, usually acting on the advice of the Cabinet Office—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s of interest to the House.

Hon Grant Robertson: Am I doing a point of order or not?

SPEAKER: Yes—continue.

Hon Grant Robertson: And asking individual Ministers to comment on the appropriateness, in terms of divulging or managing conflicts of interest, if you think about it and take it to its most logical extent, is a fruitless exercise, because the ultimate arbiter and judge of those matters is the Prime Minister and Cabinet Office.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to that point of order. A Minister is responsible for his or her actions, and that is what I am asking.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: May I also speak to that? Thank you, Mr Speaker. Your determination is on the degree to which the question is in order. Speakers’ rulings 189/1 and 173/7 go to the issue of a hypothetical question. Mr Goldsmith’s question was indeed hypothetical, which gives the Acting Minister some latitude in his answer, but it doesn’t rule the question out.

SPEAKER: I think the way that the Minister answered is definitely in order. I have given the member additional questions to further flesh out that. He should continue on.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his predecessor’s action to own shares in Auckland international airport without declaring them publicly?

SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility for that, he can answer.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I can speak to the declarations that I have made in this role, as Acting Minister, and I am confident that all are appropriate and have been declared appropriately.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question on notice was about his actions and his predecessor’s actions—so it included the actions of his predecessor. I am asking him about his predecessor, and he’s saying, “I’m not going to answer—

SPEAKER: And that has been addressed.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his predecessor’s view that to hold shares in a trust means that a Minister should not have to declare his ownership in those shares?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: In the question of declaring interests, Ministers take advice from the Cabinet Office. I have done that and am confident all declarations are appropriate.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he promise, as Acting Minister of Transport, to fix the potholes and stop having us crawl around at 30 kilometres an hour?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: What I promise to do, in the time that I am acting transport Minister, is not to freeze the maintenance budget, as happened under the previous National Government.

Question No. 10—Small Business

10. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Small Business: What further support is the Government providing to help keep small retailers safe?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Last week, I was pleased to announce that the Government is expanding its assistance to small retailers through extra funding for the fog cannon subsidy scheme. It’s vital as a Government that we continue to support our retailers through crime prevention. The extra $11 million for the fund means a total commitment so far of around $20 million to date. As a Government, we are committed to tackling crime from both ends. We are enabling those small-business owners to feel safe in their workplace, while reducing the causes of crime by enabling programmes like circuit-breaker.

Naisi Chen: How many installations have benefited from the fog cannon subsidy scheme?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Over 700 installations of fog cannons have been completed so far through the fog cannon subsidy scheme, with 500 more installations booked and on the way. This includes installations of 396 dairies, 103 bottle stores, 31 service stations, 28 jewellers, and 16 pharmacies. This is in addition to Police’s complementary Retail Crime Prevention Programme, which has completed 1,640 security interventions, installed across 225 stores. The retailers involved in these programmes that I talk to have told me that having a fog cannon in their stores helps them feel more secure. That’s why we continue to support this work.

Naisi Chen: Which regions have seen the most support from the fog cannon subsidy scheme?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The fog cannon subsidy scheme has completed installations right across the country, including 279 in Auckland, 122 in Canterbury, 120 in Wellington, and 60 in the Waikato. Of the future installations booked, 199 are in Auckland, 173 are in Waikato, 60 are in Canterbury, and 42 are in Wellington. With a number of applications still in progress, interest in the fog cannon scheme continues to be strong.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Minister think that Pak ’N Save workers are having to start to wear body cameras to protect themselves from violence?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I acknowledge that retail crime is a problem and I encourage those businesses to take up all the opportunities available to them to keep themselves safe in their workplace.

Naisi Chen: What wider work is the Government doing to support small businesses from crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Alongside our work to secure businesses and support victims of retail crime, the Government is funding programmes to hold young people to account who are committing these crimes, while also working to get them back on track. Programmes like Kotahi Te Whakaaro has seen good success so far, with 82 percent of young people referred to the programme not reoffending, or the circuit-breaker programme to intervene within 24 hours if a young person is a recidivist offender and stop them from committing further crime. This demonstrates this Government is tackling crime from both ends.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Minister think that Michael Hill jeweller workers now have a 50 percent turnover, with many of them not wanting to go into the shop and being subjected, last week, to a machete attack inside the Glenfield Michael Hill jewellers?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I acknowledge, particularly, Michael Hill jeweller has had a number of issues around the country, but that’s even more reason why we need 1,800 more police on the front line to make sure our communities are kept safer.

Question No. 11—Police

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member who’s about to ask the question. Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under Standing Order 390(1)(a) and (b), which I invite you, Mr Speaker, to take some time to consider—I’m not asking you to rule on it right now. The question that we’re about to hear, question No. 11, asks the Minister to stand by a partial statement that she made in an answer to a written parliamentary question. The question’s been asked in various ways over the last few weeks, and my view is it does not fulfil Standing Orders because it is only a partial quote. While from time to time we’ve had questions that have had statements in them which might have a small series of dots that indicate a break between words in a statement, only asking a question about a partial quote can lead to significant misunderstanding and I don’t believe is within the Standing Orders. I recognise the question has been accepted for today—I’m not asking for it to be changed for today, but I am asking you to give consideration to the practice of continually asking questions with partial quotes in them.

SPEAKER: In the nine years I’ve been in this Parliament, there’d be hardly a week go by where questions to Ministers don’t include quotes. I will go away and consider what the Leader of the House has raised. I think it’s something that the whole of Parliament needs to consider, and perhaps the Standing Orders Committee is the place to address it. In this instance, though, the quote has been accepted as part of the question, and we’ll move forward on it.

11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer”; if so, why?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at that time: “it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.” However, the context in which that statement was made has now changed. I’m pleased to inform the member that this Government has delivered 1,800 extra police. I am sure the member will join me in welcoming the new officers.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why will the Minister’s office not provide requests from both my office and the media to actually clearly show that there were 1,800 police officers graduated?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am unaware of that statement—I’m unaware of that information.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How can the Minister stand by that statement when a recent New Zealand Herald poll showed that 95 percent of those polled don’t feel safer, despite an increase in police numbers?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I acknowledge that we have work to do, and this Government remains committed to tackling the drivers of crime at both ends by addressing those underlying causes like family violence and mental health but also equipping our front line with the resources, the rules, and the tools to get the job done. That’s why I agree with Nicola Willis, who this morning said, “Well, it’s clear to me that having good numbers of police in the community makes a real difference to law and order, because it’s about having police available to fight crime and to deal with crime. It’s about preventative policing. It’s also about reassuring the impact and seeing the police visibly on the streets can have.”

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did 95 percent of Kiwis polled not feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I cannot speak for 95 percent of Kiwis.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister one of the 5 percent of New Zealanders polled that do feel safer?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has invested more in the drivers of crime and more in front-line capability than the National Government ever, ever invested. The fact that that member chooses to take my quotes out of context in order to make a point speaks for itself.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What quote have I taken out of context?

SPEAKER: Sorry, you’ve run out of questions. Question—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. During that question, I was just reflecting on Standing Order 390 as the Leader of the House has raised an issue with you. I’d make two points for your consideration at the end of question time. One is that as far as I can tell, quotes—partial or otherwise—are not referenced in Standing Order 390. I’d also add that Standing Order 396 is the mirror, and that’s for the content of replies. The Minister of Police has given what she believed to be an appropriate quotation, which may or may not have been an accurate representation of the deputy leader of the National Party, and the point I’m making is that it would be a very bland question time if there wasn’t an ability to be able to use the quotes of members and others. The Minister, in her answers to the primary question—which has been accepted as being in order for probably six or seven times now—has clarified and has contextualised her comments, and I don’t believe there’s a lot to be gained by spending too much time on that issue.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. Two points—

SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson, but please stay within what is being discussed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, absolutely, Mr Speaker; I wouldn’t think of doing anything else. Just for the member’s benefit, I do think—Standing Order 390(1)(b), in particular, around inferences, is the point that I’m making here. The question is different between a primary question on notice, and supplementaries and answers to supplementaries, in that a primary question on notice has to be authenticated. It has to be authenticated with a quote—and I don’t want to re-litigate what I said before—but it is that question where a quote clearly has to be put forward, and if that quote is only a partial quote, I’m not sure it meets the Standing Orders.

Chris Bishop: Do you really want that to be the standard?

Hon Grant Robertson: I’m not sure that that meets the Standing Orders. I wasn’t aware we were having a conversation, Mr Bishop, but we can.

Chris Bishop: Yeah, well, you just make stuff up about us all the time, so—

SPEAKER: Order! Oh, gosh! Gee, I was going to let it go, but, you know, this is part of a point of order—

Chris Bishop: Sorry.

SPEAKER: —yeah—and you used a phrase in there which you are not allowed to use. So don’t use it any more.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I want to deal with this one first, OK? I will, as I said before, go away and consider it and come back to the House. I thank both members for their contributions. A further point of order?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Oh, it was just to clarify that in—

SPEAKER: No, no, I want a new point of order, or—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, it’s in relation to the question that the Leader of the House has been speaking to.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but is it new, or do you just want to have your say?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, it’s new information that may help you.

SPEAKER: It doesn’t qualify.

Question No. 12—Environment

12. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What announcement has she made regarding the Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Recently in Hawke’s Bay I was pleased to announce almost $1 million in Government funding from the Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund for BioRich. BioRich turns organic waste that used to be sent to landfills into valuable compost. Unfortunately, this facility was damaged by Cyclone Gabrielle. Before the facility was damaged it was able to deal with 100,000 tons of organic waste, including green waste and woody debris, every year. This funding will help restore that capacity and support improvements that will futureproof the site. Helping communities get back on their feet after the devastating weather that hit the northern parts of the country this year is a priority for this Government, and that includes restoring infrastructure to deal with waste.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What other initiatives have also received funding as part of this announcement?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Whilst in the Hawke’s Bay I was also pleased to announce three other projects, totalling just over $2 million, to help tackle the wider problem with waste in New Zealand. The first is to expand Recycle South in Invercargill. The palletiser plant washes polyethylene and polypropylene plastics, including agricultural bale wrap from the lower South Island. The second is for Agrecovery to trial its regulated product stewardship scheme for farm plastics. This scheme requires all those who use plastics to take responsibility for collecting and dealing with farm plastics. The third is for Again Again, a technology platform that enables the loaning and tracking of reusable packaging. This will help expand the app to include a reusable container system for the craft brewing industry for tap room ports.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What feedback has the Government received on its efforts to combat waste?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: We have been receiving a huge amount of positive feedback from throughout the community for this Government’s efforts to combat waste. BioRich owner Mike Glazebrook said that the funding announced by the Government is a huge help towards recovery which would otherwise have taken until next year. He said it gave the company the confidence to get stuck in and get it up and running as soon as possible. Separately, Waste Management Institute of New Zealand chair Wayne Plummer told a conference last month that the past five and a half years have been most productive for tackling waste issues which are finally getting traction.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How does this announcement fit into the Government’s wider waste strategy?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The funding I was able to announce goes toward projects that support the Government’s goals of reducing waste and reducing emissions as part of the recently released Waste Strategy. This strategy has three targets to achieve by 2030, being reducing the amount of material entering the waste management system by 10 percent per person, reducing the amount of material that needs final disposal by 30 percent per person, and reducing the biogenic methane emissions from waste by at least 30 percent.

Urgent Debates Declined

Hon Michael Wood—Auckland Airport, Potential Conflict of Interest

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Paul Goldsmith seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the management of a possible conflict of interest held by the Hon Michael Wood. Ministers are responsible for their management of conflicts of interest, and where there is a potential conflict of interest with the Minister’s portfolio interests, then there is a legitimate ground for questioning—Speaker’s ruling 165(3). There could well be questions, both oral and in writing, that can be asked and answered about any ministerial actions or decisions Minister Wood may have taken while owning shares in Auckland Airport. The current application does not point to any particular action or decision made by the Minister, rather that there may have been such a decision or action made. It is not up to the Speaker to make the case for an urgent debate. I therefore decline the application.

Bills

Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 73

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I present a legislative statement on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I move, That the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a significant day for sole parent families and whānau in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a day on which the Government is righting a wrong in our welfare system that for many years has seen vulnerable New Zealanders and their children worse off.

Firstly, I wish to start by thanking the Social Services and Community Committee for their hard work and careful consideration of this bill, and the submitters who took the time to give their views on this legislation. This bill is a complex one, and the work of the committee has ensured that the bill is as robust as possible.

This bill contains important amendments that will pass on child support to parents on a sole parent rate of benefit. It will remove a discriminatory policy that has withheld child support from some of our most vulnerable sole parents and, in doing so, deliver on the Government’s commitment to put dignity and fairness back in the welfare system.

As a Government, we are focused on the bread and butter issues and the things that matter most to New Zealanders, like tackling the cost of living. This change will also ensure that approximately 41,550 sole parent families will have an average of $47 more in their pockets per week, with a median gain of $20 per week after abatement of income-tested financial assistance. This additional income will provide critical support to whānau and see up to 14,000 children lifted out of poverty by 2023-24.

Currently, child support payments are retained by the Government rather than passed on to sole parent beneficiaries to support their children. However, this is not the case for other beneficiaries who have their child support passed on, such as those on a couple’s rate of benefit or those only receiving supplementary assistance. This bill fixes this inequity by passing on child support administered by Inland Revenue directly to sole parent beneficiaries, as is currently done for other parents. This child support will then be treated as income by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for benefits and other assistance.

These changes respond to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendation to pass on child support. They are another example of this Government’s commitment to deliver on our welfare overhaul work programme, put dignity in the welfare system, and make it fairer for individuals, families, and whānau. They build on our many achievements for sole parents and whānau to date. We implemented the Families Package, which helped around 330,000 families in its first year—more than half of all families with children in New Zealand. We have made record increases to main benefits, including further investment through Budget 2023 that saw sole parents receive an extra $31.83 per week from 1 April this year.

As a first step of the review of Working for Families, we have implemented changes that mean 346,000 families will be better off by an average of $20 per week, and an estimated 6,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. We have indexed childcare assistance income thresholds to average wage growth so that income thresholds will continue to increase each year, with a further one-off increase in 2023 to make up for the thresholds being frozen in 2010. And we have increased dental grants from $300 to $1,000—to name just a few.

We are continuing to invest in support for families and whānau, including our sole parent families. Alongside the significant investments through Budget 2023 to provide 20 hours’ free early childhood education to whānau with two-year-olds from April 2024, we are expanding eligibility criteria, extending the duration period, and increasing the rates of flexible childcare assistance. Around 540 families are expected to be supported by these changes in 2024-2025. Aligning the guaranteed childcare assistance payment rate with the highest childcare assistance subsidy rate and indexing it to inflation in April 2024, it is estimated that there will be 150 children for whom guaranteed childcare assistance payment is paid.

As well as providing additional financial support to sole parent families and whānau, the bill removes the requirement for sole parents on a benefit to apply for a formula assessment of child support through Inland Revenue. This means that these parents will be able to make arrangements that better suit their circumstances, such as formula assessment, voluntary, or private agreements. Research suggests that passing on child support will increase the incentive for liable parents to meet their child support obligations. This is likely because liable parents are more willing to pay child support when they know that their child will receive their financial support.

This bill will also reduce the burden on clients to declare child support paid to them. Inland Revenue will share child support information with MSD so that MSD can charge this income more accurately. MSD will automate how child support applies to clients’ assistance to charge the income forwards over the period it is intended to support the child and will reduce the administrative burden on parents. These changes won’t just give parents and whānau more time and energy to spend with their children; they are important safeguards to minimise the potential for debt to be incurred by families.

This bill will come into force on 1 July 2023, which means parents will be able to receive the benefits of child support in the coming months. Our prioritisation of these changes highlights how the Government is focused on addressing the cost of living pressures by putting more money in the pockets of low-income families. Passing on child support to parents on a sole parent rate of benefit is the right thing to do. We want to ensure that sole parent families get the full benefit of their child support payments and that they have more in their pockets. This bill does that. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take the first call on behalf of the National Party in the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. I want to just put some context into this debate so those who are following the debate in the third reading can just understand a few things. The first thing is that we’ve seen a 21 percent increase in the number of sole parents on benefit in the last five and a half years; that’s a 21 percent increase. And none of my questions on the earlier stages of the bill have given me any confidence that this piece of legislation won’t add to that number.

The reason that’s concerning is a couple of fold: firstly, we see that there are, today, approximately 36,000 more children being raised in benefit-dependent homes than when Labour came into office in 2017—36,000. Now, I think many New Zealanders would be shocked to know that one in five New Zealand children are being raised in benefit-dependent homes today, so that is why National is concerned about the 21 percent increase of the numbers receiving sole parent benefit. So I do want to just address that concern from the start, because National’s view very clearly is that the social contract exists and actually some of the Ministry of Social Development’s own documentation talks about the fact—and actually I quoted it in an earlier reading in this debate from the regulatory impact statement. It basically says where someone and their family can provide for themselves, the expectation is that they do. In this instance, if there is a liable parent, then the expectation is that they provide for their children and that funding goes to the receiving parent. On the surface of it, that should be agnostic between whether or not the receiving parent is on a benefit or not. Except in this instance, when the receiving parent is on a benefit purely and only for the reason of being a sole parent, then the child support payment, first and foremost, should cover those costs. That’s why, very clearly in the law, there is a difference between how sole parents are treated in this way and why those on other benefits are treated.

So the Minister says the primary, sole purpose of making this change is to make the sole parent benefit line up with others. Well, National says actually it’s different, and it should be, because the sole parent is receiving money, and should be, from a liable parent so that parents—and, you know, the majority of them are fathers who are the liable parents—pay for their children, they pay for the costs associated with their family. So that is a clear view from the National Party: that if you have children, you should be responsible for them. So we don’t agree with the position that a sole parent receiving the sole parent benefit should be treated the same way as others. That’s the first point that I want to put on record in this debate. There is a social contract, and parents should provide for their children whether they are in the same household or not. When they’re not in the same household, the liable parent should pay. And if they are receiving a sole parent benefit, they are there because they are a parent—and the other parent, the liable parent should pay. It’s actually as simple as that.

It’s interesting, the Minister has finally admitted that this payment is necessary because of the cost of living crisis. Well, why hasn’t the Government focused on taking actual steps that would reduce the cost of living crisis instead of yet again finding a solution that means paying more money. But they don’t focus on that side and they don’t focus on how to reduce the number of people who are reliant on the sole parent benefit. And I think that’s the bit that continues to frustrate me in this debate on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill, because actually, if you think about children being raised in benefit-dependent homes, we do know they are better off if a parent is in work. And so that’s the disappointment from this side. So now that the Minister has said the need for this is because of the cost of living crisis—actually, National believes they should have taken some steps to alleviate the cost of living crisis rather than finding more ways to push money out the door. What we do know is that for the children being raised in benefit-dependent homes, they are the ones that, financially, are the worst off. And so from a child poverty reduction perspective, National is keen on this because it will make a difference to those families—$20 a week doesn’t sound a lot, but in the cost of living crisis, that $20 a week will mean, for some sole parent households, standing still. So it is good from that perspective.

But the question I asked in the committee stage that I didn’t get a decent answer to was the $354 million that is the price tag of this particular policy change—I was interested to know what other options had been considered that would have had a more lasting impact on the children in those households. Because what we do believe is that’s where the focus should be, and that’s why the National Party’s focus is how do we actually support sole parents who are receiving the benefit into work, as opposed to just continuing to find another way to provide financial assistance. The financial assistance might help today or tomorrow—or actually it comes in on 1 July, so from 1 July. But longer term, we want to see more of those families with a parent in work, because we know in terms of lifelong outcomes that that’s what makes a difference for those children and that’s our focus.

So, yes, this legislation might go some way in terms of child poverty reduction; there were some estimates for that. What there weren’t estimates for, though, which is particularly frustrating given that the Minister mentioned it in this House this afternoon, was that there’s an expectation that more liable parents will pay. Well, not once have we seen numbers of how many more liable parents will pay. And if you can estimate how many children will be come out of poverty as a result, surely, I would have thought, they would be estimates, forecasts of how many more liable parents will pay. Because, equally, that is an important value that the National Party holds in terms of personal responsibility in that parents pay for their children. So it would be great as a part of the evaluation if we were able to see how many more liable parents will pay, because that will offset some of the $354 million this policy will cost. We haven’t seen that.

Again, the Minister said “This is about equality of different benefit types for the pass on of child support.” I suggest that’s just actually a ruse, because it hasn’t been applied to the unsupported child’s benefit. So you can’t say you’re fixing an inequity issue on one hand and then not do it for another classification of beneficiary, and so I actually don’t think that’s the real reason. I think the Government saw, with the cost of living crisis, that sole parents on benefit were doing it very tough—and they are. And that is actually because of the cost of living crisis. So the Minister wanted to find a way to get some money out the door to them, but actually didn’t bother about those on the unsupported child’s benefit, which actually this side of the House is particularly frustrated by. Because just as it makes a difference in a sole parent household, it would have made a big difference also to those unsupported receiving the unsupported child’s benefit.

So it is with some reluctance that the National Party supports—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, Camilla Belich. It must be important, to interrupt the speaker.

Camilla Belich: I just wanted to raise a point of order because the member in her speech referred to what the Government was doing as a “ruse”. And as you know, it’s contrary to Standing Orders to call or indicate that something is dishonest or a lie, and the definition of “ruse” is “the intention to deceive”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did hear that comment and I have given her the benefit of the doubt on that one, in the context. So I will allow that to carry on.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So, as I say, it is with reluctance that National supports this bill, because unsupported children deserve to be supported. If the name of this game was all about equality—which clearly it’s not, but we do say that children living in benefit-dependent homes, if we are to lift children out of poverty, we must do that. That’s the reason we’re supporting this bill.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak on the third reading of the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. A real pleasure because I think it’s a highly complex piece of legislation, and all of us in the Social Services Committee, I think, worked quite diligently. I have to acknowledge the fact that we don’t often have Inland Revenue come in and give us advice—tax matters are often quite complex—and so I want to just acknowledge the members, our officials, and also our clerks for organising this for us. The Minister for Social Development and Employment—I’m delighted she’s brought this bill to the House, and I’m delighted to be speaking on it. As I said, it is a complex bill, but at the heart of the matter it does create or does enable an inequity to be addressed.

Now, the member who just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, said that, actually, it’s much of a muchness; it’s all fear of fear. But actually, what this bill does is a little bit different to how that member explained it, in my understanding. So, for example, if a parent is re-partnered and on a benefit—so re-partnered, they are on a couples’ benefit—child support pass on occurs for them in the way that this bill is changing the law for sole parents. So sole parents currently do not get child support pass on. Now, that is when there is one parent in the household and they are not receiving this. If you’re re-partnered and in a form of relationship, you do get child support pass on. So that, in itself, is an inequity that I think needs to be addressed and changed, and that is quite simply what this bill is doing. I think it’s very important that we make it extremely clear that this bill takes that piece of discrimination away.

Now, there are other pieces of work to be done, and the member who resumed her seat has mentioned the UCB, the unsupported child’s benefit. This is a piece of work that is ongoing in another ministry, and this will be addressed. We do not disagree that that needs to occur. However, the best opportunity to fix this piece of legislation and this problem is what we have, in fact, done, so I’m delighted to stand here and speak on this bill.

It’s one of those things that, I think, people may say it’s a very small change. But materially, about 41,000 families will be positively affected by this. It means that the children who live in these households with sole parents will have the same entitlement to have their liable parent receive income as a child whose parent has re-partnered and gets that money. That’s plainly and simply the way that it should be. It’s plainly and simply the way that we should have legislation operating in this country.

I also want to just address the concept that somehow by us ensuring that this small piece of discrimination that affects 41,000 families will suddenly open the floodgates for single parents to suddenly all want to be on a benefit. Nobody wants to be a sole parent on a benefit. It is not the lifestyle of the rich and famous. I’ve been there; I’ve done that. In fact, the Hon Louise Upston has been there and done that. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni has been there and done that. I think it’s very, very clear from our experiences, but from what we hear across the country, that living on a benefit is not a lifestyle choice. I think it is incredibly, incredibly important to state that in this House. We are not seeing an increase of beneficiaries who are sole parents because suddenly they are receiving $20 more, on average, a week, or will be on 1 July. It’s about our society currently. It’s about the fact that we’ve been through a whole pile of things. It’s about the choice and the decision of families to break up when it’s not safe to be there in the same relationship. I don’t think the two can be conflated, and I think it is not appropriate for us to try and balance those out.

So with that, I just want to say that I think this is a good piece of legislation. It’s an important piece of legislation, and I utterly commend it to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have the responsibility to take a third reading call for the National Party on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. Before I turn to address the House, if I may acknowledge Judge Dugald Matheson, Family Court Judge of W’anganui, who has presided on the bench there for the last 12 years. Judge Dugald Matheson is retiring from the bench. He was appointed in 2011 whilst I was still serving as a Family Court Judge, and I had the distinct pleasure and honour to appear before His Honour, Judge Dugald Matheson, who is now retiring after many years’ service as a Family Court lawyer and many years of welcomed and treasured service on the bench in W’anganui.

When Judge Matheson was on the bench and I appeared before him in the Family Court, I often had child clients who were the children of sole parents and were also the subject of liable parents who often forfeited their responsibility to financially contribute and contribute in other meaningful ways in their child’s or their children’s lives. This Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendments Bill has been supported by the National Party, with reservations that have been outlined by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston. The reservation that the National Party has expressed about this legislation is that the onus of responsibility—not the right of the parent but the onus of responsibility—of a liable parent is to support their child. Regrettably, Government policy in legislation has actually been reinforced, in ways that have locked many people into an oppressive sense of dependency on State welfarism.

I heard my colleague across the House say that this is not a lifestyle choice. Reality check: regrettably, I’ve represented a number of parents that, through generations, have become locked into State welfare dependency, which had, through the course of generations, become something of an oppressive dependent welfarism. So reality check: I come from communities rich in culture but poor in terms of some of those values around mana motuhake, which I’ve often talked about in this House. In mana motuhake, to explain to people who don’t really understand what that concept is, mana is about the inherent dignity and the inherent essence of being able to stand with support; motuhake is the dependent community that you are reliant on and that you come from. Mana motuhake is what I often talk about, and that starts in the whānau; it is not a State welfare responsibility. State welfarism is not something that should be a right of entitlement. On child support, I’ve talked in this House again where this bill has focused on the sole parent rights. I come from a generation where we weren’t premised—I wasn’t nurtured in the values and principles of rights. It was about duty, loyalty, service, and responsibility. And somehow over the course of time, particularly with State welfare policies locking in a dependency that shifted from a responsibilities premise back to a rights premise.

So back to the bill. This is about child support. This should be about what goes directly to, as I’ve said in an earlier speech in this House, the mouths of our babes. The whole focus of this legislation is about rights, entitlements of sole parents, supported by the State, who has collected from the taxpayer, and liable parents—those who contribute but those who don’t and have shirked their responsibility as a liable parent fiscally and in many other ways. It’s the State, it’s the taxpayer, that has supplemented the contribution to the sole parent to provide and to feed the very mouths of those babes that I talk about.

A lot of people may not understand what this legislation is about, and I’ve heard colleagues in the House say—and the Minister who opened the debate today—that this is a complex piece of legislation. Yes, and that was my very point right at the first reading. Because of the complexity of this, why was this introduced under urgency? Why has this been brushed through in the space of some four weeks, when there have been thousands of submitters—thousands—who have implored the Government: “Actually, let’s not just focus on the children who are in the care of the sole parents, and who the liable parent is responsible for.” There are many children of two parents—a mother and a father, be they sole benefit or liable parents—who are not in the care of either of those parents; they are in the care of caregivers, and that is what the unsupported child’s benefit is about, which this Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill totally disregards—

Angie Warren-Clark: We’re working on it.

HARETE HIPANGO: Totally disregards. And whilst we’re working on it, how long does it take this Government to realise and recognise this has been introduced under urgency and has totally dispensed with that bulk number of children? And I posed questions at the committee of the whole House to the Minister: how many of our children are not receiving the benefit of this from the liable parent, because they’re not in the care of either one or the other or both of the biological parents but are with a caregiver? And I can share with this House that many of those caregivers, who I represented, again, in my role in the Family Court, are nannies, grandmothers—in the main, grandmothers—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Hipango, we’ve been pretty tolerant. Let’s get back to the bill—not what might be in the bill.

HARETE HIPANGO: So back to the bill, Mr Speaker: it’s identified that the recipients, the caregivers, of the unsupported child’s benefit do not directly benefit from this. And that’s the concern, and those were valid questions that were raised and presented to the Minister—to be told that this is a piece of work that’s under review and Oranga Tamariki are looking at it.

The issue and the concern, and it’s directly relevant—the pass on is about the pass on of the contribution from the liable parent, which previously has been supplemented by the State. It’s not going to the very children who would benefit from this. And this is called the child support amendment bill, not the sole parent or the sole parent beneficiary bill. That’s my point. So it’s a pass on, but, actually, it’s a knock-on by this Government, and the knock-on is that there’s been a penalty overlooking the relevance and the significance of our children. And I am a child advocate, and I’m the children’s spokesperson for the National Party. But the thousands of children who do not benefit from this legislation—this is about tweaking the process for the collection of funds from a liable parent that’s previously been supplemented by the State, when now, under this legislation, there’s no longer the requirement for a sole parent to have to apply for a formula assessment to the Inland Revenue Department that has collected and accumulated the taxpayer fund. What’s of note, and interest too—and this is where the public will be interested—is there’s a news article report dated 27 March 2023: the Government keeps about $150 million each year of child support payments, which would otherwise go to sole parents who rely on benefits. However, this legislation, to be effective as from July, will now let those parents receive their child support payments directly from the contributing liable parent.

So that’s what this legislation is about. But the relevant fact that I make—and the Minister and Government did not respond—is how many children are missing out because the Government is taking its time with the review under Oranga Tamariki; the Government didn’t take its time on introducing this legislation under urgency to rush it through the House for it to be implemented and effective as of July.

So that’s the very point: the oversight, the knock-on effect that this has on those children who should also be entitled. A responsible Government has dropped the ball on this one.

ANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour): Thank you, e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to speak on this bill, the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. I need to respond to the last speaker, Harete Hipango. She asked a question about the onus of responsibility to support their child, in terms of the liable parent, and she also asked a question: why is it introduced under urgency? The Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, has said that this will lift up to 14,000 children out of poverty—14,000 children out of poverty. And that is the response to the question raised by that member.

I was somewhat confused listening to that last member, so I think I need to actually quote the legislative statement tabled by the Minister today, because I think that will actually clear up some confusion. So I want to quote—Mr Speaker, if you can please allow me this—“This Bill proposes amendments to ensure that beneficiaries receiving a sole parent rate of main benefit are not treated differently from other beneficiaries.” It proposes that, from 1 July 2023, child support collected by Inland Revenue would no longer be retained and would instead be paid to those beneficiaries. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) would then treat these payments as income when determining entitlements to a rate of a benefit or any other assistance.

So that basically means that, before, a sole parent who was receiving the sole parent benefit needed to apply to Inland Revenue to be assessed to receive child support from Inland Revenue. Then, Inland Revenue informs MSD of what needs to be paid separately. This would make it a lot clearer—a one-step process. It will allow Inland Revenue to—instead of having 12 months—spread the payments out on to 52 weeks, making it simpler. It means an extra $20 a week for a sole parent. For a sole parent, $20 a week would mean—I don’t know—10 loaves of bread, because we’re always saying that this Budget is supporting for today; building for the future. It would allow 10 $2 loaves of bread. It would allow how many litres of milk? It would allow for that—$20.

I want to get back to the question that was asked by that member Harete Hipango: why is it introduced under urgency? The answer to that is that this will lift up to 14,000 more children out of poverty. Can I remind the House that the objectives of the Budget have been, since it was called a Wellbeing Budget, five objectives. One of those objectives was about child wellbeing—lifting children out of poverty. We’ll lift 14,000 children out of poverty.

Also, I have been a person who has been a liable parent, and I have been paying liable parent to my mother when I didn’t have my children in my care, because she was the other custodian of my two older children. It felt somewhat unfair to me that I’m paying child support to Inland Revenue and they didn’t pass that on to the parent—to my mother—who was caring for my children at the time. So this would incentivise liable parents to actually pay their liable parent contribution because they know it’s going to end up in the household where their children live. This is evidenced by research that it will incentivise liable parents to pay their liable parent contribution. And, might I say, I did pay my liable parent contribution; I didn’t have anyone chasing after me.

Again, I have said in my speech previously that the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill will lift 14,000 children out of poverty. I commend this bill to the House.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of ACT to speak on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. I stand in support of this bill, but with reservations as well. Past speakers have spoken about some of those reservations, and ACT has a similar view when it comes to some of the issues that have been brought to the House today.

So this is about making sure that children are getting the money that is paid by a liable parent, and it goes directly to a sole parent in order to help with the costs of raising their child. We do believe that parents should be financially responsible for their children. This does not stop just because a relationship does. We have to make sure that the kids are getting looked after by the liable parent also, not just the parent that has custody of the children at the time.

But I, too, also have concerns around the speed that this bill went through the process under urgency, where there were many questions that, really, I don’t think were answered around the unsupported child’s benefit—allowing the amount of submissions that I think we could have got if we had extended that time frame instead of doing this under urgency. Because there could have been ways that we may have changed this bill to enable us to also include the unsupported children while the process of Oranga Tamariki was going on in the meantime. But these are the children that are going to be missing out on something that the Government across the House has said is so vital to make sure that we are looking after children in need, we are looking after children that are often the most vulnerable because of this fact, and they’re going to be missing out on this. I struggle with that because I know many grandparents, sisters, aunts, and uncles who have taken on that responsibility are also under financial strain themselves. So that’s the reason why I was really concerned at the speed at which this bill went through, as we couldn’t have proper consultation around that.

I also have concerns around the fact that we are also extending greater assistance to liable parents who are on benefits to help them to pay their child support in a way that I feel may have added a little bit more extra pressure and burden on the taxpayer for the liable parent. I was kind of concerned about that. But at the end of the day, if the money is getting to the children and is getting directed straight to those children who need food in their tummy and a roof over their head, ACT will always support a process that helps kids that are in need.

But really, next time, with the work that is in progress that we are talking about in the future of Oranga Tamariki, can we have a robust process where we make sure we get this right, so that there isn’t a double system when it comes to some children get it and some children don’t? I feel that is a reasonable request. So ACT will support this process, but with reservations that there will be many children who are in need that should have been included in this bill that weren’t. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It’s a pleasure to be supporting the third reading of the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill, just reflecting on how much, throughout the different stages of the bill, the discussions have been on political choices. We’ve built an income support system—and successive Governments have chosen to create an income support system—that has kept our families in poverty. We’ve created an income support system with sanctions that have penalised families, and yet, throughout the passage of this bill, we’ve also seen the choice of language by the National Party that, despite knowing that they’ve contributed to creating an income support system that has kept our children in poverty, they now talk about their so-called concerns about families in benefit-dependent households and the poor outcomes that people in benefit-dependent households experience. They’re pretending that those poor outcomes have nothing to do with the decisions that successive Governments have made to keep people locked in poverty.

It should come as no surprise that of course families in poverty experience poor outcomes because of the decisions that Governments have made, and today we’re finally moving a bill through that will mend some of those mistakes that have been made before, which was to create a system that has forced families into a traditional Western-style, Victorian-era family structure that simply does not reflect families of today or traditional family structures of the past. The Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill will go some way towards alleviating poverty and ensuring that households receive the money that is supposed to be going to the child—rather than creating a system that pretends to create some form of responsibilities for the so-called liable parent, they’re actually seeing material differences for the children in the first place.

I want to acknowledge there were comments, around the passage of this bill, when it came to the time frames and urgency. It is true it could have had a more robust exchange regarding the potential for further alleviating poverty if the child support pass on hadn’t been treated as income for the purposes of determining someone’s benefit entitlements, but the truth is that this bill will go some way towards alleviating poverty, and the Greens support this as a result. I do think we’ll need to have more conversations, though, about the child support system more broadly, because, at the end of the day, what we are retaining is a system that still puts a child’s ability to be in a household that thrives dependent on the family structure rather than on all of us rallying to say that a child’s wellbeing should be unconditional and it should not be dependent on people’s family arrangements—and, again, this outdated idea that it is only the biological parents who have responsibility to raise a child. We all have a collective responsibility to our children in Aotearoa. It takes a whole village—a whole country—to raise healthy, thriving children.

So the Greens will be supporting this third reading. We want to thank submitters—people who shared their lived experiences of receiving child support and who clearly communicated to us the need to have a more fair system. Again, it was indeed a missed opportunity to have not done modelling to assess the child poverty reduction impacts when it came to treating that income as a potential abatement for benefit entitlement, but that is all stuff we can continue exploring, and I want to urge my Labour colleagues to set more aspirational goals, to not just reduce child poverty but to fully eliminate it. We need to actually meet the challenges of today with the ambition that it requires. Twenty dollars’ net gain for those families will help, but is it enough? Of course it is not. The question is: what else will be coming from the Labour Party to ensure that no child is locked in poverty? We look forward to seeing future legislation from this Government to end poverty once and for all.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the third and final reading of this bill, the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. This bill is really important because, as we’ve heard, it removes that discriminatory policy that sees parents receiving a sole parent rate of benefit treated differently to those receiving other benefits with respect to their child support.

To illustrate the unfairness of the current situation, I just want to take you through a hypothetical example. If you’ve got a sole parent managing childcare, managing work, and taking care of their two children and then, through no fault of their own, they lose their job and become reliant on the sole parent rate of the benefit, what that means is that they have to go to Inland Revenue Department (IRD) for a formula assessment of child support. But once that’s done, what they find out is that all of the child support that would then be paid through to them actually gets retained by the Government, gets retained to the point until all the funds that went towards their benefit have been recouped, and only then can whatever’s leftover be passed on to them.

Now, just imagine this person then going and having a bit of a chat to the neighbour and finding out that the neighbour is now living with their new partner and together they’re receiving the couple’s rate of the benefit. But what the person then finds out is that their neighbour has all their child support being passed on to them, and so none of that is being retained. The only issue is that the neighbour then has to just let Ministry of Social Development know that that’s what they’re receiving in child support, because then it can be taken into account as income.

So what this bill will do is actually remove that discriminatory policy. What it does is it removes the requirement for those on sole parent rate of benefit to apply for an IRD formula assessment. It also ensures that all of their child support payments are passed on to them. It will be treated as income, but if you look at it, on balance what we end up with is thousands of children being lifted out of poverty, and what it means is that, once all of those abatements are taken into account, people will be, on average, $20 a week better off. That’s a huge amount of money for many families in the context of current cost of living issues.

One of the things that submitters raised during the select committee process was just a concern that because some parents may be receiving variable amounts of child support, there was a concern that we didn’t want to see extra benefit debt accruing as a result. What I was really encouraged by was the amount of work in the policy development phase that had gone into making sure that income-sharing arrangements could mean that this wouldn’t happen, because it was a very accurate assessment of what somebody was receiving in child support and what the implications would be for any other assistance.

This is a very important bill that will, as I’ve said, lift thousands of children out of poverty. But it’s not in isolation; it actually builds on a lot of the other work that the Government has been doing in terms of increasing family incomes—things like increasing the benefit, but also removing the financial penalty for sole parent beneficiaries who didn’t name the other parent of their child and then applied for child support. So that was something else that works in tandem with this. But also things like increasing family incomes in terms of the winter energy payment for those many families who will be receiving the winter energy payment right now—particularly down our way, it is particularly cold. So that is something that many, many people are really appreciative of. We’ve also changed the abatement threshold so that, again, people can actually go out, earn more income, and then retain more of that income to support their family.

So there’s a lot of things that this Government has done to increase family incomes, and this is a further step in that direction. I’m very happy to commend it to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill in this, its third reading. National will support this bill, but it’s very pragmatic support and it’s certainly not without reservations. A number of those reservations have been expressed already by my colleagues, but I do note that, in particular, this bill contains many aspects from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report that was released back on 3 May 2009—so that’s just over four years ago.

I note that one of the speakers from the Government side spoke absolutely passionately about how the reason for urgency behind this bill was it was going to lift 14,000 children out of poverty. I would have thought that that would have been a very good reason to have been looking at this bill four years ago, not under urgency now after a frustrating and truncated process. If there was genuine urgency to it, surely four years ago would have been a good time to be exercising that urgency.

Another contextual element of this bill was discussed by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston when she said that there had been a 21 percent increase in sole parent support since Labour had come into Government. When that reads as one in five children in a benefit-dependent home, again, we would have thought that maybe some urgency would also be given to ensuring that those on benefits were given that parallel support to get off benefits, because we know that benefit dependency is not a successful outcome for these children. And so, urgency four years ago might have been good—if indeed it is that urgent to contribute, obviously, to assisting 14,000 children out of poverty—but, equally, some parallel action to assist people off benefit so that one in five children are not being raised in a benefit-dependent home.

The Minister also talked about how necessary this was in this time of high inflation and cost of living crisis, and that speaks of plugging holes and not treating the cause. Again, we would have expected to see parallel action to stem inflation and to stem the cost of living crisis, rather than having to constantly pour money into plugging holes. So it does feel like a lot of the reasons behind this legislation and the reasons behind the urgency have come about because of the situation this Government has found itself in, in terms of the inflation and cost of living crisis it has brought about under its term.

A number of speakers speak as if there is no financial impact for the taxpayer on this piece of legislation. In fact, it is not insignificant: $354 million that the taxpayer will be picking up in terms of that support payment not being taken off the amount that the taxpayer contributes. So it’s very much easier for us to be kind with other people’s money, and in fact, that $354 million does come not from members of this House but from taxpayers in our country. So, it would be very useful for us to remember things like that when—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time is up.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. It’s my pleasure to take this split call on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. We pass a lot of legislation through this House, but few things are as important as increasing the wellbeing of our tamariki and, in particular, lifting them out of poverty. And this bill does just that; it removes that discriminatory policy that withheld child support payments from parents receiving a sole parent rate of main benefit, and their children. In practice, this will mean that child support will be passed on to parents receiving the sole parent rate of main benefit and be treated as income against their benefit. You know, child support pass on rates—it’s going to benefit around 41,550 sole parent families. They’ll be better off as a result of this policy. It will raise the median weekly income about $20 per week after abatement of the benefit and other assistance, and this will lift around about 14,000 more children out of poverty.

This bill continues this Government’s work to create a fairer welfare system that upholds people’s dignity. And that’s what this Government is about; easing the cost of living and raising our tamariki out of poverty. The problem around, you know, beneficiaries is they’re on that sole parent rate of benefit and they do not receive that child support, which differs from other beneficiaries who do, which is discriminatory—plain discriminatory. And this is why we need this bill.

Passing on the child support was recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group back in 2009, and this change will build on earlier policy changes made in 2020 to remove the financial penalty for sole parent beneficiaries who do not name the other parent of their child and apply for child support, which was also recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group back in 2019. So this is a good thing and it complements the other ranges of initiatives that this Government is doing. You know, we’re focused on the bread and butter issues and the things that matter most to New Zealanders like tackling the cost of living. And this change will also ensure that over 41,000 sole parent families will have an average of $47 more in their pockets per week, with a median gain of around about $20 per week after their abatement of income-tested and financial assistance. So it is extremely important that this legislation is passed. It adds to our overall efforts into easing the cost of living and for the people that are doing it tough out there.

So, as the Minister stated earlier, this bill is about righting a wrong in our welfare system that for many years has seen vulnerable New Zealanders and their children worse off. And I want to finish by thanking the Social Services and Community Committee for their hard work and careful consideration of this bill and the submitters who took the time to give their views on this important bit of legislation. As mentioned earlier, this bill is a complex one and the work of the committee has ensured that this bill is as robust as possible. So I commend this bill to the House.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): I’m pleased to take a call on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill; this is the third reading. Firstly, given it is the third reading, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, the Social Services and Community Committee, officials, staff, submitters, and all those involved in progressing this to its third reading.

This is my first call on this bill, and when I look at this bill it reminds me of my upbringing and the struggles of a single parent. In my case, raised by a mother widowed very young with five children to raise, who struggled. Every cent mattered, albeit in this case there was no child support. Nevertheless, it is relevant because it’s about poverty. Notwithstanding, I too know the impacts of a time when I had to resort to Government support, at a time where I was left as a solo mum, and I too can say every single cent mattered. I’m also reminded of the whakataukī—the proverb—“te pani me te rawakore”. I just want to acknowledge my colleague Emily, who has quoted this already in the House before me, and I want to just share with you the meaning of it. It is a kupu o te māngai rāua Piri Wiri Tua—the many followers of the Rātana movement, or mōrehu, will understand what this means. It is about the poor, the struggling, the destitute, including the widow and the orphan. This bill puts dignity and fairness back into the system and helps those many māmā or pāpā who find themselves raising their child or children single-handed, support their children, and reduce that burden of raising them.

This policy has been around since 1936. It is a policy that has complex pieces of legislation. It is a policy that has been identified as discriminatory, and needs to change. It has been viewed as too difficult to change, left in the too-hard basket by others—former Governments. We—this Government—are doing something about it.

Living on a benefit is not ideal—of course it’s not. Who wants to do that? If you’ve got no choice, then you’ve got nothing else. There are those who have no choice. The Training Incentive Allowance provides opportunity for parents to change their circumstances, and we know that there are a lot of examples of that in this world today, in Aotearoa, and for those former members of Parliament that have been and gone—and those here today.

Primarily, in a nutshell, this bill is about helping those sole parents get the same amount of money as any other beneficiary family. It addresses an inequity issue where other beneficiary family support is not treated in this way. As a result, as mentioned earlier on, over 41,000 sole parent families will have more in their pockets at a time, of course, when the cost of living is hiked by inflation, and that, in 2023-24, will see up to 14,000 children—yes, 14,000 children—lifted out of poverty. An extra $20 per week: it may seem like pittance to some, which I have said in this House before, but let me just say it goes a long way. It goes a long way to getting that extra loaf of bread, that extra litre of milk, that little bit of extra to help pay for the power, along with the subsidy that this Government has in place for those that are struggling out there seriously.

I hear the kōrero of some across the other side—clearly, many did not have the upbringing that some of us in this House and others had. Am I allowed to say that? Nevertheless, some privileged—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ll let you know when you’ve crossed a boundary.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON: —kia ora—some raised rich in te ao Māori, who forget there are many out there traumatised by colonisation, that struggle. We know what that means, we know what that’s about, and we know why they struggle particularly in Te Ao Māori. Some will take those struggles to their graves—te pani me te rawakore.

In summary, what I’d just like to say is to sum up what that actually means in this context. What it means is we are removing a discriminatory policy that withheld child support payments from parents receiving a sole parent rate of main benefit, and their children. The Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill seeks to ensure that beneficiaries receiving a sole parent rate of main benefit are treated—yes, are treated—the same as other beneficiaries in the welfare system. In practice, this will mean that child support will be passed on to parents receiving a sole parent rate of main benefit and be treated as income against their benefit. I commend this bill to the House.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana koutou kātoatoa. Mālō e lelei. I’ve got great pleasure in presenting on this bill at its third reading, and I honour the Hon Carmel Sepuloni moving this matter urgently. Now, like the majority of submitters on this bill, we support it, albeit with reservations. That sounds like my wife, actually, when I proposed marriage: “Tautoko, heoi taihoa e Tama”. [A great idea, but let’s have caution.]

National, like others here, is astonished and whakamā by the poverty that besets all Kiwis, young and old. We want to see fewer whānau and fewer tamariki in poverty. An extra $20 in the whare is, like my learned sister Soraya Peke-Mason has said, a bit more parāoa, a couple of huarākau, or some miraka a—ka pai hoki.

Now, the social numbers are facing a dramatic and unfortunate course, with 260,000 or so Kiwis on main benefits for a year or more in 2022. There has been an increase from 10.7 years to 12.8 years in the expected time an individual will be on the benefit during their working life since Labour came into Government, and, of course, there is the move from 60,000 Kiwis on sole parent support to 73,000 since December 2017 to today.

For children—tamariki—it’s even more urgent and galling, with 35,000 more kids waking up in benefit-dependent homes than five years ago—that’s sad—and 3,000 kids waking up in emergency housing and motels—sad. Actually, I met up with a young wāhine—Everest—and her tamariki recently, who are now living in transitional housing in New Zealand’s finest electorate Hamilton West after eight moves in two years in emergency homes in Hamilton, and, of course, there are 25,000 applicants on the social housing wait-list, which is up since 2017 from 5,000.

The Government’s ambitious target—ultimately misconstrued—to lift 100,000 children out of poverty by 2020 based on children living in homes receiving less than 50 percent of the median income has not been reached. It’s not even close, as it’s still about 80,000 children short. If this bill helps 14,000 children out of poverty—if it does, and there’s no assessment of the likelihood of this—we’ll get a little bit closer to 100,000, but that’s still well short of halfway to that target.

As you know, the numbers of Māori who fall into this welfare trap are disproportionate to our population demographic, but I bet that not one rangatira who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 thought that kāwanatanga was going to explode into the Government being an incomplete surrogate father or mother. But that is the tricky destination that this current Government seems to be leading us towards and charting for young Māori in benefit support and housing and, I wish we could say, in education, but 62 percent of Māori kids didn’t turn up to school regularly last term.

I’ve had a long read of the eight versions of the Treaty, including the one by Sir Hugh Kāwharu and his translation, and nowhere in those did I see that William Hobson or Queen Victoria guaranteed that the Government would repeatedly step in as a surrogate parent. My learned colleagues from Waiariki and Te Tai Hauāuru, who are not here today and who rely on original interpretations, may also share views in that regard—not cool, whānau, not cool.

Now, we’ve got a genuine concern that by allowing parents to have their child support paid for by the Government, taxpayers will become the responsible provider for these children. This cannot be the case in this Whare, in this city, or in this country. Once we go there, the mana motuhake of whānau and tamariki is turned into something more squishy. That is called big Government—a proliferation and a proselytization of big Government and the spin that goes with it.

Liable parents are just that—liable—and not liable until the taxpayers are surreptitiously used to fiscally fund whānau who are not turning up to deliver on their parental responsibilities. Now, National appreciates that this bill will tweak the way in which the relevant children receive income. This will help people in need during a cost of living crisis which is making it difficult for Kiwis—nearly all Kiwis—to remain committed to staying in this great country of ours.

It also proactively deals with the unequal playing field between different beneficiaries and improving the administration of social security. This is the right change and it is sensible—kei te mihi e te Minita.

We want to see fewer children in poverty and a focus by the Government on reducing the number of children in benefit-dependent homes, but the larger challenge, of course, remains the increased cost of living that the Government currently has us under. A lot of single parents have been doing it tough—we agree. The bill adjusts the way in which the children receive income, and this will help the people in need during the cost of living crisis. It might actually be better addressed by adjusting tax brackets, though, and enabling people to keep some of the moneys that they already earn.

We need to help our whānau emerge from the welfare trap, and the State is more responsible in the level of support it can provide. We are concerned that the Government is unable to state whether this bill will increase the overall costs for sole parents and/or benefit-dependent parents. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): This has been a very interesting discussion over the last hour, and I do want to reflect upon it, because while this bill does what to some may seem to be a small thing—put an average of $20 into the pockets of about 41,000 solo mums; mostly mums, some dads—it has really touched some nerves in certain parts of this House and it has set off a really interesting ideological debate. So in my words to you today, I do want to go back over that debate, because I think it’s actually really important.

But let’s just start, for those who have just tuned into Parliament TV—and there are, of course, thousands of them, perhaps even 41,550, such as will be raised to the tune of $20 a week, or, as my friend Anahila Kanongata'a put it, 10 loaves of bread, or, as we might also say, four to five packs of Pams butter or six 2-litre bottles of milk a week better off. So even if I do have those 41,550 eager, eager watchers of Parliament TV, I think it’s worth just letting them know what we’re doing here. So this is the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. What it does is correct a discriminatory piece of legislation which allows us to not pass on child support to one group of people and one group of people only, and that’s solo parents, who are, of course—and I’m going to say this several times during this speech—mostly mums, and I think that is relevant to the ideological debate going on here today.

So child support, for those who don’t know it, is the money that a non-majority caregiving parent pays to the parent who is doing the majority of care for a child to contribute to that child or children’s upbringing. It depends on your income. It depends on which parent is earning what. In all cases, except that one vital case where it is a solo parent—and I mentioned mostly mums—it is always passed on. So you could be a re-partnered parent looking after your children and your ex-partner will pass the—you can be on the benefit as a re-partnered caregiving parent, and child support will still come to you. That’s OK, because you’ve established yourself in a nice nuclear family again, so perhaps you’re ticking some Victorian ideals there. But, conversely, if you have the temerity not to re-partner, if you are trying to raise your children solo, then, for some reason, up until now, the State has seen fit to keep that extra money from you. Why? I have absolutely no idea.

What we have heard from the other side is, again, a dearth of explanation, of policy reasons as to why we should maintain this. What they have said—while they’ve given us their support, and I am duly grateful for that, what we’ve heard is that somehow this is wrong, that somehow this is stopping parents taking responsibility for their children. It is also, apparently, going to encourage working solo parents—again, I’m going to say it, mostly mums—to throw out their working careers and throw themselves into the lap of luxury that is life on a solo parent benefit. It is fascinating that what seems to happen is that the idea is that it is only when you are a solo parent—which is to say, can I hear it again, mostly mums—you are suddenly in some way derelict in your duty if you cannot provide for your children. If you are, on the other hand, living up to the Victorian ideal and re-partnered, that’s fine. That’s fine; you are not in moral danger of dropping the ball.

So I really don’t understand what the argument is from the other side as to why we should not amend this discriminatory piece of legislation, which is going to—they have supported it, but I don’t understand why they consider it so difficult to do so. Why the moral scruples? I cannot understand it. On one hand, they say it’s taken us too long to do it. I don’t understand why they didn’t do it in their nine years or so, or however many times they’ve been in power since 1990 when this was brought in. On the other hand, they say we’ve rushed to judgment on this. I’m not sure about that either. It seems a little odd, but there you go.

But what I do want to say is that it has been a joy to stand here and listen to the people on this side of the House talk about real, lived experience, to have the courage to talk about their own experience as solo mums, including as solo mums who are paying child support. I think it speaks to a Government who has compassion for ordinary people who are currently on the bones of their bottom and who can bring that experience in here and who retain compassion and the sense of humility to recognise that when they have been able to haul themselves up off the bones of their bottom, they have not, in fact, done it by their own bootstraps; they have had State support constantly. They have social support. No mother is an island, and that is how we have managed to get so many of them in here, on this side of the House.

I want to say thank you and extend my pride and admiration to my sisters here today who have stood and spoken about their own experiences in support of this bill. One particular experience does speak to one of the objections raised on the other side of the House to this bill. It was said: how can we possibly suggest that this bill will, in any way, incentivise more parents to pay as liable parents? This is an issue. We recently had to do some work on this in terms of the number of mainly dads who do not pay their child support. But the answer came quite simply and directly from my colleague here, who stated that while she paid her child support when her mum was raising her children, she would have been far happier and more enthusiastic had she known that money was going directly to her children. That is the reason that we say this bill will not only raise 41,550 families by an average of six 2-litre bottles of milk, five Pams butter pats, or 10 loaves of bread, and raise 14,000 children out of poverty, but it will also incentivise more parents to actually pick up their responsibility and pay as they should.

Te pani me te rawakore—te pani me te rawakore. I want to thank my sister Soraya Peke-Mason, who was earlier mentioning that whakataukī. She was gracious enough to attribute and to reference my use of it in the previous reading on this. I want to put the credit back where it should be. She and I were in the back of this House, we were listening to this bill being discussed, and she turned to me and she said, “Te pani me te rawakore.” It is about the raising of those in need and compassion to those in need. That is what this Government is about. That is what we are seeing here, and I am very, very deeply proud.

If we take the other position—I was very impressed by my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March earlier. He said that this is an ideological debate, and it is. If we take the opposite position, if we go back to saying that for some reason solo parents are less worthy of support than re-partnered parents—remembering, always, that most solo parents, overwhelmingly, we are talking about solo mums—then we are taking the position that somehow the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children. This is the other point. Not only are we taking a highly judgmental position—a very traditionally judgmental position, if I may say so, against solo mums—but we are also taking a hugely Victorian, Dickensian position against children. If we are not to pass on child support, if we are to say, “No, parents should be penalised.”, then all we do is visit the sins of the father upon the children. I do not in any way see how that can be appropriate. If we are dealing, as we are in my home town of Whangārei, all across this country, with a population who do have some entrenched poverty, then it is our job to hold them up and to protect their children, until those children and until they are restored to dignity and able to support themselves. Te pani me te rawakore. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I present a legislative statement on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I move, That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 10 August 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

In November last year, I announced that the Government would be strengthening New Zealand’s fuel sector with a suite of initiatives aimed at increasing New Zealand’s fuel resilience to fuel supply disruptions. The headline initiative in this suite of measures is a minimum stockholding obligation (MSO)—which I’ll refer to as “the obligation”—the details of which are outlined in this bill. Fuel importers have limited incentives to hold reserve stocks above commercial fuel stockholding levels and invest in backup fuel storage facilities. In the absence of this bill, the sector may not keep sufficient domestic fuel stocks to mitigate the impacts in fuel disruption scenarios adequately.

The bill will ensure a sufficient supply of fuel is held in New Zealand. This will help mitigate the impact of any major disruptions to international oil and fuel markets, natural disasters, and infrastructure failures that could occur. It also creates regulation-making powers to adapt the design of the MSO over time in light of energy and transport trends. These powers can be used to introduce new stockholding requirements applicable to different types of fuels and specific strategic locations. Given the recent jet fuel rationing incidents, I have directed my officials to look into the case for introducing stockholding requirements specific to Auckland Airport and other strategic locations in the future. Once this bill is passed, we will have the flexibility to introduce these additional location-specific requirements through regulation.

As I announced last year, the obligation falls on fuel importers with access to bulk storage facilities. In New Zealand, this includes the five major fuel importers: Z Energy, BP, Mobil, Gull, and TasmanFuels. The minimum stockholding level at the national level will be set at 28 days of consumption for petrol, 24 days of consumption for jet fuel, and 21 days of consumption for diesel, on average. The minimum stockholding level is intended to achieve a good balance between minimising the impact of any potential fuel supply disruption and avoiding disproportionate price increases at the pump.

To meet the MSO, fuel importers do not necessarily have to make significant investments in fuel storage facilities. Some of them may need to change their stock management practices, however, to reduce fluctuations in their stock level.

I would now like to discuss some of the key provisions in the bill and how they ensure the resilience required in our fuel system. The required minimum volumes of stock are specified in the obligation in terms of average stock during a single month. The calculation method is intended to reduce fluctuations in fuel stockholding levels, particularly in the depths of the troughs in the inventory cycle. The calculation method underpins the stockholding obligation. Calculating it on a 12-month rolling average basis lessens fluctuations throughout the year and provides more certainty about the minimum stockholding level that fuel importers are required to meet.

The stock that may be counted towards the MSO is limited to stock held in a bulk storage facility and fuel cargo bound for a New Zealand port on a vessel within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Counting cargoes within the EEZ is a pragmatic approach to avoiding complexities around counting stocks on ships that are in port and discharging or are awaiting a berth to commence discharging, or after discharging cargo at one port and steaming to another. This typically accounts to one or two days of cover for each fuel type, and represents stock that can quickly contribute to any local fuel supply disruption while seeking to minimise the regulatory burden.

In light of the Auckland jet fuel incident, the bill provides for regulation-making powers to introduce location-specific stockholding requirements to be developed in the future. In particular, officials will continue to look into the merit of developing requirements specific to Auckland Airport, given that the major fuel importers have yet to agree on a new investment plan for the airport’s fuel infrastructure.

The bill is pragmatic in the way it deals with events that could impact on an obligated party’s storage capacity such as a force majeure event like an earthquake or a major fuel supply disruption. In events such as these, it may not be reasonable or beneficial to expect an obligated party to comply with the MSO. As such, the bill includes an exemption regime where obligated parties can apply to the Minister of Energy and Resources for an exemption. Exemptions will be provided on a case by case basis, using set criteria. In extreme cases such as following a large international fuel supply disruption, it may be necessary to issue a suspension of the regime so reserve stocks can be drawn down.

The bill also gives the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment the discretion to accept enforceable undertakings from obligated parties on my behalf. This would allow an obligated party and the regulator to intervene early in the event of a possible failure to meet the obligation. The information disclosure requirements will give much clearer oversight on the fuel importers’ stock levels and their contingency plans in case of outages. The bill also gives the regulator the ability to share information collected under the MSO with other Public Service agencies or statutory entities such as the Commerce Commission. Information collected such as fuel stock storage capacity and contingency plans is likely to be useful to other agencies involved in emergency management, including the National Emergency Management Agency.

This bill seeks to increase our fuel resilience in a way that will limit potential price impacts on consumers. The probability of a significant fuel disruption is low, but it remains impossible to predict. Any disruption, however, could have significant impacts on the New Zealand economy, businesses, and consumers. Recent jet fuel disruptions have highlighted the flow-on effects to our economy of such an event, which the country can ill afford in this time of recovery. I expect that this bill will mitigate the extent to which New Zealand is exposed to fuel disruption scenarios, and I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

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

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well, the role of the Opposition is, of course, to critique the Government when they put on the table policy that is ill-considered and not in New Zealand’s best interests, and, my goodness, hasn’t this Government served up a lot of that over the last three years? But you have to bring some prudence and judgment to your critique, and we do that, as the National Party, every day. When the Government serves up something which is reasonably well thought through and pragmatic, then of course it makes sense for us to support it, and I can see the shocked looks of amazement over on the other side of the House. But, actually, credit where credit is due. On this occasion, I think the Minister of Energy and Resources has put together a bill that warrants our support, and we’ll be very interested in the feedback that we get from the submitters.

So, as the Minister has outlined to the House, the key component here is about ensuring that we have enough fuel stocks in New Zealand to be able to withstand geopolitical or natural hazard shocks. Those minimum fuel stockholding obligations, or MSOs, have been set as the following: 28 days of consumption for petrol, 24 days of consumption for jet fuel, and 21 days of consumption for diesel.

Now, not surprisingly, the tension in the conversation that the departmental disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement have highlighted is the tension between the need that New Zealand businesses, high users of fuel, and the Channel Infrastructure leads have for this stock to be kept at a reasonable level, and, of course, the importers themselves, who are not that keen on having more obligation with respect to greater capital investment to ensure that they have the appropriate infrastructure to support the required stock levels that have been suggested. So we will be very interested, from the National Party side, to hear that debate and tension reflected in the various submissions that go to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and assure ourselves through that conversation that, actually, the right balance has been struck here between ensuring that we have enough capacity in terms of those reserve stocks and that we have reached the right balance, because, as the Minister has said herself this afternoon, the probability of a shock is low, but if it happens, then the pressure that will come on the New Zealand economy if we do not have access to sufficient petrol, jet fuel, and diesel will be significant.

The challenge, I guess, from our perspective, is whether those timings of 28 days, 24, and 21 are right, bearing in mind that currently—as in right now—the stock levels for petrol are 43 days, as opposed to the 28 that’s suggested, and 47, as opposed to the 24 days that is suggested. Now, I appreciate that this moves a bit over the course of the year, but it suggests to me and to us that the concerns that the fuel importers have that this has not been the right balance are probably ill-founded, and I think that the Government has landed on something that makes sense. But, as I said, we will need to test that in the select committee.

We will need to test the calculations and we will need to test the risks and the implications, because the Minister has said herself that if this was to happen, it would cause a huge disruption. For example, if we had a natural event, that would cause a huge impact on our stores, and exemptions would be immediately applied to enable, essentially, the New Zealand economy to draw down on that fuel beyond our ability to replace it to the minimum levels outlined. The question is that if we have a significant earthquake or if we have a significant geopolitical event, frankly, is 28 days going to be sufficient anyway, and why have they struck that particular time frame as opposed to anything higher or lower?

I think these are right questions to ask, but the broad intent of the policy that the Government is putting forward here around fuel security and the importance of that from a New Zealand economic perspective makes sense, so we’re not going to quibble with that. As I said at the start of my speech, when the Government fronts with something which is poorly thought through and, frankly, incompetent, you will expect us, with loud voices, to critique it, as we do most days in this House—as we have for the last six years, and we will continue to. But when something pragmatic is put on the table, we support it. It’s very unlikely that this will be fully progressed by the election, and I have every confidence that the incoming National and ACT and “Whoever Else Party” Government will be able to progress this and get a—

Hon Dr David Clark: The “coalition of cuts”—that’s what you’re looking for. That’s the phrase you’re looking for.

TODD MULLER: Sorry—have a turn yourself. I’m looking forward to your contribution shortly. It will be a highlight of your career, as this is for mine—as this is for mine—leading off here, on behalf of the National Party.

So look, it makes sense. It’s got a lot of sensible components. We will test it in the select committee to make sure the balance is well struck. Hopefully, I have every confidence that the incoming National Government will put it through in its final stages later in the year, and I commend the bill to the House.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s lots to unpack in that last speech, from Todd Muller, but we’ll leave it at that for the time being.

My generation and the zoomers have been said to have lived through many once-in-a-hundred-year events. It started off in 2020 with the pandemic, then we had the Ukraine and Russia war, and then we had the floods on Auckland Anniversary and we had Cyclone Gabrielle. While I acknowledge this has been causing a lot of emotional distress and a lot of mental health issues, it’s also actually caused a lot of stress on our strategic oil supply as well.

As I look at this bill, I recognise that this is a bill that’s come out of this period of extraordinary time as we faced COVID-19 and the huge disruption that it had on supply chains, on our shipping companies, on our supply routes, and on our trade routes. But also during the cyclone and the flooding, we saw how emergency services needed that fuel to reach critical people and to reach those areas in regional New Zealand especially, but even out the back of Auckland, they needed that fuel to go out there and actually save lives. So this is a bill that’s come out of that, not to mention the war on Ukraine by Russia.

We’re trying here to minimise that disruption of war here on New Zealand’s fuel supply, and we know it’s been a really difficult couple of years for New Zealand but also the whole, entire world as well. So it is in that context that we arrive here at this bill, making sure that the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill comes to the House, and I’m glad that so far we’ve got bipartisan support, because Mr Muller is right that this is really important for New Zealand. It’s resilience for the industry, it’s resilience for our economy, and, as I’ve said at the beginning of my speech, it’s also actually resilience for our National Emergency Management Agency. It’s resilience for our emergency response teams, it’s resilience for trade, and also, at the same time, even for some of our military and other Defence Force operations as well. So making sure that we have the right fuel supply in our nation, on our shores, is really important.

As we will all be aware, this is a whole set of measurements that has been brought here by the Hon Dr Megan Woods to make sure that we address this problem holistically. I remember during the Budget week as well, we were debating the bill and making sure that the levies that we had collected as a Government could go towards making sure that fuel resilience was looked after, here on our shores. So there’s lots and lots of different steps that we have to take to make sure that this has a comprehensive execution, to make sure that we actually get the balanced results that we do.

I still remember the morning—perhaps, if my memory serves me correctly, it was about a year ago—when we discovered that the aviation fuel that we had for our planes, especially, if I remember correctly, for Air New Zealand, was tested to be not of spec. I think it was something about conductivity and that it was too high in conductivity. Now, I’m definitely no expert in chemistry or fuel or the aviation sector, but I understand that that was deemed to not be appropriate, or we could not use it for the flights that morning. I remember, especially in the domestic situation, for the domestic flights, that Air New Zealand had to—kudos to them. I think they didn’t have to cancel any flights, but they had to definitely start redirecting different flights into different areas to make sure that they were able to cover all of their routes. I can only imagine the stress that was put on to their team and the stress that was put into trying to manage moving New Zealanders across our country in a timely fashion without disrupting our travellers indefinitely. I am sure that some of our MPs would have been in that category, as well.

This bill is to make sure that those situations no longer happen. It’s to make sure that the Government itself holds up some of the reserves in our own ways as well, in terms of making sure that we have that adequate fuel supply, but also making sure that the big fuel companies—especially the five big fuel companies that we’ve also enabled the Commerce Commission to do market research into. Obviously, we know that there are still competition problems, and I think I talked about this in the last contribution I made in the House as well. In New Zealand, with a population of 5 million people, often competition in big industries doesn’t happen very well just because of our sheer size, so sometimes Government has to intervene into the market to make sure that we have the right level of reserves.

So back to the five fuel companies that we know have access to storage facilities, those are BP, Gull, Mobil TasmanFuels, and Z Energy. It’s making sure that they have a combination so that between all of them, there is at least 28 days of use of petrol, 24 days of jet fuel, and 21 days of diesel in an average month. So that’s making sure that not only do we look after the aviation industry to resolve situations, as I talked about with regard to Air New Zealand, and making sure that even if we had a supply of fuel that was not up to spec, we would still be able to travel and bring New Zealanders to the places they needed but also we’ve also got petrol here, which obviously is for our household cars, but also diesel, which I know will have some industrial applications as well and users in our industries, and to make sure that some of those companies that have not yet benefited from a Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund will need maybe the benefit of having that diesel supply there—or even maybe some of our farmers on their farms as well. So making sure that our economy keeps ticking along to make sure that even if we have—God forbid—another war somewhere else in the world—

Simon Court: Well, we will.

NAISI CHEN: —that has a strong and big implication on our fuel supply—and I hear Mr Court saying that it will. Unfortunately, I too agree that we will go into tumultuous times as well. Here in New Zealand, on our shores, we look after our economy and we look after our people to make sure that we have the right supplies to make sure that the New Zealand economy is going ahead.

As I read the regulatory impact statement, I also look at all of the different kinds of scenarios that officials have put together in making sure that this is a balanced policy. Like I said, we’ve gone through a one-in-a-hundred-year pandemic, and also we’ve gone through the severe flooding. Also in the document that the policy analysts and our officials have looked at the fact of whether or not our response is actually proportional to the likelihood of these events happening again. For instance, they looked at whether a closed border event is likely to happen, and they’ve actually rated it as an unlikely event. So, touch wood, and we’re hoping that will never ever happen again, and hoping that we’ll never have to deal with another big pandemic of the scale of COVID-19 on our shores again. However, even though it’s unlikely, we still have to make sure that there are precautions and that it is still on our risk register as a country.

So making sure we have that proportionate reserve on our shores is very, very important. Like I said, when we look at 28 days for use of petrol, 24 days for jet fuel, and 21 days for diesel, I reckon this is probably the right balance that our officials and our Ministers have found.

However, throughout the select committee process—and I join my colleagues, echoing the call to come to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It’s a great select committee and we would really love to hear from submitters, especially from the fuel industry but also from those who have a critical reliance on fuel as one of their main means of doing business and on keeping New Zealand moving, and especially if you have a really big part to play in the New Zealand economy as well. We welcome you all to come to the select committee and make your voices heard, and also to particularly take note—as Todd Muller has mentioned as well—in terms of that balance and whether we’ve got the balance right, whether or not that provision is enough for your business or for your sector to keep going and to keep operating, and whether or not the mechanism for which we do it by is the right one, so that we can actually really benefit all of the companies that are on our front lines to make sure that this fuel goes out to the right people and so that the criteria that we introduce in this bill are actually the right ones.

This is a great bill. It’s a bill of its time—of our time right now—as we face more and more disruption and uncertainty in our economy and in our world. This is a bill that will make sure that New Zealand keeps on moving with our fuel industry, supplying and supporting some of those critical sectors of our economy, especially those in our transport sector as well, and so that is why I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s an interesting bill, this. We’ve said that we’ll support it at first reading and see where things go from there.

There’s been some discussion about balance. Just thinking about the risk involved, we’ve got a low risk of something that takes place but would have serious consequences if it did, so that’s the context for thinking about the need for fuel resilience. Others have commented on the “plausible fuel disruptions” that might take place for a number of different reasons—and that wording is from the explanatory note—which are things like the geopolitical situation, particularly in this moment in time, with the war in Eastern Europe, among other things. Of course, the tides of geopolitical change come in and go out, but suffice to say we always will need fuel resilience, and, of course, particularly, we’re talking about fossil fuels at the moment, and in due course that will change, too. But the bill does contemplate, actually, other types of fuel in relation to which we also need to be resilient.

So I don’t have a lot of comments to offer at this stage. I will note, actually, the defined term of “obliged persons”, and I’m trying to catch the eye of the member opposite who has given me grief before in a parliamentary speech in which I used the word “orientated” and I meant “oriented”, of course, with “orientation” being the abstract noun in this case. A colleague of that member said “obligated persons” a number of times.

Hon Member: “Obliged”—“obliged”.

CHRIS PENK: Actually, she said “obligated parties”, which is wrong—you know, it’s a double whammy, to be fair. But I’m going to say “obliged persons” because I know that to be correct, and I hope that the member, who I won’t name—but I think all I’ll say is that the Hon David Clark seems to know what I’m talking about.

Anyway, so minimum fuel stockholding obligation—that’s an MSO, as defined—sees fuel importers who have these obligations, they’ve got to retain a certain amount, and they in turn are able to draw fuel from bulk storage facilities. It seems to be a right and responsibility kind of balance. So just referring to that fact that there might be different types of fuel in the future to which this would apply, if so, then that mix of obligations, or rights and responsibilities, would apply to them. That’s as far as I can tell from the bill as we’ve seen it so far.

I suppose there’s a question about whether there’s a “Henry VIII” provision in the sense that this would potentially apply to green fuels, and that could be a matter of regulation. I say that because the bill tells us that it would be a matter that could be imposed by “regulations in the future”—there we go, I’ve found it. So that’s something to look forward to discussing at, perhaps, the select committee. I understand that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee will have that dubious honour, and good luck to them. I won’t be subbing in, if I can help it.

Anyway, so that’s the aim. It’s to smooth the peaks and troughs and the fluctuations of the fuel supply, thereby ensuring its security for all the kinds of reasons that we need it. For that reason, I’ll go no further at this point, except only to say the National Party does support the bill, and we commend it to the House and to the select committee to which it will soon be sent.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): It’s a pleasure to speak after that member Chris Penk, who is always wise in the matters of grammar, and I do acknowledge that he was referring to a conversation we had recently where we discussed some of our pet hates around words that add additional syllables where they’re not needed. So I will follow his lead and talk about obliged persons at the appropriate point in my contribution.

I do want to also acknowledge those who’ve gone before in this debate, and particularly Todd Muller. I want to wish him well in his retirement—a very sensible decision. Although, with his sensible speech today, I wanted to invite him to stay on—we don’t get enough of those from opposite. It was one where he contributed, I think, some wise thoughts on the merits of this bill and the reasons that we’re having it.

If I can remind members that this bill introduces a statutory framework for adopting fuel resilience measures over time to ensure that we as a country are well prepared should there be further supply chain interruptions, the likes of which we had during COVID and subsequently, actually. Shipping lines and the like are now starting to perform in a way that we might hope but previously they were horribly out of whack with our expectations, with the likes of the war on Ukraine, which had an impact on global fuel prices, and the natural disasters we’ve had in the North and on the East Coast of New Zealand in particular, where we’ve come to rely very heavily on diesel and other supplies at short notice for keeping communities supported through a very difficult period. So that’s the kind of context, if you will, for this bill, and it, of course, comes as part of the wider announcements the Government made in November last year in a package designed to make sure that we have the security that we want for our fuel supplies.

I did also want to note the other part of context here, which is the market study work that the Government did. The incoming Government in 2017 funded market studies for the Commerce Commission which aimed to make industries more competitive, and we know as a result of the work on fuel that we now have fuel prices on the forecourts, which helps customers decide where they’re going to shop. We also know that if we look at the fuel margins for importers, actually, they did drop in response to that legislation, as best we can tell, and that’s meant that people in a time of a cost of living crisis—

Simon Court: Show us the evidence—show us the evidence.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —have saved money. The member opposite says, “Show us the evidence.” It’s there on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website. I can point him to the data, if he wishes. I don’t have the calculation in front of me. I’ve done it previously. Evidence is something that he’d like to see, so I’ll have a conversation with him afterwards and point him to where the fuel margins are on the MBIE website.

If he believes in markets and a market response, then he may be willing to attribute that response in the market to the changing conditions in the market and the changing nature of regulation surrounding it, because it changed the nature of the market and, therefore, changed the nature of the response. But he may not believe in markets—I can never tell with the ACT Party. It’s one of those great mysteries. They say they believe in markets, but then the next minute they turn round and pretend that they don’t happen, and want to regulate things or say some kind of economic-defying statement.

Anyway, back to this matter at hand—I shan’t be distracted too long off on that track. We know from that market study, of course, that the likes of Gull attribute their entry into the South Island to the changing conditions that came with the increased and appropriate regulation of the sector because they knew that they could then compete in a fairer market. With a fairer market, of course, what we do then see happen is we see markets deliver an outcome for consumers, which is narrowing margins and a more competitive market place. In a more competitive market place, of course, there are incentives to lower stockholdings, and this bill is designed to ensure that minimum stockholdings are in place so that in that more competitive market, we don’t get the unintended consequence of reduced fuel holdings, which we could imagine easily occurring in an actually more competitive market. So I think all of those things are useful context as we debate this bill, and I am pleased to see that the Opposition spokespeople that have spoken so far from the National Party are supporting the bill because they recognise sensible regulation that makes a market work in our interests and in the interests of consumers.

So to the bill itself and the response that it provides, it is there to boost New Zealand’s fuel supply resilience and economic security because we also know that where there are disruptions in fuel supply, that can have a knock-on effect in the economy. If planes don’t fly, our produce doesn’t get to international markets. If we don’t have the diesel generators to support industries to keep things cold when there have been natural hazard events, natural emergencies, then stock can end up being thrown away and not reach the intended markets. So these obligations that are being introduced for minimum stockholding in the bill build in the flexibility that we might need to adapt as a country to future events—to future supply chain disruptions.

I note the member Chris Penk raised the issue of “Henry VIII” clauses and the debate around that. These are regulation-making powers we’re introducing as a Parliament, and I think it’s a legitimate debate to have about the extent to which they will apply to ensure the security that we want. The bill grants the Minister the right to waive those obligations in a natural disaster, for example, where it’s obvious that those reserves need to be used to keep the economy going or to keep people safe. That makes sense that you wouldn’t then hold the stock, because, of course, the reason for holding the stock is to actually deal with the situation in those events.

So there are some very sensible debates that will need to be had around this. The Government also plans to buy and hold around 70 million litres of diesel stocks, which we know is approximately seven days’ worth of diesel stocks.

Those are the basics of the bill, but I wanted to turn for the point of the debate to the legislative statement that’s been tabled because it does reveal some of the finer print around the minimum stockholding obligations. Interestingly, the legislative statement talks about “minimum fuel stockholding” and then provides the abbreviation “MSO”. Now, we know that that stands for “minimum stockholding obligation”—it’s not spelt out in the legislative statement, but I think members will know about that—and it talks about “28 days of consumption for petrol on average;” must be held, “24 days of consumption for jet fuel on average;”, and “21 days of consumption for diesel on average in New Zealand.” in order to comply with the legislation. But the regulation-making powers which enable the Government to have a clear oversight of New Zealand’s fuel resilience are able to be adapted according to future situations. That is the wisdom that’s being debated here, and, as I’ve said earlier, it’s good to see that the National Party are intending to support this to the select committee.

The point I want to bring up is that the bill also empowers the chief executive of the regulator—in this case, I imagine it would be the Commerce Commission—to “accept enforceable undertakings from persons in connection with any matter relating to the enforcement of the MSO,” and so right through this bill, there are degrees of flexibility to ensure that it’s actually getting the outcomes that we want for consumers, for our citizens, and for our economy. That’s, I think, really sensible, and I do hope the whole Parliament, in fact, will support the legislation as a consequence and enjoy the debate through the select committee, where the finer points can be debated.

But the purpose, I think, is something that I hope all parties in this Parliament will support, and, really, the purpose is to have a framework, if you like, for introducing measures that cover off the monitoring and the measurement of fuel supply risks and the management of those risks as they’re identified. So one of the things that’s in here as a possibility is specified locations for stockholding of fuel. Now, those are not supplied in the initial version of the bill; those are to be determined through regulation and according—one would assume—to need. The methods of calculation for determining required stockholding volumes are up for grabs through regulation, and so too are the specific requirements for disclosure of information in relation to resilience of fuel supplies in New Zealand.

So those things are all able to be made through regulation according to this framework, and I guess they allow the Government to have a clear oversight as situations develop in the future. We want to be nimble, we want to be resilient, and we want our economy, in particular, to be protected, and then I will note in closing that there’s also provision outlined in the legislative statement for a review—in fact, there must be a review of the MSO within five years after it commences—and there is a very sensible list of things that must be considered in that review—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member’s time is up.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Speaker, thank you, and thank you to that previous speaker, the Hon Dr David Clark. I understand that he has also indicated that he will be retiring at the end of this term of Parliament, and we wish him well in his future career. But I sincerely hope he doesn’t end up in an academic role teaching young New Zealanders about economics or maths, because he’s demonstrated again that the Labour Party does not understand markets, competition, and economics.

But now what I want to come to is the problems with this bill. This is the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. Well, why does the Government insist we need to improve fuel resilience? It’s because people are afraid that at some point in time, their city or their region might run out of fuel, and what we saw during Cyclone Gabrielle was that when businesses and households run short of fuel, people become desperate very, very quickly. You can’t charge your cellphone if there’s no electricity. If the lines are down, the only option is a diesel-powered generator.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Not if you have solar panels.

SIMON COURT: Oh, apparently unless we have solar panels. But, of course, on a cold dark night in winter there is no energy coming from your solar panel.

The issue that this bill intends to solve is one that is existential, which is that without energy in readily available liquid fuels, our society will grind to a screaming halt. We know that and we know it’s existential, because it wasn’t that long ago when I was a kid that the movie Mad Max came out. Mad Max was all about a war for oil—that’s right, the first Mad Max movie, starring that great Australian actor Mel Gibson, was all about a war for oil.

Now, in the general policy statement the Minister of Energy and Resources cited, amongst some of the other problems, that the Marsden Point oil refinery is closed. Well, that raises some issues, such as why would an industry or a group of companies who think New Zealand is worth investing in close their refinery and leave the country? Could it have anything to do with this Government’s energy policy or with threatening New Zealanders that they shouldn’t be allowed to drive petrol and diesel vehicles on pain of taxation? Well, that could have something to do with it.

We’ve heard the Minister cite wars and conflicts. Well, there have always been wars and conflicts, so what should New Zealand do about that? Well, we could invest maybe 2 percent of our GDP in defence and be a trusted participant in security alliances, rather than take the “She’ll be right, mate. Nothing to see here.” approach that this Government has taken with defence. Maybe that might help secure shipping lanes and actually encourage our alliance partners to want to come to our aid and protect our supply lines in the event of a conflict in the North Pacific.

What this bill does do is highlight how incoherent the Government’s approach to energy policy is. They point out that the minimum stockholding requirement will have to be 28 days for petrol, 24 days’ worth of jet fuel, and 21 days for diesel, on average, and yet we’ve heard that, actually, the average stockholding in New Zealand is already double that. So what is the point of this legislation if it’s not actually adding to the resilience in New Zealand’s fuel supply and energy supply chain? Well, maybe the Government should look at itself: by banning oil and gas exploration that may well have contributed to the lack of resilience in the energy sector in New Zealand, it could have.

The former Minister of Transport Michael Wood claimed that New Zealand should reduce vehicle kilometres travelled by 20 percent. Now, I’m not sure if he’s aware that the city he’s the Minister for, called “Auckland”, in its unitary plan, forecasts that another 900,000 people will come to Auckland alone between now and 2050. That indicates that maybe 300,000 to 400,000 dwellings will be needed, and I can pretty much guarantee that every one of those families or homes will have at least one vehicle. Currently, it’s about 2½ vehicles per household. If they only had one—in some kind of nirvana—we’d still have another 300,000 to 400,000 private vehicles just coming to Auckland alone.

So the Government’s policy around energy and around fuels has been incoherent and damaging. It has undermined confidence in the sector and undermined willingness to invest in New Zealand. The Government’s only got itself to blame, and this bill is but a fig leaf over its poor policy.

The real problem with resilience is in the event of physical and natural disasters like we saw in Hawke’s Bay and in Auckland recently, because when the big one happens—and if you’re a Christchurch resident who was affected by the terrible series of earthquakes down there in 2010 and 2011, then you know that massive damage can be done in just a few minutes to the infrastructure of a city. What we saw during Cyclone Gabrielle in January-February this year was that a huge amount of damage can be done to roads, bridges, and ports even, which means that the fuel tankers—the liquid energy—as well as the power lines that supply electricity, are interrupted, and what we saw was that this Government couldn’t even get drinking water to the region, even though the navy tried to deliver it, because, apparently, it wasn’t good enough, or hadn’t passed some kind of test. Taumata Arowai, the water regulator, insisted there was some red tape that the navy wasn’t going to be able to cut through, so they wouldn’t allow its delivery of drinking water to the Port of Napier.

So maybe the issue here is really poor regulation and too much red tape. That means that, actually, New Zealand is not as resilient as it could be, if only businesses and the private sector and local government were allowed to build their way out of it, because the real problem with resilience when it comes to fuel supply is not whether a ship can get here in two or three days from Brisbane—which is actually quite doable for a ship full of fuel—but when it gets to New Zealand, will the port be available to unload it or will the port be damaged beyond repair? Will the roads, the bridges, and the other infrastructure be in working order so that truck and trailers and fuel tankers can get from the ports out to the places where fuel is needed, like service stations and hospitals, for example, and other public infrastructure that depends on generators? So, in summary, ACT will support this bill to first reading—

Hon Members: Yay!

SIMON COURT: —to first reading only—at this stage. We want to hear from people who have good suggestions for the Government—good suggestions, submitters—and we hope the Government will listen. But if this bill doesn’t pass before the end of this parliamentary term, that’s OK. ACT will be part of a future Government, and we will be listening.

People are feeling brittle, they are feeling nervous, and they’re feeling afraid, and giving them some confidence about fuel security is one way to address it. Two-thirds of New Zealanders say that New Zealand is going in the wrong direction.

At public meetings, people regularly raise the issue with ACT MPs that they’re worried that since the Marsden Point oil refinery closed, New Zealand is more exposed to the risk of fuel insecurity. Then we point out to them that, yes, that’s potentially true, but if your Government has said to reduce the vehicle kilometres travelled and says that we’re going to eventually ban petrol and diesel vehicles, or at least try and tax them out of existence, and it’s going to ban gas stoves in new homes and so on, then, actually, you should be worried because your Government is not caring about your resilience, your future, or your security. What they’re doing is paying homage to their ideological dreams of actually turning New Zealand back to a time when we didn’t have sufficient energy to enjoy warm, healthy homes, and when we were too poor and we didn’t even have our own oil and gas.

ACT wants them to have the confidence—the confidence—that they can stay in New Zealand. They don’t have to leave, and a Government that involves ACT will make sure that the lights stay on and you can always fill up your Hilux at a reasonable price. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I have to say that the previous speaker Simon Court’s speech just seemed like pure projection. Pretty much everything he said could be said about his own party’s policy: completely incoherent, no understanding of markets, totally in thrall to an ideology of, somehow, the private market solves only everything, and yet at the same time he thinks that the Government should have gotten involved to stop the closure of Marsden Point oil refinery.

Simon Court: I never said that.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, the speaker certainly did imply that something else should have been done. So, anyway, it was a very confused speech from a very confused man but also not surprising, because he does have a background in civil engineering, and it is, frankly, traffic engineers and town planners who are entirely responsible for our transport system, which is terribly energy inefficient.

I think that it would be useful to traverse a little bit of the content that I would like to, which is not directly related to the bill, but it is responding to things that were raised in previous speeches. But first, I will say that the Green Party is supporting this bill, the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, and one of the things that is highlighted in the regulatory impact statement is that we are expecting a fall in demand for petrol and diesel. In fact, there’s already some signs that that is happening, thanks to the extreme success of the Clean Car Discount policies, which have led to a much greater influx of low-emissions vehicles than we saw before those policies came in. Climate change initiatives and technological developments mean that demand for petrol has plateaued and will start to decline from the mid-2020s. Of course, if we had more flexible and sensible town planning rules, then that would result in a reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled.

I think what the members from the National Party and the ACT Party are confused about is that our high reliance on private vehicles is a consequence of bad Government regulation and subsidies which have unintentionally created a transport system that is incredibly inefficient when it comes to energy, and it also costs households and businesses much more than is ideal because they have to spend so much money on private vehicles, which sit parked for 96 percent of the time. It’s extremely low capital productivity.

So the opportunity for New Zealand that you would think that people on the right would understand if they understood markets and economics—but, you know, they don’t; it’s more like a virtue-signalling thing on their part—is that there’s this opportunity to get better outcomes for the climate, for the environment, and for fuel resilience simply by planning our transport system in a more efficient way, which gives people more choice, which means they don’t have to buy as many private vehicles, which saves them money and saves time sitting in traffic. It reduces the amount of land—valuable land—in our towns and cities that’s tied up with simply moving or storing cars, but it also helps with this very thing that this bill is about, which is improving the resilience of our economy and transport system to shocks in supply for petrol or diesel, and to high oil prices.

So, as the Green Party has been saying for over 20 years, there is this incredible opportunity. Everything we do to improve our energy efficiency of our transport system also improves our resilience to high oil prices and also reduces the demand for petrol and diesel, and is a direct benefit to our economy because we don’t have to import as much fuel. So it’s just like win-win, win-win—all these things that we could do in transport. But, unfortunately, what is becoming increasingly clear in the speeches in the House and outside of the House is that the ACT Party doesn’t believe in climate change and doesn’t believe we need to do anything about it. It wants to protect the status quo. It doesn’t want us to actually take any proactive, practical action, even when it will benefit us economically, because those members are just ideologically opposed to any changes that might benefit our climate or our environment.

That is why it is truly a scary prospect, but it’s, fortunately, very unlikely that ACT will be part of the next Government. But certainly, voters at home should be asking themselves very serious questions: can we trust these people who have very fringe views on climate change? Can we trust them in Government? Absolutely not. They have no practical solutions, and they come to the House and give speeches that are just completely incoherent when it comes to responding to issues like climate change and our need to improve fuel resilience. So I think that’s enough from me on this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s wonderful to be standing here in the House this afternoon debating, reflecting, and supporting legislation that goes some way to improving our fuel resilience.

Now, I’d like to indulge you for moment—for not too much, but just a little—around fuel resilience and my experiences of it personally. I’m sure many of us remember the old days of being young, owning your first or second vehicle—some of you may remember being young—or being a student, whether it be a student of university or polytech, or a student just of the world. I was that student of the world, and, when it comes to fuel resilience and this legislation, I owned a Holden HQ 1972. It was a wonderful vehicle. It had two sources of fuel.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: One of the greatest cars ever made. The HQ—absolutely brilliant.

GLEN BENNETT: That’s right, the old HQ. It’s actually the one car I regret selling, but I did—I did. This had two sources of fuel: it had petrol and it had LPG.

So it was dual-fuel, which relates very much to this piece of legislation, because the issue I had around my resilience and my fuel was you’d think that you’d never run out of fuel because you had two sources—right? Well, unfortunately, what happened is you’d drive along and you’d be cruising—and I lived in Wellington at that stage. You’d be cruising on the motorway out to the Hutt. You’d run out of LPG, so you’d just flick the switch and you’d be back on to petrol, and you’d be fine. You’d carry on with no catastrophes, no dramas.

The challenge I had in terms of the resiliency of my fuel sources was the fact that as a younger person with less money, sometimes I would either neglect to fill up one of my fuel sources or I couldn’t afford to that week. So I would just run off the fumes or the smells or the gases that were coming through.

Now, this was going well, and in terms of the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, I guess in a local context for me, as a Holden HQ driver—two-tone, gold; it had a beautiful white roof—I was off to work one morning, and I flew into the Terrace Tunnel, as you do, heading out to the Hutt Valley, where I worked at the time. As I hit the Terrace Tunnel, I conked out of LPG—I ran out. No worries whatsoever—you know, there’s fuel resiliency in the Holden HQ. I flicked it through on to petrol—easy does it, off we go. “Uh-uh, uh-uh, uh-uh, uh-uh”—it was one of those days. It was 8 o’clock on a Tuesday morning, and I had no fuel left in the tank, literally, on both types of fuel.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So you were the guy who locked up Wellington?

GLEN BENNETT: So I was that guy. As we look at this legislation, we look at it, because it does talk about how we ensure around the potential cost to the economy. I don’t want to admit to being that guy, but I did break down—well, I didn’t break down at all. I ran out of fuel in the middle of the Terrace Tunnel.

Of course, I thought that everyone was coming to my aid to help me, but, of course, it was rush hour and no one cared at all, so I was stuck there. I got out to use the phone—this was before cellphones. I got out to use the phone, but the phone wasn’t working. I thought, “That’s fine. Some dear person will save me.” No one came to save me—no one—until a kind police officer, who had obviously had several calls because by this stage I was holding up a lot of traffic, came through to save me. So they towed me to Tinakori Road, to the petrol station there—and there is relevance to this legislation as I speak.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, I hope so.

GLEN BENNETT: We pulled in to the petrol station at Tinakori Road, I filled up and, of course, went in to pay, and the person at the counter said, “Oh jeez! What happened with you?”—you know, the police were getting involved. I said—around resiliency and around the cost that it takes if we don’t have resiliency—“Oh no, it’s a bit embarrassing. I ran out of petrol in Terrace Tunnel.” “Oh, you’re the guy? It’s all over the radio. The traffic’s held up for miles.”—slightly embarrassing. It was my fault, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

But when we look at this legislation, it’s not too dissimilar—or maybe very not similar at all—but why I say that I looked at it is because it was around the risk that disruption creates if we don’t have fuel resiliency in this country. As we look at it, it could be millions of dollars if we don’t have enough, or it could be billions of dollars, and on that morning in the Terrace Tunnel, hopefully, it was only tens of dollars that I held people up with, if not myself. But, actually, it is around how we find ways to ensure that we as a nation have fuel resiliency, that we ensure that we have fuel stockholdings, and that we ensure that our fuel is available, whether it comes to our planes, whether it comes to our trucks and our buses with diesel, or whether it comes to petrol itself.

Other speakers have spoken about it, but my Holden HQ, it used petrol, but it also used LPG. So when we look there, it’s 28 days of consumption for petrol, on average, it’s 24 days of consumption for jet fuel, on average, and then there’s the 21 days of consumption for diesel, on average. Now, the reason we are bringing this to the House this evening and hoping and looking forward to taking it to select committee—so far, we’ve heard that every party is supporting this legislation—is around boosting our fuel supply resiliency and our economic security to make sure that we get it right.

Now, I was listening to the ACT Party before and I picked up a few of their comments. I mean, they threw things around about red tape. They wouldn’t know red tape if they fell over it, because in my electorate of New Plymouth they are putting up hoardings in the electorate, currently, which actually are illegal and have had to be taken down. I guess if they had the “Ministry of Red Tape” there, then maybe that would have helped them out. But when they talk about our threatening New Zealanders and our obsession with ridding people of diesel and ridding people of big cars, I take exception to that. Also, when they talk about our “incoherent” energy strategy, I don’t understand how they could actually think like that. But then I don’t spend too much time thinking about what the ACT Party think about, because it’s not really much to think about.

So this bill does provide flexibility to introduce location-specific stockholding requirements through legislation into the future. When we go back to those different days around whether it be 28, 24, or 21 days, that again is what we look at in terms of the minimum fuel stockholding obligation, or the MSO, as I like to call it—in fact, everyone likes to call it that because it’s actually in the legislation. But this MSO is around reducing the risk that fuel stockholding and, therefore, fuel supply resilience could deteriorate as a result of international geopolitical events. As we’ve seen around the world, and if we look at what’s going on in the Ukraine, we hope that there aren’t any more incidents or situations of that sort. But we know that the volatility, sometimes, of nations around the world does have an impact on us. I need to remind us as a House—and I’m sure I don’t need to—that we are a small, tiny South Pacific nation at the bottom of the Earth, and—

Matt Doocey: Outrageous!

GLEN BENNETT: That’s not outrageous, Mr Doocey; it’s a blessing and a wonderful thing to be this beautiful, small Pacific nation at the bottom of the world. But it creates challenges for us. It creates challenges for us in terms of our ability to draw down resources and to bring things from far away.

I want to close this very significant reflection to the House this evening by saying that I was part of the Taranaki 2050 Roadmap work in and around how do we decarbonise and how do we look to our future when we become carbon-neutral—when we ensure that our emissions not only drop but we hope that they will end. So this legislation is for now, but then I look at things like what we have in Taranaki and in the New Plymouth electorate, like Hiringa Energy, which is creating our own source of green hydrogen. Again, it’s a great initiative, and it’s looking at how we actually turn that into something to add into our trucking industry around the North Island and around the South Island. Again, that would be autonomous. We’d be having our own green hydrogen that we have here locally.

When we look at the offshore wind energy and, again, supporting that around green hydrogen, it’s not the complete solution, but it’s an “an”—it’s a part of our transition process. But it’s also a part of us, as a small nation ensuring that we have our own autonomy so that we are able to have what we need for when we need it and have the kinds of resources that ensure that future generations will benefit from the fact that we have clean and cleaner forms of energy.

So the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill is good legislation. My Holden HQ wasn’t the greatest car, but it was a car that I none the less took great pleasure in driving. I didn’t take great pleasure in breaking down or running out of fuel, but, for me, it’s something that I am grateful for.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time has expired. The Hon Gerry Brownlee—a five-minute call.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I think that that previous speaker—Glen Bennett—should resume his feet and apologise to the House and to the nation for implying that the wonderful Holden HQ was not a great car. It was truly one of the great marks of the world, and I wish that he had spent a little bit of time telling us about what happened to that car, rather than blithering on with the rest of the incomprehensible speech that he offered to the House.

The question is why do so many Government members, when they speak about the new technologies that are coming on and the new fuel sources that are coming on, and they label them green and get excited about them as if it’s completely new and they’ve somehow discovered this themselves—they seem to think that as a Government, they are the ones who are seriously pushing it. They are not. These things will happen. Just as the candle was replaced by the kerosene lamp, the kerosene lamp was replaced by the filament lightbulb, and the filament lightbulb has been replaced by the LED lightbulb, so it will go on, and when it comes to motor fuels, the same thing will happen over time.

I’m struggling to see what it is that the Government think is so important about this bill, other than the fact that they went to the Commerce Commission and said, “Please conduct a market study.” The Commerce Commission duly did that and came along with various recommendations, central to which was price control. Last November, the Minister was out there, very much in this sort of boisterous mode, saying, “What a marvellous job we have done with this market study. It’s going to make all the difference in the world. We’re going to lower the fuel price.”—but then, of course, abandoning it. We haven’t seen a single bill here this year that would enable a Minister to exercise price control on motor fuels—and nor should we—because the experience this year has been that if a Government takes its own hands out of the pockets of consumers and takes less tax off them, you will get the sort of price stability that we’ve seen, even in the volatile world situation that we’ve got at the moment.

I think it’s fascinating that when one considers the current holdings—so, firstly, I’ll go back and say that the bill is going to compulsorily require oil companies to have specific tonnage of their product available to the market at all times. But when there’s an actual consideration of what the market does provide at the moment for their businesses and what do they need to have in their tanks to ensure that they have that continuum of activity, well, it’s 43 days of petrol, 40 days of regular petrol, 47 days of jet fuel, and 21 days of diesel. So why is the Government coming along with a bill that says, “Oh well, actually we’d be a lot better off and be far more resilient”—a word I hate, by the way, and I think it’s much overused—“if we dropped all that down to just 28 days of petrol, 24 days of jet fuel, and 21 days of diesel”? Why would we halve—compulsorily halve—what an industry itself has already decided should be twice as much to maintain that industry?

We’re a country that’s seven to eight weeks on the end of a supply chain. We cannot bring in crude oil now and have it refined in New Zealand, so we must have refined product, and the Government seems to think that while the industry itself has determined 43 days, 40 days, 47 days, and 21 days for different fuels, it would be better to compulsorily require 28, 24, and 21 days.

This is just a vanity bill brought in by a Government that’s run out of steam, and it’s fascinating that the only bills that we had out of the Budget that needed to go through with any degree of urgency were energy bills. That tells us that the great strategist for the Labour Party—the Hon Megan Woods—is the only one who’s out there pencilling up these bills at a great rate of knots to fill up time between now and when the House lifts late in August. We’re happy to send it off to a select committee because we want to hear from those fuel companies, who will, I’m sure, tell us that this is a complete nullity and a total waste of time.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. So I would like to start off, perhaps, by talking a little bit about the principles behind this bill. I know, unfortunately, I’ve drawn a split call, so that means I only have five minutes to talk about that, and I don’t have the luxury of some of the other speakers, where I could have talked in depth for 10 minutes on what needs to be said on this bill. But I would like to get us to think back a little bit to the time that we had the recent weather events, and, particularly, coming from a rural area, the importance, as my colleague—Bennett?

Hon Members: Glen.

MARJA LUBECK: Glen. I was going to say “the Hon”, but he’s not “the Hon”. But he’s honourable—you know what I’m saying. But my colleague Glen Bennett was mentioning the risk—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! [Assistant Speaker points to the bill]

MARJA LUBECK: —the disruption can actually cause. That’s right. So what the bill does is it is making sure that we have the mitigations in place so that we don’t have to run out of our stock and we can draw on the resources that we have available. So, for example, looking at the civil defence centres that were set up, for example, where there was the need to put not only water and food in stock but also fuel, people had to run their generators. Of course, if you don’t have diesel sitting somewhere in your shed or wherever else in containers, you’re going to run out of the ability to make power, and in rural areas, it also means you won’t even be able to get the water out of your water tanks. So, again, the really important principle that sits behind this bill is that we are ensuring that we have mitigations in place to draw on our existing resources and we don’t get into issues.

Minister Woods has described it and said that this bill would enable the Government to have a clearer oversight of New Zealand’s fuel resilience and would build in the flexibility that we need to adapt the stockholding obligation as energy and transport trends are changing. So this bill that is being introduced today will help to ensure that we have sufficient petrol, diesel, and jet fuel in New Zealand to weather any potential major disruptions to our fuel supply. It has been said that that risk of disruption is potentially low. If it does happen, it could cost the economy hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.

So then a little bit on the technical parts of this bill. What this bill actually does is it enables the minimum stockholding obligations regulations to be adapted as the energy and transport environment evolves. That will ensure that, as a Government, there will be a clearer oversight of New Zealand’s fuel resilience, but at the same time we will also make sure that we build in the flexibility that we may need to adapt. So that means planning to buy and hold 70 million litres of diesel stocks in New Zealand, and that is approximately seven days’ worth—you would think it’s more, but it’s seven days—and that recognises the importance of diesel for running emergency services and transporting food. Now, that would require, obviously, setting up agreements with the fuel industry and storage providers.

The bill also includes introducing regulation-making powers so that the obligation can be adjusted as needed. So that means flexibility to introduce legislation-specific stockholding requirements through regulations in the future. As has been said before, that is for different fuel types, whether that is the 28 days of use of petrol, 24 days of jet fuel, and 21 days of diesel, on average, for every month, but that would be the combined minimum stockholding levels that this bill would equate to, roughly.

So the bill then, just to finish off—I see I’m running out of time, unfortunately—provides a statutory framework for implementing the Government’s fuel resilience policy package announced in November 2022, ensuring that we can take an adaptive approach to adopting fuel resilience measures over time, and ensuring that New Zealand will have continuous and adequate fuel stocks to mitigate the risk of fuel disruptions. Key components in that are—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member’s time has expired.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. It’s really unfortunate to hear others on the other side of the House who don’t like words like “resilience”, given the huge challenges we have to support our entire economy and our people in it to make a just transition. I’m really proud to be part of a Government that is not scared to take on these challenges.

People sound surprised on the other side of the House that we’re going to have this grappling and this “How do we move from the carbon-based economy we’ve got now to one that means it is sustainable and future-proofed and means we can get to zero carbon?” It is really disappointing to hear people are surprised, or if they’re not surprised, they really can’t be bothered. They want to keep their heads in the sand because it’s all just too hard. This bill is a really good example of how we are helping this economy to grapple with that just transition.

We have heard a lot about the challenges to our resilience that are growing—you know, there are the examples of contaminated fuel and the supply challenges that were exacerbated through COVID and through the wars that are happening. As we heard from the other side of the House, they aren’t necessarily new and unique, but we have had the new and unique that are becoming the normal, which are challenging our resilience, and one of those is, obviously, climate change. We heard about it through the cyclone and the floods. We had isolated communities that did not have energy resilience. As someone who lives in a rural community, we know how to deal with power cuts. We don’t just have candles and torches; we have little—[Member gestures with hands]

Shanan Halbert: What’s that?

ANGELA ROBERTS: What, a torch or a candle—no? All good. We know how to make sure that our woodpiles are stacked up, we know that we always have our phones charged, and we always have a full tank of fuel in the car. It is really, really important to those in our rural communities that we do as much as we can to provide that support.

The interesting thing is that because we have to and we are dealing with challenge of transitioning away from a carbon-based economy, we are reducing the incentives for our fuel companies to make that critical infrastructure that tides us over until some time in the future when we no longer rely on a carbon-based economy, and so we aren’t. As we see New Zealand and the planet reducing its fossil fuel reliance and consumption, we are seeing carbon-based fuel companies making decisions about cost and profit, and they aren’t necessarily in very good alignment with what we need as an economy. We need infrastructure and we need structures that will make sure that our economy will thrive.

For those over the other side of the House, who obviously didn’t pass level 3 economics, my students and I would have conversations, and probably the hardest topic to teach was those marginal cost curves, average costs, average variable costs, total cost—all of those things—and at which bit of the curve a firm would decide to change its behaviour. They were always really difficult to look at—curves on a piece of paper—but what we did do was we could pick up real-life examples, and this is one of them. This is a really good example of market failure that is, effectively, being imposed on the market to a certain extent because we do need to transition away from carbon fuels.

So what happens when we have market failure? We need Government intervention. Market failure isn’t really a problem if we’re talking about buying mangoes down at the local fruit shop. Apologies to mango-growers, but what I’m suggesting is that that is not necessarily critical for the functioning of our economy. But there are some places where we cannot have market failure and where we have to make sure that supply and demand have attention paid to them, and this is one such thing.

Energy is obviously critical, and it is even more critical that we support our entire economy to transition away from carbon to the alternatives. I heard from my colleague Glen Bennett from Taranaki. Those of us who’ve been in this just transition space for a very long time are very, very clear that we have to move the conversation—and we are—from oil and gas to energy. We have to move and make sure that those investments help us to have a lighter footprint on the planet, and we’ve heard about our offshore wind investments and solar and onshore wind, and all of those other things that will help us become not just 100 percent renewable but exporters of renewable energy—won’t that be fantastic when it comes about? But it is about supporting the market to do that. If we leave it up to the market, they will, quite understandably—because that’s how a firm works. It looks at those cost curves and it says, “New Zealand, infrastructure—I don’t think so.”, and they’ll walk away, and then we’ll really be in trouble.

So I’m really pleased this is going to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I was rather intrigued by the last speech on this Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill from Angela Roberts, talking about market failure. So just not very long ago we had the Hon Gerry Brownlee, basically, pointing out to the other side of the House that, currently, the industry has 43 days of consumption storage for petrol—that’s premium—40 days for regular, 47 days for jet fuel, and 21 days for the consumption of diesel. Now, this bill is actually mandating these same industries to 28 days of consumption for petrol, on average; 24 days of consumption for jet fuel; and 21 days of consumption for diesel. Now, I’m not sure how market failure fits into that conversation when the industry is actually doing double the quantity that this Government is putting this legislation in place to mandate them to do.

The other weird thing about this piece of legislation is that this is not a Government that’s typically worried about energy security, especially around our natural resources, and we keep hearing all the time about the just transition. Yes, there’s a plan, but you can’t heat people’s houses on a plan. You can’t fill their cars up on a plan. To transition oil and gas to energy, as the last speaker said, you actually have to have some things on the ground.

So we’ve heard this afternoon about Hiringa doing some great work—doing some really good work in hydrogen—but there’s no quantities yet. There are no amounts that we can use to actually put into our energy sources that will take this country anywhere in the short term. We’ve also heard about offshore wind. Now, look, it’s going to be at least 10 years before any of this offshore wind is likely to be up and running.

Yes, it’s good to have a plan and it’s fine to have a plan, but it was really silly to cut off the existing energy sources until that plan was well and truly in place. So anyone that talks about a just transition is actually just covering up for the fact that we could end up with energy insecurity somewhere in the middle, and particularly over recent times, when we’ve had some terrible things going on over on the other side of the world in terms of the war against Ukraine. So when this Government talks about making sure that we have plenty of petrol, jet fuel, and diesel on hand and making sure that the Government is mandating these industries to store half of what they’re already storing, I’m wondering how long it will be before they’ll be screaming about not having enough gas reserves and actually mandating the industry to store what they haven’t been allowed to extract.

So in considering this bill, National is supporting this bill. It makes sense to make sure we have enough energy security. It’s just this bill in itself is a complete waste of time, because that security has already been put in place by the industry.

Without a domestic refinery, New Zealand now relies solely on the importation of refined fuels from overseas, rather than just crude. So it was coming in to be refined before, but now, it’s actually just a terminal. But I think the other piece of resilience—whether we like that word or not—that has been lost is that when we look at the potholes and the bitumen that we used to get out of Marsden Point that is now not being used to maintain our roads, we are finding that the standard of road surfaces is far poorer than what it was at recent points in time when we had our own bitumen being produced in this country.

So while we’re starting to rely more on electric vehicles and to decarbonise away from fossil fuels, our heavy transport and airlines still need to keep our economy flowing. We’ve seen some very poor examples in the aviation industry recently where we needed to make sure that we’ve got the resilience and the right content in the fuel that’s going into our airplanes. None of us actually wants to jump on a plane that’s not fuelled correctly, so that’s extremely important, but the industry is actually taking care of it itself.

But road transport up and down the country relies on diesel and petrol, and we do need security of fuels. Utes use fuel. We hear about the fuel tax all the time. Major industries like agriculture and industrial processing require transport to function, and if they were without fuel, they would suffer immensely.

I think probably something that hasn’t come to the attention of most people in the Government is if you actually look at the large geography of New Zealand—and everyone talks about the farmers when it comes to ute taxes, because, of course, it makes very little sense to put a tax on something where there is no answer or no solution to the problem. But, actually, if we think about the energy industry, which works in the large geography of this country, and if we think about conservation, the conservation estate is huge. If we’re going to get to being predator-free and we’re going to do all of those things, we still need people who have fit for purpose vehicles—i.e., utes—that cover large geography. They don’t have the chargers that need to get around the country to help us do what we need to do.

So none of us would stand in the House today and argue about having fuel security—of course it’s important. But what we want to point out on this side of the House is that the Government is really undershooting on what the industry is prepared to do by itself. It just seems like the Government has run out of legislation where they’ve got new ideas, meaningful ideas. They’re throwing up ideas like this, which are going to be totally ineffective. We’re standing in the House and we’re actually having a debate this afternoon—if any of the public are watching—that’s actually mandating fuel companies to do what they’re already doing.

I’d like to mention that the five fuel companies that have access to storage facilities are BP, Gull, Mobil, TasmanFuels, and Z Energy, and they’re already doing this job. So I’m not quite sure what the Hon Megan Woods is trying to achieve by putting this piece of legislation in front of this House.

As I said before, in March and December last year, jet fuel arriving in the country tested off spec meant that fuel companies and airlines had to put in place contingency arrangements to minimise disruptions. So that’s a wise move that these organisations are doing to make sure that we do have enough fuel for our aviation industry—that’s really important—and the fuel was rejected because it had an increased level of conductivity. Now, I’m not a scientist, I’m not an engineer, and I don’t understand exactly what that would do to an airplane, but it sounds serious enough for me that I wouldn’t want to be flying on that plane if that fuel was put into it. So having more stocks of aviation fuel at strategic locations like Auckland Airport will reduce the risk of such incidents happening again. I guess we can buy into that when it comes to the fuel industry for aviation.

But the rest of this piece of legislation appears to us in the National Party to be a complete waste of time, and I would like the Government to actually focus on fuel security as much they do on the words “just transition”, which are extremely overused. It’s extremely inefficient.

I also come from Taranaki and, look, I can see things on the horizon, but they’re not things that are going to keep us, as a country, running as energy sources in the short term, unless something happens much more quickly than the Government is able to get infrastructure built, because we’re just going to end up in a very cold place. Our homes won’t be warmed and our cars won’t go. We do not have enough renewable electricity supply to drive the electric cars, let alone all of the other electricity transition that this Government is trying to do. I think the whole energy focus of the Government is extremely bad for our resilience, and nothing in this bill that we’re debating at the moment is going to make any difference to the big problems that we face in energy. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have some sympathy for people at home who may be confused by the contributions coming from the National Party because, on the one hand, they’re saying that there is no market failure and that the airlines and others have access to enough fuel because of the good behaviours and the responsible behaviours of the fuel companies, and, on the other hand, they’re supporting the bill and saying that fuel resilience is a good idea. So I’m not quite sure where they stand on it, but what I can say that we have experienced situations where our fuel resilience has been tested, and the previous member Barbara Kuriger just referred to it.

Last month, there were stories on Radio New Zealand about fuel potentially running out for airlines because there was contamination, and there were people like Cath O’Brien from the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand who were saying that the Government needs to work with the industry to sit down and make some rules about fuel resilience so that there is a guaranteed backstop and we won’t run out of fuel. Also, in December, I remember people were really worried that Christmas might be cancelled because the same thing happened. There was contaminated fuel, and the travel association president, Brent Thomas, made similar noises: “Please, let’s have a proper plan around fuel resilience.”

So people can’t say that the fuel sector doesn’t need to have that when either they need to or they don’t. You either need resilience or you don’t need it, and, in my view, failing to plan is planning to fail.

What this bill does is it, basically, provides a flexible plan which is responsive. It means that decisions can be made by the Commerce Commission that respond to what is happening in the environment and by the triggering events, but that is also clear enough to know that there will be enough fuel available.

So if the people listening are confused, I think we need to know: do we need resilience? If we do, then let’s support the bill; if we don’t, then don’t. I can’t tell what the National Party wants to do, because they’ve got a bob both ways. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

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

Instruction to Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I move, That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 August 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

It is important that this bill is passed quickly with shortened select committee and report-back periods. Fuel resilience is clearly a significant matter as it is essential to keep our people connected and our businesses running. Recent jet fuel issues in Auckland late last year and Wellington earlier this year have highlighted the importance of having a resilient and robust fuel supply chain and the impact that a disruption can have on the wider economy. We need to provide assurance to fuel consumers that the fuel companies are managing their fuel stocks and supply chains properly.

The insight that this bill affords the Government over fuel company stockholdings is critical for providing that assurance that consumers need. The stockholding itself is another critical aspect that serves to provide customers with added reassurance that when an incident affecting fuel supplies occurs, there will be adequate fuel stocks in New Zealand to manage the incident. The bill is a key tool for the Government to keep clear oversight of the fuel companies’ stockholding levels and contingency plans and it should be passed as quickly as possible.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 August 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Fuel Industry Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, when this debate was last interrupted, we were up to the split calls. So—

Tāmati Coffey: I’d like to take it, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Tāmati Coffey.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Can I say that the work that’s been done on this particular bill is going to help New Zealanders all across the country.

We know that as we’re facing rampant cost of living pressures. New Zealanders are going to the supermarket, they’re going to the gas pumps, and they are hurting in the pocket. So we need to do as much as we can to relieve the pressures that New Zealand families are facing.

By small amendments like what is being suggested in this bill, we’re going to not only help them at the pump to, hopefully, achieve a better and more competitive market when it comes to fuel but also be able to implement some of the recommendations from the Commerce Commission’s market study, which is something which this Government were really passionate about enabling the Commerce Commission to be able to do.

Now, in 2019, they released their fuel market study. They said that the engine fuel companies have been making higher profits than what would be expected in a normally competitive market, and, for that reason, this bill has ended up in the House. The Act is going to include a terminal gate price regime which promotes new entry and expansion by existing players into the wholesale fuel market. The Commerce Commission also recommended the development of a regulatory backstop to the terminal gate price regime, which would be implemented by this bill. Hopefully, the settings are right for us to open up competition in the market so that fuel users, New Zealanders all across the country with their cars, will be able rock up to their local station and be able to get, hopefully, the best possible price.

What we’re doing is trying to create a fair market because the market, we believe, on this side of the House, hasn’t been as fair as it could be to date. We thank the Commerce Commission for its market study, we thank the people that have submitted into this, as well, and I commend it to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I stand to take a call on the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill. As my colleague Tāmati Coffey has just spoken, it will provide help all across the country. When I was reading through what this bill is going to do, what interested me is that we are going to have a wholesale spot price that is published and, after a certain period of time, if there is a concern around it, the Commerce Commission can step in and have the power to take a look at what is happening. I think that this is something for everybody who puts fuel in at the pump—and we look at what is actually happening with petrol prices across the country. What you pay can depend on where you live, and even in a region like Hawke’s Bay, there are a number of different places you can buy petrol and yet it is different across the region.

By having this new legislation, it’s going to make sure that we all keep everybody in check. And I think it’s also something that we can do when you look at the good, how we have monitored the drop in the 25c a litre tariff on fuel when we have been reducing it during this period of time of the cost of living crisis. I don’t think that we will see petrol companies wanting to be investigated, so I think that this is sending them a strong message. And we should see, over this period of time, competition improve and the price of fuel become more competitive. So, on that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Isn’t it interesting that we’ve just had a bill where speaker after speaker referred to the “just transition” and spoke about how we were “racing towards a fossil fuel - free future”, and then, immediately after passing that bill on to a select committee, they’re here in the House talking about a bill that is going to encourage competition in the delivery of fossil fuels to New Zealanders.

This just points out the complete confusion that the current Government has in their energy policy. On the one hand, big, big raps a few years ago for shutting down the oil and gas industry offshore in New Zealand; then creating a circumstance where oil refinery was disposed of; talking constantly about how we had this “just transition” going on, mentioning things like hydrogen fuel, etc.; and then suddenly realising that, actually, even with all the work that’s been done in hydrogen, we don’t have it available just yet, so what is there?

We had one member talking about how his car broke down in the 1970s inside the Mount Victoria Tunnel. Well, every car will be broken down if these guys keep going the way they are.

This is a nonsense bill. It will have absolutely no effect. It’s designed to fool New Zealanders into thinking that, somehow, the market study that the Labour Party did using the Commerce Commission is having some effect. It’s not. There will always be the fact, now, because of their policy, we are so dependent on foreign oil supplies that determines the price that New Zealanders pay for fossil fuels. It’s a ridiculous bill, and while we were happy to see it perhaps discussed with a select committee—

Matt Doocey: No, we’ll oppose it, I think.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh we’re opposing this? OK, I think we should, because it’s complete rubbish. It’s a filler; it’s just the Labour Party filling up time to get to a little bit more of an appearance of actually doing something. It’s unreal. So we’re not going to support that.

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

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

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill, which is finishing its second reading tonight, and this is quite timely for me in my seat of Nelson, as the local MP. One of the matters that has been recently raised with me is the issue that we face across the country with a range of fuel prices, and there has been a lot of commentary over many years and evidence to show that those of us who live in the South Island often pay a higher price for our fuel. I must say, even with additions of things like the regional fuel tax in Auckland, fuel was still more expensive in my electorate of Nelson than it was in Auckland.

This is one of the reasons why in 2019, the Government conducted a market study into fuel pricing, and what it showed was that there are a number of markets that operate in a similar way. We’ve also been looking recently at the supermarket industry, and in the past, the previous Labour Government—the fifth Labour Government—looked at the telecommunications industry, where we often see a real tension and challenge between the wholesale part of the market and then the retailers. This is what this bill is seeking to address. When we have markets that don’t provide for new entrants to be able to enter easily, it does require the Government to act, and it’s appropriate that the Government does intervene at that point. We know at the moment that with the cost of living being the way it is, one of the particular challenges we face is around the cost of fuel and the impact that that has not only on household budgets but also on businesses that rely on fuel in order to transport their goods, and there are the challenges that that brings.

So I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that the bill specifically does. What it does is it introduces what’s called a terminal gate price, known otherwise throughout the select committee report—it is a nice acronym; I think perhaps I might need to talk to them about my plain language bill—as the TGP. The bill specifically looks at the terminal gate price for the wholesale fuel market, and so what this regime does is it requires the wholesale fuel suppliers to publicly post the price on which they would sell a specified engine fuel to wholesale customers on a spot basis. So what that does is ensure that there’s transparency around those prices.

It’s one of the things that I think causes people a lot of frustration, and, certainly, this comes through to me as the local MP in Nelson—how do we get to the point where we have prices the way that they are? So allowing that transparency is a very important part of the regime that we are introducing through this bill.

The other point is the ability for the bill to allow the Commerce Commission to recommend price regulation of these—apologies for the acronym—TGPs. One of the matters relating to this is to ensure that if it is appropriate, the Commerce Commission can intervene. We’ve certainly seen over the last couple of years, with the cost of living, a significant increase in fuel prices due to issues in Ukraine, in particular. But we’re also mindful as a Government that it’s important that we have that transparency and that we do have that ability to intervene when we need to.

This is an excellent bill. It is one of the ways in which our Government is focused on the cost of living for New Zealanders. It is ensuring that our markets operate in the interests of New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, we now move to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

Introduction

CLERK: Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill, introduction.

First Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 11 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there will be a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The Rugby World Cup is one of the most significant events in the rugby calendar. Supporting the All Blacks and coming together with family, friends, and the community to watch live matches is a special part of being a New Zealander. The bill will make it easier for New Zealanders to enjoy the men’s Rugby World Cup by allowing eligible licence holders to extend their premises’ trading hours to televise matches from the tournament without applying for a special licence.

The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act sets maximum trading hours for on-licence and club licence premises—so I’m talking about bars, pubs, restaurants, hotels, and clubrooms around the country. Those maximum times fall between 8 in the morning and 4 a.m. the next morning. Many premises have shorter trading hours than this, established by the local alcohol policies or as a condition of their individual licence.

This year, the Rugby World Cup will be played in France. Time zone differences mean that many matches will be broadcast outside the maximum trading hours for pubs and clubs. For an event as important as the Rugby World Cup, we want to make sure that New Zealanders have options for enjoying live matches whilst also supporting the hospitality sector, and this is what this bill does. I acknowledge that licence holders can apply for a special licence to extend trading hours for events. This process works well most of the time. However, I understand the licence holders can find it difficult to use the special licence process for televised Rugby World Cup tournaments. For example, the 20-day application process can present real challenges when the public demand for watching the matches in the later stages for the tournament is unpredictable. The special licence process is not well suited or flexible enough in these circumstances where licence holders require a responsive process. Licence holders can also find it difficult to meet special licence criteria, as case law holds that televised events should be subject to additional measures of control, such as presale tickets, a door charge, or a maximum cap on attendees. I understand that case law can be applied inconsistently, making it difficult to predict whether or not an application will be successful when a publican applies.

This bill is based on the amendments made for the 2015 and the 2019 Rugby World Cup, which were also played in the Northern Hemisphere. The bill exempts eligible licence holders from the special licence process and creates a notification system instead, where licence holders provide written notice to police and to their local councils. Not all licence holders will be eligible to extend their trading hours. The bill only applies to current on-licence and club licence holders that have not had their licence suspended or cancelled in the last year. Extended trading hours only apply to premises that will televise a live match. Extended hours will be treated as the premises’ usual trading hours. This means most of the other provisions of the Act will continue to apply, including those relating to host responsibilities. The general offences under the Act and police powers to shut down premises where appropriate will of, course, continue to apply.

To minimise harm and reduce disruption during extended trading hours, the bill includes extra conditions that licence holders must fulfil if they want their trading hours extended. For example, licence holders will need to notify their local council and police at least seven days prior to the extended hours taking place, and also provide a noise management plan. They will also be required to stop selling alcohol 30 minutes after the end of the match. We’ve done this twice before now, so we have the benefit of drawing on previous experiences. This time around, we’re making it clear that licence holders must tell police and local councils if they change their minds about televising a match. We’re also asking police to keep track of details about how many licence holders take up this opportunity to extend their trading hours. This will strengthen police’s ability to plan and manage resources effectively and improve our ability to monitor and evaluate the impact of the amendments.

We’re committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders can enjoy the 2023 Rugby World Cup safely and responsibly. This bill provides a practical and administratively straightforward solution. It takes an appropriate balance between providing licence holders with the certainty and flexibility they need and supporting communities to cheer their team on whilst also minimising any potential harm.

On this side of myself [gestures to the left], I am about a fourth-generation Frenchie, so, “Oui, oui!”, go the French; but on this side [gestures to the right], mostly, a New Zealander, so up the All Blacks! I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I stand and take a call. This the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. Look, the Minister Kiritapu Allan covered it off very well, as, you know, it was an amazing experience for us as a country to get behind and support our Black Ferns in winning the Women’s Rugby World Cup. I was lucky enough to be at the ground, watching the final. It’s probably one of the tensest games I’ve ever watched, when, of course, the English had very good forwards and were keeping it in the forwards and mauling the ball and were sort of using that tactic, and all of a sudden our Black Ferns came alive and started the ball moving out wide. They never gave in. They dug in, and the country was extremely proud of the result that they delivered for us. Rugby is, essentially, a very important game. It’s part of our culture here in New Zealand. And, of course, the next Rugby World Cup is going to be played in France.

I see the Hon Peeni Henare across the way there, one of our top midfield backs in the Parliamentary Rugby Team, a hard-running and hitting back and a very strong defender, who has been part of the Parliamentary Rugby Team over many years—he played for, defended, and won the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup. Unfortunately, neither of us are going to be there this year, because we are in the regulated period for a general election. But I wish our team all the best for travelling to France and defending the cup.

So, look, we’re very happy to support the bill. I do want to acknowledge too our shadow Leader of the House, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who has agreed to a shortened report-back period. We’ve agreed to that, obviously because time is of the essence and we have to get this bill passed. It’s not a new bill. We did this in 2019. It’s a good, practical bill, and we’re very happy to support it in the House. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s also a pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I am not the tallest or broadest in stature, so it may surprise some to know that at primary school my lunchtimes were spent playing wing in schoolyard rugby at Thorndon Primary School, just down the road. I’ll tell you it was a real sense, for me, of community and camaraderie when we got together and watched the All Blacks play or I watched the All Blacks with my dad. It is a very strong part of our culture here in Aotearoa.

I am a fan of rugby, but I am also a fan of ensuring that we do have sound regulation in the alcohol area as well. But I must say I do believe one of the best places to ensure good regulation is with licensed premises owners, because they do have those obligations to ensure that they are not selling to minors, that the people there are drinking responsibly, and that if anything turns, they alert the police or have a conversation with people. So when you are working with great licensed providers, it is possible to go out, enjoy a beer, and watch a game.

I think we also need to think about who we’re talking about when we’re talking about extending the time lines for licence holders. I go to the local RSA on Anzac Day, and they open the bar after the Anzac Day service. Again, it’s a real sense of community and camaraderie, and, up until April 2016, those RSAs used to have to apply for special licences. At the time, it was recognised that, actually, all of these RSAs were applying for licences and all of them were presumed to be granted them in due course, so it was really a matter of streamlining things to say that they could have access to extended hours over that Anzac Day service period. There are a lot of similarities in terms of what this bill is trying to do.

To my mind, what we need to make sure of is that we are being responsible in terms of providing the safeguards around those extended licences. I won’t speak to those, because the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, has covered those very well. I know we have a shortened time period to hear from submitters on this, but, as the chair of the Justice Committee, I am looking forward to hearing submissions from those interested parties. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just acknowledging the last member’s contribution, Vanushi Walters, to put on the record that it was Paul Foster-Bell, actually—a fine National MP—who put through the bill which allowed what they called the “gunfire breakfast” now on Anzac Day. So a bit of a shout out to Paul Foster-Bell and to continue to put his name into Hansard.

As has already been said, this side of the House, the National Party, supports this bill. I mean, part of the reason and my own thinking is we’ve been here before. I think 2019 and 2015 we have passed pretty much the same, if not near similar, legislation. I think the Minister outlined the reasoning is sound. This is an exceptional law change for an exceptional event—and you can use the word “exceptional” in two different ways if you wish. But we are talking about the men’s Rugby World Cup—so that’s in September this year. It’s very obvious that people will want to watch this. It’s at a time of night when most trading places are closing. So the idea put forward is sensible. I think it’s one that Kiwis will be quite happy with.

Importantly for me, this is about existing licence holders. These are people who already operate alcohol licences—by and large, very, very well. The bill as set down as well means that these licence holders will have to engage with police, notify them of what they’re doing—obviously, noise control measures and so forth.

But I return to my second point. The first point, of course, is Paul Foster-Bell, just to put his name in Hansard again. But the second point, rather, was that this is something that we’ve done before, in 2019 and 2015, and we didn’t have any problems. So I see this as a very prudent piece of legislation, a very good piece of legislation. And I add, as others have done, which seems to be the way, I am even happy that we have a shortened report-back period. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. Now, it is something that I really feel quite strongly about—we have had such a triumphant following for women’s rugby. It has been truly tremendous, and we all rallied around that. Therefore, it is time. It is time that we supported the men’s game as we have supported the women’s game. It is time that we gave that sort of gender equity to it. Although we are unable to have the privilege of the games taking place in New Zealand, we need to encourage people to follow the male game as we have done the women’s game, and, therefore, I do really support the changes in this legislation, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

As previous speakers have said, we have a template that has worked in the past, and it is one that we are able to take and better. In particular, we are making a few changes. We are enabling one hour open before the game begins; if you notify that the game is going to start within two hours of another game, then you will be allowed to continue that on; you have to stop serving alcohol within 30 minutes after the game; and a few small amendments are going to make this work better.

I really do, however, want to commend the Minister of Justice for taking this on, because I know how important gender equity is to her, and I really want to support her for supporting the men’s game, as we are now doing.

As a child, I played absolutely no rugby—in fact, any game involving balls. By the time I was 15, I was, in fact, exempt from all physical education and was allowed to read a book on the sidelines. But that being so, I acknowledge the need for diversity and for the encouragement of cultural activity. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): While I’m tempted, there are some places I just won’t go to.

I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to support the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill, although it is a bit of a hospital pass, having been left to the last minute, and when we were given this, we were told that there could be some last-minute changes made by Cabinet to the starting line-up of this bill and we don’t know whether or not they actually intend to spin it wide. But we wouldn’t have needed to rush the bill if the Government had just listened to ACT’s Damien Smith, who, on the day after St Patrick’s Day—that’s right, 18 March 2023—gave the Government our Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. Our shamrock here even named the bill for this Government, who just added “2023” to the end of it, just to make sure that it was in there twice. Damien Smith gave the Government an easy kick, right in front of the sticks, allowing them to take home the bonus point for the hospitality sector.

The Government dropped the ball back in March, and they should have formed a rolling maul and rumbled our bill over the line. Instead, they panicked and they kicked for touch, leaving our hospitality sector wondering if they were being penalised for a knock on. In March, we outlined how our hospitality sector has been affected by the last three years of yellow and red cards from this Government, and how our bill would help give certainty to these sectors to plan and to participate in a full legislative process as to what the temporary change during Rugby World Cup 2023 would mean to them. As David Seymour said back in 2015—which the Government copied in 2019—getting on to this set piece play back in March would have scored more points with the hospitality sector, if anything, to allow them to plan their moves, get their reserves lined up, and get set for kick-off.

Instead, the New Zealand hospitality sector has to deal with a Government who is addicted to spending and addicted to urgent legislation. There was no need for urgency here. As at 1.30 p.m. today, there was no regulatory impact statement, nor a departmental disclosure statement, although I see it’s on the Table now. This Government needs to spend the rest of the game in the sin bin.

Analogies aside—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was about to take a “razor” to your speech, actually, Ms McKee. But we might spend some time on the bill, shall we?

NICOLE McKEE: We’re on the bill now, Mr Speaker. This bill will make some temporary amendments because the Rugby World Cup is scheduled to run between 9 September and 29 October in France. One wonders whether there could be extensions offered for 15 October for some, but it’s not Rugby World Cup for that allowance.

It will allow those already with licences to apply to expand their trading hours when they televise games, but they can be restricted by local alcohol policies as well as district licensing committee rules and determinations. The primary and sole purpose for opening during these hours are just to allow customers to watch a live, televised game. Currently, it can take 20 working days to allow this to happen, but this bill will mean that they can go through under quicker time.

If their trading licence has actually been cancelled in the last 12 months, they won’t be able to apply. So, as my colleagues have said, it’s for existing licences and existing businesses, and there must be a provision for police and territorial authorities (TAs) to be given seven days’ notice of any changes that they want to make in writing.

There needs to be a noise management plan, as well as a requirement to notify police and TAs if there are any other changes to them, say, not opening should they get into a position where—I don’t want to jinx it—there is not a requirement to stay open for the full length, to 29 October. But also the police can shut it down—the bars, that is, not the cup—if they need to, if things get a bit out of hand.

So there are only a couple of little changes within the bill. These look pretty good. For example, they can open an hour before a game, but if they are actually still open two hours before a game, they can stay open. They must shut 30 minutes after a game has finished, and the one-way door policies won’t apply within an hour before the extended trading. Police will also be keeping records of scale and demand, which will be quite good for future world cups, although we do notice that the next world cup is going to be in Australia in 2027.

So, temporary this bill is. Therefore, for the final whistle on this first reading, we commend the bill to the House.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I didn’t want to interrupt the member whilst she was in full flow, but I just wish to correct the record. I said that the Government kicked the ball to touch, but, of course, we didn’t. It was a field goal, with that three points getting us over the line to get to this point here—a mighty touchdown.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister, for that enlightenment.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It pains me to stand up and to break the consensus and the joy that has broken out across the House. If this legislation calls for anything, it is for a sense of consistency. As far as that goes, members in this place who were here last term will know that the Greens voted down similar legislation back in 2019. So if members are interested in a nuanced discussion about that, well, buckle up.

So what we’re talking about today, and many have contributed to this debate, is particularly the men’s Rugby World Cup, as the case has it. This legislation, in fact, about licensing and alcohol licensing, is obviously within the context of the Rugby World Cup, but fundamentally it is about access and availability of alcohol—Aotearoa New Zealand’s favourite drug, consumed by 80 percent of those of the age to do so, a quarter of them to really harmful ends. As this House has canvased in many debates previously, we do have quite a problem in this country with regards to how deeply intertwined sports and alcohol is. That, of course, is why the former National Government back in 2014 commissioned the ministerial forum, chaired by Sir Graham Lowe, recommending, for example, an end to alcohol advertising and sponsorship of sports, but I digress.

What many speakers have actually touched on is the fact that we are seeing this kind of legislation become ever more frequent. I think that there is an inherent problem with that when we have a kind of predictability of what is fundamentally quite an ad hoc approach and as, actually, my learned colleague from the ACT Party just raised, the fact that this was tabled in lightning speed and that the House is now passing it just as quickly. To that effect, I think that all of us would agree that there is perhaps the need for some greater interrogation of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, because if we are consistently needing to have this exceptional law change in these circumstances, then perhaps, much like the circumstance with Anzac services, as raised by Vanushi Walters, then it is the case that we need to go about interrogating and fixing the law itself.

But at present, we do have a mechanism for those who would like to be open for these hours for the likes of the Rugby World Cup or for other special events, as the case may be. That, of course, is for licence holders to apply to get a special licence to the district licensing committee. Interestingly enough, if the district licensing committee finds that they do not want to grant a special licence, then they are finding that overall that application is inconsistent with the purposes of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Mr Speaker, I hope you get where I am going here. It is ultimately about how we can provide these special licences in such a way as to potentially reduce harm.

There is actually no evidence at this point in time—and to that effect, I’m really interested in what comes through in the Justice Committee process—that there is a widespread problem with the special licensing process. Again, if it is the case that there is a problem with the way that these special licensing provisions work, then we need to go about changing the primary legislation, which of course we have an opportunity to, and I would hope that all of the House agrees on.

But just reflecting on some of the things that I’ve been speaking to local police about in my electorate of Auckland Central, as many others have touched on, it is actually the case that the police in my patch tell me that the biggest issue that they deal with is alcohol and unruly patrons of certain hospitality venues, and therefore they are massively encouraging of a better regulatory environment for the control of alcohol as, again, a drug, if we’re to speak freely and frankly, to which I would hope that all members in this House have consistency on when it comes to evidence-based approaches.

So, for sake of consistency, the Greens will be opposing this tonight, but we’d say once again that if there is a need to consistently bring legislation like this whenever there is a men’s Rugby World Cup or a Women’s Rugby World Cup, as the case may be, then it’s the case that we need to amend the primary legislation, because otherwise we are at risk of continuing to operate in an ad hoc way that, ironically and perversely, becomes all too predictable.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Good on Chlöe Swarbrick. That was a difficult speech to give, after consensus and joyfulness had burst out in the House and we’d just given a round of speeches about how good rugby is. Is rugby good?

Hon Members: Yes!

ARENA WILLIAMS: Is getting together in the clubrooms good? Yes. And we support that all around this House. But that was a difficult speech to give because it is about balancing access to alcohol in those clubrooms in a sport we all love, and in the community organisations that we all support in this House, and so I commend her for what was a measured approach to her speech. I don’t agree with her, though; I think this a good bill, because this is a bill which is pragmatic. It extends those powers that we have extended before, to make sure that the game we love and the clubrooms that we love continue in the way that we love to enjoy it, as New Zealanders.

This bill extends those powers and it introduces some new controls that give police powers to make sure that those records are kept well and that we can continue to enjoy this in a way which is fun for everyone. That’s how we should continue to make alcohol policy—we should continue to make it fun for everyone and be able to enjoy it in our communities so it’s not harming people. This is a bill that does that, that’s why it’s good. I commend it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party, as has been said before, supports this piece of legislation, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. It is so good to be able to work at a bipartisan level on this issue, and so often the House comes together to work together on these matters, with the exception of the Greens, who very much cleave to the principle that it’s not good for you unless it hurts and that fun is to be discouraged. That’s the approach they have, and that’s a pity, but most New Zealanders, I think, hold to the view that it’s nice to be able to celebrate the Rugby World Cup once every four years. It doesn’t fit with the normal licensing requirements for bars—often the games are early in the morning—and so some flexibility is required.

You could have a very large pile of applications for all sorts of special licences, or what we’ve found in the past is that it’s simpler to pass some legislation to deal with this issue. We support them in doing that, and in doing so we stand here, I’m sure, all people in the House, wishing our rugby players all the best in the competition, that they’ll do well, and that they’ll do this country proud. I don’t feel like there’s anything more that needs to be added here other than to say—

Hon Member: Go another round!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well—no, I won’t say anything about shareholdings or anything like that; I’ll just say, in a moment of cross-party unity, that we support this bill and we want to get on with it.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Let’s not talk about airport shares. Let’s not talk about fiscal holes. Let’s talk about none of that stuff. We’re here to talk about rugby. Can I just say that the purpose of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act is all about the management of intoxication of people. It’s all about reducing the harm to society. This bill, in that context, is incredibly safe.

Can I give a little bit of an acknowledgment to those on-licence holders out there spread all across the country that it is their daily business to run a bar, to run a restaurant, and alcohol is sold. Those people, the ones that have to apply for their licence and have to maintain the conditions of their licence, have to monitor intoxication, they have to provide food, they have to provide non-alcoholic beverages, and they have to provide water on-site as well, and that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Despite the fact that we are freeing up a bit of legislation, those places that are going to apply to be able to view the game, have punters come and watch the game at all hours of the night, will be doing what they always do, which is monitor the intoxication levels within the premises and also reduce the harm to society.

I think it’s a safe piece of legislation. We’ve put the belt and braces around it, and it’s good to hear that it’s mostly supported around the House. I commend it.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to also take a short call on this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. First of all, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate our local Ruahei Demant, who is a former Mahurangi College student, for receiving the New Zealand Order of Merit, in the recent King’s Birthday Honours round, for her services to rugby. Most recently, of course, she co-captained the Black Ferns to win the Women’s Rugby World Cup in 2022. My congratulations, on the record, for that.

This particular piece of legislation is very straightforward, as has been mentioned before. It, basically, fixes something that was previously fixed in 2015 and 2019 so that licensed premises can stay open during the Rugby World Cup matches later this year, when they kick off in France in September. I do acknowledge some of the hesitation that has been mentioned by the Green speaker previously, Chlöe Swarbrick, but for people to come together and enjoy a game, sitting in front of a big screen, and having that facilitated in a very confined, temporary measure is, I think, a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well, everyone dreams of coming to Parliament and talking about rugby, racing, and beer—oh, not the racing; rugby and beer. Where better could you get than this to talk about the things we were brought up on? I’m not at all musical, but many of you—not many of you, actually—will remember John Clarke, very famous; known alias Fred Dagg. All he could sing about was rugby, racing, and beer, and Taihape and gumboots. I think it just shows that—I suppose it’s what New Zealand’s made of, and it’s what we make of what we’re made of that’s important.

I just want to touch on a couple of things said by other speakers. Of course, there is a Rugby World Cup going on during the election campaign this year. I did offer my services to Mark Mitchell, but he turned me down—never had a reply. So, obviously, they don’t want my talent there.

But the other thing I thought was really intriguing tonight was the Green speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, talking about how they voted something down. My recollection of the Greens is that in the history of the Greens, they’ve never voted anything down in this Parliament, because they’ve never put themselves in a position to vote anything down, so that clearly was never going to happen. I think that probably sums up what we need to have in this Parliament. We need to have people who are prepared to take a stand on things and take a stand that they can win, not a stand that they lose every time. I think that’s really important.

I want to talk, just before I get on to the things that really matter with respect to this bill, about rugby in New Zealand, because I think it’s hugely concerning that the sport that I grew up, I guess, playing, loving, going to every Saturday—and still do, as often as I can, on a Saturday. The difference is that when I played and when I chaired a rugby club, not that many years ago, there were 13 senior teams in Manawatū Rugby. There are now seven. There are now seven colts teams in Manawatū Rugby. Massey University used to have 14 of them. I think that’s the great tragedy we’re seeing with sports that we’ve known for so long. So you’ve got to ask yourself whether it’s just the changing times that make a difference to these sort of things or whether, in fact, the administration of some of our sports is not what it could be.

I, unlike Mark Mitchell and Peeni Henare, never reached international standards, but I think that the key to all sports in New Zealand, and the key to racing in New Zealand, and the key to everything else we do in New Zealand is the people at the base and the grassroots of all of these activities. If we don’t have those people encouraged and doing what they can do, we won’t have any sport at all in due course. I think one of the keys of this bill, really, is enabling those people who enjoy sport, who like what goes on, who enjoy competition, who enjoy New Zealand being successful, actually, who want to participate in the activities that will be enabled by this bill passing—that’s the key to sport in New Zealand. So I think if it does nothing else, this bill, it does give many of those people who participate actively in administration and supporting sportspeople in New Zealand the opportunity to participate in an international event of significance. So I think that’s the key to the bill.

Just one other thing I want to talk about and which has been touched on by a couple of others, including Chlöe Swarbrick: I think that the fact we’ve had to bring this bill back to the House three times now signals to me that there’s something wrong with our alcohol law in New Zealand. I think it’s urgent that we reform all of the alcohol law in New Zealand. In fact, we’ve had a number of alcohol bills in this Parliament—probably four or five of them now—that have come through because our base legislation doesn’t deal with the issues.

Tāmati Coffey himself talked about the responsibility of licence holders. Licence holders, really, are the key to upholding all of this stuff. They are the key to our law and order officials and our police having less to do, having less problem with what goes on as a result of alcohol. There’s no doubt that consuming alcohol in licensed premises is vastly superior to consuming alcohol in a boy racer’s car down my street, which happens just about every Saturday night—in fact, it does happen every Saturday night. You can clean up the mess if you want to, but it’s really important, I think, that we encourage those licence holders—there must be thousands of them throughout New Zealand—and give them the power to operate as they see fit, but make sure they’re compliant.

I think that when we do look to review the alcohol laws in New Zealand, we do look to put more emphasis or onus on the people that control these entities and dispense alcohol throughout New Zealand. That, in my view, will take a lot of the onus off our law and order community and also, probably, take a fair bit of damage off our streets. So I think there’s a reason for us to look beyond what’s going on with this bill and a couple of others we’ve got in the House this week, and make sure that if we do reform this, it does cater for all these sort of things.

So I clearly support the direction this bill takes. As I said, we’ve had two previous bills of this nature through the House, and I think it will add a lot to the event. I probably won’t be out there at 4 o’clock in the morning myself; a bit too late at night for me. I might be up by then. Anyway, I support the bill, and National clearly supports the bill, and I think it’s a good thing for New Zealand.

ANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour): Thank you e te Mana Whakawā. It’s my honour to score the final try, the winning try, on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the last speaker, Ian McKelvie. You should have given him a penalty, Mr Speaker, for comparing rugby to racing. But anyway, you didn’t do that.

I’m taking a short call on this, because I know if I go over time the whip’s definitely going to give me a drop kick. Anyway, this, basically, means that the Rugby World Cup 2023, when it kicks off in France—and I just want to take us to the Tongan game because I’m not biased by anything, not biased at all, so when Tonga plays Ireland on 16 September at 7 in the morning, it means retailers can open up at 5 in the morning, you know, to welcome all the Tongans and all their flags into the pub. And we will be there until we win the game against Ireland, and half an hour after the final whistle—we’ll be there. So that’s what this bill really means. And I want to actually take us to 6 October; that will be Tonga versus South Africa at 8 a.m. It means pubs can open up at 6 a.m. to welcome the Tongans to, you know, look at that final winning try by the Tongans. Last but not least, it means that on election day—the first quarter-final is on election day, 14 October, the first game’s at 8 in the morning. It means that publicans can open at 6 a.m. to welcome people in, on election day, before they cast their vote.

Anyway, I don’t want to go over time. What we want in this bill is that we want the line-outs on the field, not the line-up at the police station. And I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 11 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There’s no requirement for a point of order, Minister. The question is that the motion be agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Deposit Takers Bill

Second Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I present a legislative statement on the Deposit Takers Bill.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That the Deposit Takers Bill be now read a second time.

I want to take this opportunity to thank members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their hard work on the Deposit Takers Bill. It is a piece of legislation that is very important and significant for a number of reasons that I’ll talk about in the coming minutes. But I also want, in light of the recent outbreak of unity across the House—or near unity—in the last piece of legislation, just to credit all members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the way in which they undertook their work on this bill. They made a number of changes that I believe are both important but also in keeping with the spirit of the legislation, and I do acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee members for doing that.

Just to recap briefly, this is the third in the trilogy of pieces of legislation that emerged out of the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that we undertook on first coming into office at the end of 2017. The first two bits of that legislation dealt with the objectives of the Act and the decision-making powers of the Monetary Policy Committee; the structure of the Monetary Policy Committee. Then we moved on to the administrative side of the bank’s operation, including the role of the board of the Reserve Bank. And finally, this piece of legislation, the Deposit Takers Bill. This is a very important bit of legislation in terms of the way that our prudential, and regulation and supervisory environment for our banks—and, indeed, our deposit-taking sector in general—operate. It is a piece of legislation that seeks, in large part, to modernise the way in which this legislation works with respect to deposit takers and with respect to the standards that they operate under.

It also does something that is extremely important, in that it establishes a Depositor Compensation Scheme. I can tell you that earlier in the year, when we saw issues arising with Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse and others, the emails began to come in with increasing regularity from New Zealanders wondering when this piece of legislation would be passed. This is something that is, I would say, beyond time for Parliament to catch up with, and I am very pleased that we had this work well under way so that it can be passed through the House. I hope it will move swiftly through the House from this point and then be able to come into operation fully next year, once some of the further consultation work by deposit takers is done. It is important that New Zealanders have confidence in the financial system in which they put their money. They can have confidence in that system; it is a robust system—it has been analysed time and time again to be so—but that does not stop people wanting the confidence that there is some kind of backstop scheme for their deposits. And that is precisely what the Deposit Compensation Scheme is designed to do.

I’ll just spend a little bit of time on this aspect of the legislation before returning to talk about a couple of the amendments that the select committee made that, I believe, are very important ones. I note that the absence of a deposit protection or compensation scheme is something that’s been on the agenda for some time and something that many New Zealanders would want. We are, in fact, one of only two OECD countries without some form of deposit protection scheme, and establishing this scheme is a major element of the reform process I mentioned at the beginning. What the scheme does is it aims to stabilise New Zealand’s financial system by providing each eligible depositor with $100,000 of compensation protection for their protected deposit at each deposit taker. The estimate we’ve had is that this will cover more than 90 percent of depositors. Broadly speaking, compensation will be payable when a deposit taker is in difficulty that causes disruption to the ability of eligible depositors to access their protected deposits.

As most people will understand, setting up a fund like this requires it to be funded, and that will be done by charging levies to those deposit takers. This is backed up by public funds should the balance of the Deposit Compensation Scheme fund be insufficient to meet its compensation obligations. It is a significant new function for the Reserve Bank, and I think we should acknowledge that, as the Reserve Bank now has the role of collecting levies, managing the fund, determining entitlements, and making compensation payments. But it is an important further rung in making sure that people are aware of what is needed when it comes to protecting our financial system. I think most submitters were in support of the legislation in this respect, but it is going to take a little bit more time to make sure it’s fully put in place as banks finalise the way in which they make their payments, they make their levies, and the Reserve Bank puts the scheme together. But we are now moving to put ourselves in line with the rest of the world when it comes to these sorts of schemes, and I do think it’s something, on this side of the House, we’re proud to be able to bring forward—albeit acknowledging that our financial system and the health of our financial system is sound. There always has to be a worst-case scenario plan, and this is it.

I would note that, in the recent past when New Zealanders have been faced with financial institutions that have collapsed or have, in some way or other, not performed as they had hoped, they did look to the Government to find a way to support them rather than having to deal with that in an ad hoc way. What this legislation does is ensure that we have a comprehensive scheme that deals with the way in which that will play out. So, on that particular clause of the bill, I am very proud to see it come forward. A number of the other provisions in the bill are, essentially, addressing recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund when they reviewed New Zealand’s financial regulations in the 2016-17 year. That creates a broader framework for regulation and supervision of our deposit takers. In doing so, it elaborates the objectives for a new regime, modernises the licensing processes, provides for a range of prudential standards, expands the suite of supervisory and enforcement tools, and improves the crisis management and resolution framework. All of these might sound technical to people that are out there, but it is, essentially, the underpinning of the schemes that New Zealanders put their money in—and they need to have confidence that, at every stage and at every level, there is proper supervision and proper regulation around that.

I think, again, that both the work that we did through the review and the work that the committee has done has ensured that that framework is now in place and does give confidence to New Zealanders about the way in which that work will be done. The Reserve Bank itself has its objectives as a prudential regulator enhanced by this legislation, as it did when we did work on its monetary policy role in that regard as well. It also modernises licensing to ensure, essentially, that the deposit takers themselves are able to move reasonably swiftly through that process. As I said before, it strengthens a number of standards that are required in order to meet the prudential rules of the Reserve Bank. Areas where standards may relate to include governance, remuneration of directors and senior managers, capital liquidity, security interests, credit ratings, loan concentration, risk exposure, risk management disclosure, and internal controls and assurance. All of those are things that, essentially, happen behind the scenes at a bank or a deposit taker, but they’re areas where we do need greater confidence, and I’m very pleased to be able to see them come through in this legislation as well.

I just want to finish by reflecting on really the critical changes that I think the Finance and Expenditure Committee have made, in particular the changes to the purpose and principles clauses that the committee has made around, essentially, proportionality but also ensuring accessibility of financial products and services. This is important because, along with making sure that we have a sound financial system and one in which the public can have confidence, we also want to make sure that the public have access as well. So there is now a new subclause within the purpose clause that says, “to the extent not inconsistent with [those soundness and safety objectives] to support New Zealanders having reasonable access to financial products and services provided by the deposit-taking sector.” I regard that as a very significant and important change that the committee have advocated for.

That’s then backed up as we move through the clauses of the bill into the principle section, where a new principle has been added saying that the deposit-taking sector comprises “a diversity of institutions to provide access to financial products and services to a diverse range of New Zealanders.” That, again, is important. While we all know—and it’s laid out and in the hierarchy of the Act—that having a safe and sound financial system is the goal of this legislation, adding to that the fact that, within that, accessibility is important and that a diversity of institutions provide services to a diverse range of New Zealanders, I think, enhances this legislation, makes it more relevant for the times we live in, and I want to thank, again, the committee for that work that they did.

In the interests of time, I won’t be able to go into the proportionality framework, but I know other speakers will do that when they speak. This bill has been—

Hon Member: Yes, we will.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —as I’m sure they will. This bill has been improved by the select committee, I think it is an important piece of legislation, and I look forward to its swift passage from here into law.

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

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Deposit Takers Bill, and National will be supporting this bill. Like the Minister said, this is one of the few occasions where a committee has worked genuinely to try and get a better outcome for this specific bill. I think some of the changes that the committee have put forward are very helpful in that regard, so I just want to acknowledge members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also the submitters that helpfully identified some of the key issues with the original proposed bill.

But, on that note, and just on a wider concept, as the Minister said, this is the third of three changes to the Reserve Bank. Obviously, we’ve had quite a significant restructuring of the Reserve Bank, which is normally done in a bipartisan manner—unfortunately, that hasn’t occurred, which is a concern to us, “us” being National—but this, where we’ve seen changes to the monetary policy framework, general Reserve Bank changes, is the third one around prudential policy. Many people don’t understand what that means, but it’s about putting in place the right financial frameworks, capital adequacy oversight mechanisms, as a regard in this particular bill to financial institutions. But it also relates, in a potential sense, to other institutions such as the insurance sector, and we are concerned about how this is going to be overseen by the Reserve Bank, and particularly the skillset—or in some cases the lack of—by the members of the board of the Reserve Bank, and whether in fact we’ve got the right framework going forward.

But on that note, I just want to turn specifically to this Deposit Takers Bill. As the Minister correctly pointed out, it has some very significant aspects, the first of which is around the protection of deposits up to $100,000. This is something we discussed at length and, as the Minister quite correctly pointed out, New Zealand is an outlier in the sense that we don’t have deposit taker insurance. This has been set at $100,000, which we thought was an appropriate level. What we did do as a committee was exclude foreign money held by New Zealand institutions in foreign bank accounts. It’s an issue that we looked at quite carefully. We wanted to make sure that people weren’t able to use the scheme in a way that wasn’t really about protecting the base $100,000 invested or held by New Zealand banking institutions and non-bank deposit takers. So we put some rules around the $100,000 and just made clear that, if there was a shortfall in the levies, the Minister of Finance could step in and make that shortfall up, which is quite a legislative change, because that would require him or her acting without necessarily having parliamentary scrutiny. But what we did require was that any such actions were subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Also, in terms of the levy itself, we wouldn’t support a levy system that helped promote the idea that people could just recklessly put money on deposit and hope that the scheme was going to benefit them. We would want to make sure that there was no excess cost to depositors. So there’s some rules around that. Obviously, we haven’t seen the rules around how levies are going to be set, but we do want to make sure that they are appropriate, and it will be something we will be monitoring very carefully.

On other issues of this bill, a prime aspect about this was about making sure that the 13 non-bank deposit takers weren’t unduly disadvantaged by an overreach in terms of the Reserve Bank placing restrictions and regulations over the top of them. When I talk about non-bank deposit takers, I’m talking about credit unions; I’m talking about building societies and retail-funded finance companies. These are reputable companies that are subject to Reserve Bank oversight—that, as such, they comprise regulated financial institutions, which has a technical meaning. What we were very concerned about—and I do acknowledge some of the members on the committee—was making sure that they are protected, they are looked after, and they’re not drowned in regulation. Our prime concern was to make sure that, even though the New Zealand banking sector is dominated by four Australian-owned banks, these non-bank deposit takers hold a very important role in terms of the different type of finance they provide—to, in many cases, vulnerable New Zealanders or people who find it more difficult to access traditional forms of finance and banking services. So we were very careful to make sure that the Reserve Bank was mindful of that and had explicit regard for that fact.

In fact, we required that the bank actually set out enough clarity around how it was going to set the standards for those deposit takers. We wanted the bank, and required the bank, to actually publish and keep up to date a proportionality framework. This is very, very important, and I know many people from the non-bank deposit takers were very keenly interested in this point. My personal view is that I think where we’ve ended up with the provisions in this bill is adequate to have regard to proportionality. We’ve made it very clear to the Reserve Bank that they are to have sufficient regard for this, and we’ve made sure in the commentary to the bill that that point is very clearly set out so, if there is any dispute, people will be able to turn and look at that commentary that prefaces the bill and see what the intent of the committee was. That is a very, very important aspect, and I think it’s important that we let the legislation work now and see whether, in fact, we struck the right balance. Of course, we can always come back later and add further provisions if we need to, but my personal view is that, where the committee has landed, it provides enough clarity for people and enough opportunity for people to be involved in that process, to make sure that we get a proportionality framework that is fair and equitable and does deliver different forms of finance to New Zealanders who are seeking such requirements.

Another example of that is that there was a proposal to carry over the credit rating provisions in the previous Act. We said that that may not necessarily be required or appropriate to non-bank deposit takers. There are two aspects to that. We said that, in determining whether the Reserve Bank should impose a credit requirement credit assessment, they should have regard to the size and nature of the deposit taker’s business and, secondly, whether or not the risk of not having a credit rating could be mitigated by applying additional terms or conditions to the exemption—so, again, trying to take a practical aspect to that.

There was also the issue around liability of directors and CEOs. Again, the bill anticipated that directors would be liable for failings if there weren’t proper checks of the information being provided to the Reserve Bank. It wasn’t proper, wasn’t exactly accurate, and the big issue we contested is whether in fact that was appropriate. We’re talking of, in many cases, very large institutions, and directors should be able to rely on senior executives of those institutions, particularly if they’re banks. So, in the context of where a director might potentially be liable up to $1 million, we thought that there needed to be a better balance struck between the liabilities of directors and the ability of directors to be able to rely appropriately and diligently on the efforts and the conclusions of the executive team. It doesn’t absolve directors if they act inappropriately, but it does provide for a reliance on executives, and we made sure that that came through in the bill—and also in respect of foreign-owned companies, where they should be able to rely on CEOs, because in many cases they don’t have directors directly involved in managing those businesses. That was an important component of this bill, and I think another important aspect to it.

We’ve run out of time, but I’m sure my colleagues are going to pick up other parts of this important bill. Thank you very much.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): At the heart of this bill is stability, as we’ve seen after the bank Credit Suisse experience overseas, but also the confidence that that provides to consumers. That’s very clear in the purpose, but I just want to pick up on the point around inclusion, which is something the committee took very seriously.

We started off by hiring an independent adviser with a specialty in financial inclusion, Vijay Kumar, and I really want to thank him for his input into our thinking. When we looked at financial inclusion, it’s quite a vague term, but we were able to dissect it and come up with elements that lead to inclusion, including access and diversity.

As the Minister mentioned, there are two elements to the diversity that we’ve imbedded with our recommendations. One is around diversity of deposit-taking provider or bank; the other is around the diversity of the clientele and of access for all New Zealanders. These are, indeed, really important principles, particularly on this side of the House, where we appreciate that different people have different needs at different times.

The second thing, really, that I wanted to speak about was the proportionality—which, again, has been alluded to by the member opposite, Andrew Bayly—taking into account governance, capital, and liquidity, and so on. I would like to say that the Reserve Bank is the one that will be creating that proportionality framework. We were really mindful that the Reserve Bank were also the advisers to the bill. We wanted to see some accountability, we tossed this around, and we have recommended very strongly in the commentary that we would like to see the Reserve Bank come back to brief the committee of a future Parliament before that framework is finalised.

Now, that’s something that I cannot stress enough, and it’s something that we as a committee took very seriously and we expect to happen. If the proportionality is not as we expect it to be, then we would like to be able to have some oversight of that, or have a future committee do that, to ensure that the proportionality that will make this bill workable will not have a chilling effect on the sector when it comes into play. I am really wanting to put that on the Hansard to ensure that the Reserve Bank does come back and report back prior to the finalisation of that proportionality framework.

Otherwise, it’s fantastic to be working in such a collegial committee. It’s a great bill and I commend it.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my colleague Andrew Bayly outlined, National is continuing to support this bill. We want to see a stable and efficient financial system for New Zealand, and we think it’s important for the stability of our financial system that depositors have confidence that they will be able to obtain and use their deposits despite events that may occur in the financial system.

We’re conscious that the debate on this bill is occurring in the shadow of the collapse of banks overseas and that those collapses have potentially been exacerbated by the reality that in modern times, with digital banking, once there’s a run on a bank it happens extremely quickly, and that development is the reality in which this bill is being debated. However, we are also conscious that this is an area where, in a desire to protect our fellow citizens against risk and to ensure that they can be confident in being able to obtain their deposits, we could potentially overregulate to the detriment of deposit makers, such that the cost of banking is increased not only by the cost of the regulatory impost and the levies needed to secure the scheme but also, potentially, by suppressing the competition that we wish to see in a healthy financial sector, by advantaging those who are able to operate within a detailed or a complex regulatory environment and making it much harder for smaller deposit takers to compete in that environment.

So, taking that balance of the need to protect deposit makers but also to ensure thriving, healthy competition and low cost for bank users, this is an area where detail really matters, and so I want to join other speakers in commending the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who have worked, I think, very hard to strike the right balance between those competing challenges to make sure that the cost imposition and the adverse impacts or unintended consequences of regulation in this area have been thought through and, to the extent possible, minimised.

I think that—and I certainly hope that—in the back of the minds of those sitting on the committee are other recent well-intentioned exercises that have related to banking regulation. The case that I think of and that New Zealanders raise with me weekly is the changes made to the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act, the CCCFA, which as legislative instruments were very well intended, which was to go after loan sharks and those who are predating upon New Zealanders in their lending. While the legislative instruments may have had a good intention, in practice the detail of the regulation in that area was so prescriptive that it has not only cut off credit to many low-income and low-wealth New Zealanders, who are now in many cases seeking alternative credit through less appropriate, unregulated forums—including, I’m reliably informed, the gangs—but has also added huge amounts of cost and potentially lessened the ability of banks to compete appropriately in this area.

Hon Dr David Clark: Point of order.

NICOLA WILLIS: Returning to the bill at hand, as David Clark makes his point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, David Clark.

Hon Dr David Clark: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your guidance: the member’s talked for quite some time on a completely different—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, Mr Clark, that’s what the Speaker’s job is. Sit down.

NICOLA WILLIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will say, I was just about to say: time we did come back to the bill—without the assistance of that member.

NICOLA WILLIS: Yeah, thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, to make my point about why this is important for this bill, this is a bill which the select committee grappled with, because part of what we had to do was think about how the Reserve Bank, how officials, would create regulations within the scope we put in legislation. What we had to think through in detail is how we would ensure that Parliament’s intent was properly reflected in that regulation. The reason I make my point about the CCCFA—and I understand the Minister previously responsible for it is sensitive about it—is that there can be a gap between intention and practice.

So, coming to the detail that we did discuss at select committee and that is important here, the first point that I think the select committee was focused on, appropriately, is the desirability of a diversity of institutions in the deposit-taking sector, which is to say we didn’t want to have a regulatory framework which unintentionally made it very difficult for those who weren’t large banks to operate within that sector and which created barriers both to their entry and to their operation in practice. The select committee also shared a view that it was going to be better for New Zealand consumers and New Zealand users of bank services if there were different options for accessing finance.

It’s from there that the proportionality framework that the previous member also referred to came from. An example of that that we discussed is the current requirement that there be a credit rating for an institution, which can be waived under the current settings. There are currently exemptions for it, but in this bill those were not necessarily going to be carried over, and what we considered as a committee was the gap between us relying on the fact that the Reserve Bank would put those into practice and whether or not that needed to be explicitly in the legislation. The point here is that we are, with this bill, handing over considerable regulatory judgment to officials, and I think what you’ve seen through previous speakers, and what I would also put on the record, is the very clear intent of the parliamentarians on the select committee that we want to see that that regulatory framework doesn’t have an overbearing impact, such that it precludes competition or such that it precludes some deposit makers having access to a diversity of financial options.

I think that what we have in front of us now, having come through the select committee process, is a bill that is much friendlier to smaller, non-bank financial institutions than it would otherwise have been, because of the good efforts of people on the select committee. But despite, and because of, those intentions, I do want to once again put on the record the concern, certainly from members on this side of the House, that it will be particularly important that regulations made in this area live up to those intents and that the effect of the regulation is monitored carefully to ensure that it isn’t having perverse effects.

You know, I say this against the backdrop of an issue that I think is relevant to this debate, which is the concern many New Zealanders have had about whether or not there is adequate competition in our banking sector. It is obvious to me that we do have a banking sector in New Zealand that has had a huge amount of regulatory change, all of which has been well intentioned but about which there is a question that needs to be asked: what is the price that New Zealand bank users are ultimately paying for that regulation? So, therefore, we as parliamentarians do need to strike the right balance on these matters.

I’d note that as we discussed the bill at select committee, and even as this bill continues to pass through the House, there is the ongoing discussion about the adequacy of competition settings in the banking sector that’s gone on, and while there’s been a lot of heat on the other side of the House, they are yet to initiate any form of inquiry into that. We on this side of the House continue to think that this is a matter that it would have been prudent for a select committee to look at in some detail, the observations from which could’ve potentially fed into making this also a better bill with better guidance for those creating the detailed regulations.

So, in sum, National continues to support this bill as a step to promote the stability of the financial system and to protect New Zealand bank users. We have been concerned to ensure that the regulatory framework is not overburdening and that it continues to support healthy competition in the sector. We think the regulation in this area will be critically important, and we will continue to be watching this very closely.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On this side of the House, we are supporting the bill for some of the reasons outlined by the previous speaker, Nicola Willis. Ultimately, financial stability is a public good that supports the prosperity and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Financial stability is something that is critical to a central banking regime. This is a long-identified gap in the system, and I want to thank those members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee from across the House who turned up regularly to these hearings for the contributions that they made, because I think it was a really good select committee process—at least the parts that I was privy to. And particularly Andrew Bayly, I want to acknowledge, on the other side, for the work that he did in making sure this was a better bill, and Ingrid Leary, as chair, along with her predecessor from Dunedin, Rachel Brooking. In fact, there were four members from Dunedin on the committee at one point—not half the committee in numbers, but certainly spiritually and morally, at least, half of the committee—driving forward this excellent piece of legislation.

I do want to quickly touch on what the previous member spent three of her first five minutes talking about, which was the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, just to correct a couple of anomalies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you won’t, Mr Clark. Having now pointed out the error of the previous speaker, you will stick to the bill.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I won’t point out the anomalies then, Mr Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you won’t. You will stick to the bill.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I will say that we support this bill. It is a bill that will make a real difference in addressing a gap in legislation. We have a low proportion of New Zealanders who are non-banked, and that’s the way we want to keep it. We want New Zealanders to be confident in their banking. We want a banking system which supports the welfare and wellbeing of New Zealanders. We want adequate Reserve Bank supervision to remove moral hazard and the kinds of changes proposed in the proportionality framework, which are there to ensure that we have a wide range of banking services available, including those that are more approachable for those who might not traditionally access banking services.

An excellent process. Thank you to those who submitted, and thank you to the committee. I believe this is a better bill as a result of the process, and I also want to credit our finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, for the tremendous work he has done across these three pieces of legislation. The banking system will be a better one at the end of it, and a good deal of that is due to his consistent endeavour in this area. I commend this bill to the House.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. As the Minister of Finance said, this is part of the trilogy. Today, we wanted to focus on the other side of the equation, in this second reading: that, when not done carefully or explicitly well, deposit insurance can fuel bank crises by giving banks perverse incentives to take risks. And the country that adopts explicit domestic deposit insurance can also have to grapple with not just the stabilisation of the economy but the destabilisation effects of that insurance on a country’s financial system as well. New Zealand is now going down the road of providing a financial safety net at the expense of the taxpayer. A proper and full safeguard against this would have been asking the banks—within their activities—to hold more capital. This would have been a more powerful mechanism.

Moral hazard by banks, and increases in the likelihood of financial crises due to excessive risk-taking, is something that is directly linked to deposit insurance. So that the House is clear: in reality, deposit insurance is not really insurance at all; it’s but a guarantee against loss. It should be covered by the banks holding a greater risk of enterprise capital, and the social and regulatory capital that a Government has called upon, and the taxpayer has called upon—in terms of a bank failure—cannot match that. We should have learnt from South Canterbury Finance and the BNZ examples. And I’d just like to correct the Minister on the use of the Silicon Valley Bank scenario: they had depositor insurance of $250,000. It wasn’t the retail investors, there, that caused that bank run; it was actually the wholesale investors—plus, they weren’t subject to the Basel rules. In New Zealand, we’re not subject to those, either, but to rules set by the Reserve Bank, and so we have an isolated system here that allows these types of laws and the trilogy to be adopted.

This legislation is claimed to close the gap between New Zealand and international practices. Mr Robertson said it provides economic security for eligible New Zealanders if their bank or other deposit-taking institutions fail, while helping protect the country’s financial system. The $100,000 limit, interestingly, was doubled after consultation and now will fully protect 39 percent of depositors. The scheme, according to the bill, will be funded by levies on deposit takers and supported by a Crown backstop. It’s our opinion in the ACT Party that the New Zealand banks are really well capitalised and are becoming even better capitalised thanks to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) new rules, which phase in over seven years from 1 July last year. The “big four” banks are each owned by Australia’s “big four” banks and have long been better capitalised than their parents—and that’s just on a superficial level. But New Zealand’s capital rules are more conservative than Australia’s and are becoming even more conservative.

Years ago, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority decided that they’d set common ratios, and they are all risk-weighted against assets and seem very healthy to us. Explicit guarantees have immense political appeal because they assuage citizens’ concerns about the safety of their deposits and thus increase the flow of funds into banks without requiring any fiscal expenditure. Deposit insurance as defined in this bill seeks to reverse the psychology of bank runs by reassuring depositors that, if the bank fails for any reason, their funds will be protected up to the limits on coverage. We have generally opposed deposit insurance, but there are viable arguments on both sides. Those favouring deposit insurance believe de facto, unpriced insurance already provides if the Government will be likely to let depositors eat the losses in any operation of the Open Bank Resolution (OBR) framework. It isn’t crazy to believe that it could be the case for some deposit takers. I think it’s really better for the Government to clearly signal that it will not provide bailouts; that the OBR framework will be allowed to run its course; and that, with depositors having some proportion of deposits frozen while the banks are sorted out, the Government will not provide compensation for total losses.

The RBNZ has already set very high prudential reserves to make failure less likely, and I worry that it will be impossible for the Government to get the risk premiums right on any insurance product when banks and non-bank deposit takers are all lumped into the same framework. Setting the insurance premium on riskier outlets too high and you can crash the industry as depositors leave. Set it too low and deposits flood in in pursuit of higher gains. In normal insurance markets, if one sector’s being sharply overpriced by an existing insurer, a competitor has some incentives to go in and offer a better premium. This can’t happen within Government-provided deposit insurance. So countries considering explicit deposit insurance should watch out for what they wish for. Unless a country has a strong banking regulation, a strict full-banking regime, carefully designed deposits, depositors, while holding moral hazard in check, can suffer the consequences.

Let’s be honest with the people of New Zealand that a lot of people are financially illiterate and time poor, and they don’t really understand what a Moody’s or S&P rating means to the consumer and their deposits. If you make a bank deposit today, under this framework, it is essentially an unsecured loan where the depositor is the first to take a 100 percent haircut, with no recourse. Depositors are at the bottom of the food chain. The deposit is the property of the bank. So have we learned from South Canterbury Finance and the BNZ in relation to this bill? It’s questionable, but the Finance and Expenditure Committee tried to bridge that gap.

So, really, insurance deposits—it’s just another tax. Where is the increase in capital and adequacy anyway? Banks can lend recklessly going forward. So, if they go bust, taxpayers pick up the tab. Bailing out the highly profitable New Zealand retail banks must have much moral hazard. Cyprus had deposit insurance: the cash was frozen. It turned out that it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. It will also lead—these costs—to lower term-deposit rates. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and yet the system will continued to be allowed to live on at the edge. It’s time for the banks and their shareholders to manage this risk and their activities appropriately, and for the taxpayer of New Zealand not to be on the hook in a serious financial situation.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Deposit Takers Bill, on behalf of the Green Party. I think it is worth noting—since we have, I believe, the National Party supporting it, and the Labour Party, of course, brought this bill to the House—that the main purpose of this bill, bringing in the deposit compensation scheme, which would protect $100,000 of people’s personal deposits in the case of a bank failure, is something that the Green Party has been campaigning on. In fact, the oldest reference I could find in the media, from Russel Norman, was March 2013—so over 10 years ago. Russel Norman was consistently saying that we should have a deposit compensation scheme, that this was something obvious we could do that would help protect New Zealanders, and, 10 years later, here it is with the support of the two main parties. So that’s good; the Green Party makes a difference. It takes a while, but we get there. Finally, the other two, larger parties pick up and support the things that we’re saying. It’s fantastic.

The other thing I wanted to say about this bill, coming out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and, unfortunately, I wasn’t on the select committee to hear the submissions—is that I was really pleased to see that the select committee had considered a proportional scheme, to take into account the concerns of the non-bank deposit takers, like credit unions and building societies. Non-bank deposit takers, like credit unions, have an incredibly important role to play in our economy, in supporting their members with access to finance and in a really personal way. I think that credit unions have huge potential, but right now, when they have to compete with banks, which have much bigger budgets for advertising, which have kind of cornered the market in terms of the services they’re able to deliver, it is quite difficult for them. So it is inappropriate for them to be regulated in quite the same way that the large banks are.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen that the four biggest overseas-owned banks in New Zealand have made record profits. They seem to be going up every year. Even in 2020, they were positive. At no point during the different challenges that we faced economically during COVID, during the lockdowns, have the banks taken a loss, and while we do want banks to be stable and we want a stable financial sector, there is a lot of room between stable and profitable and excess profit, where they are, basically, sucking money out of our economy. I think it’s arguable that the four biggest banks in New Zealand are in that position now, and we would have liked to see the Government look at something like a bank levy. In fact, while inflation is hitting households really hard and they’re having to pay higher interest rates on their mortgages, they’re having to pay higher food prices, a big part of the component of the higher food prices is higher interest rates that the farmers are having to pay. So, throughout this whole process of raising interest rates, in a way we might be contributing to inflation, and at the same time the banks are just doing even better than ever out of this. So, at a certain point, we need to ask them to ensure that we’ve got a fair way to ensure that they are giving back to New Zealand and not just taking from our economy.

So, yes, a win for the Green Party in this bill—happy to see the changes that take into account the particular needs of non-bank deposit takers like credit unions and building societies—and we need to see some stronger moves from the Government on the enormous bank profits, which are, basically, sucking value out of the New Zealand economy and making inflation worse.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Deposit Takers Bill. I just want to add another layer to what has already been said, and, not being from a legal or finance background, I tend to look at this slightly differently.

This bill is particularly important in the era of social media. Social media is now a new force in the banking crisis. You know, we look at Facebook, it began in 2004, and Twitter began in 2006, but they were not yet global and all-pervasive during the 2008-09 global financial crisis. Social media connections clearly fuelled the run on Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank earlier in the year.

One thing in my mind, as a member of Finance and Expenditure Committee, is to understand how the likes of Credit Suisse private banking clients around the world got the message to flee. What if, in the future, a similar run starts on complete falsehoods about a solvent bank, for example? It would be plausible for a Facebook flee scenario to play out here in New Zealand. One way that we can safeguard against this is to give consumers upfront confidence that their deposit takers are regulated and that the consumers’ cash is safe. That’s why there’s a crisis management function to this bill.

This bill will force the Reserve Bank to supervise more actively to prevent moral hazard and the temptation of deposit takers to take more risk than they would otherwise. This is a good bill. It providers a good handrail for our deposit takers, and also our consumers as well. So I commend this bill to the House.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be able to rise and speak on the Deposit Takers Bill. We will be supporting this. I noted David Clark was talking before about four people on the Finance and Expenditure Committee being from Dunedin and how that was a great thing. I’m not from Dunedin, but I have spent a lot of time there, and I would like to echo those sentiments. It is a fantastic place—

Anna Lorck: Tell us about your time there.

SAM UFFINDELL: As is the Hawke’s Bay, Anna Lorck.

Anna Lorck: No “the”—no “the”.

SAM UFFINDELL: Hawke’s Bay or “the Bay”—apologies. There you go. Back to the bill. So this aims to increase the stability of the financial system. We’re all supporting it.

Setting $100,000 in there for people when the system comes into strife and if they’re unable to withdraw their funds or they have challenges around that is quite good in light of what’s happened in the States recently, where a couple of financial institutions in the US have become insolvent, really, and the US Federal Reserve has had to come in and bail them out. And, while we do have quite different capital structures here in New Zealand, lots of people don’t understand how that works and they don’t understand that it is a significant overextension of bond positions taken out by a lot of those US financial institutions, and when those positions moved away from them, they found themselves caught out. We don’t find ourselves in that position but, for your normal member of the public, who isn’t a member of the committee or doesn’t sit around reading the Australian Financial Review—or whatever else it may be to get themselves a financial tune-up—it is quite helpful for them to know that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is taking it quite seriously and is providing that backstop in there.

I’ve only sat on the committee a few times, but I will acknowledge that it is a fairly collegial atmosphere. Andrew Bayly makes sure that he gets his point across.

Anna Lorck: Lot of doughnuts.

SAM UFFINDELL: Anna Lorck pipes up all the time—we know that. I’ve got you into Hansard twice today, Anna—there’s a third time.

Simon Watts: Always piping up.

SAM UFFINDELL: Always piping up. But what we do get is that people are there to solve problems. And Simon Watts in front of me is definitely one of the more proficient on the committee. And when he talks, everyone stops to listen.

Simon Watts: You’re getting me emotional!

SAM UFFINDELL: There you go—it’s getting emotional. So we do support this bill because we do want a stable and efficient financial system. [Simon Watts passes a tissue box] I’ll have a tissue afterwards too, thank you.

There were a number of sensible positions that were made during the select committee process. The Hon Grant Robertson talked about the proportionality framework and said he expected one of the later speakers to pick it up. That won’t be me, but I’m sure over the other side of the House someone will fulfil the Minister’s wishes.

Andrew Bayly did raise a couple of good points there. This is one of three changes that’s taken place in the RBNZ space—one around the monetary policy framework—and he did point out a few issues around the make-up of the board of the RBNZ and questioned whether there was the prudential expertise. When I’ve cast my eye upon that list, I would probably echo the sentiments of Andrew Bayly in that regard, and I think it’s really important for the long-term stability and credibility of the New Zealand financial system that we do have experts in that field on that board.

So, in saying that, I haven’t been across too much more of it than that, but very happy to see that there is bipartisan agreement, or around-the-House agreement, on ensuring that the New Zealand financial system remains stable going forward. This bill helps further that, and I support it.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Deposit Takers Bill. I’d also like to pick up where the member Sam Uffindell left off and give my generous praise as well to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I was a member of the committee in the last term, and I’m sadly not in this term. You won’t have the pleasure of my company in this term, but I’d like to acknowledge all those members. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Finance for bringing this bill to the House, and also the submitters. It’s an important process we have here in terms of our democracy. The committee received written submissions from 32 stakeholders—I’d like to acknowledge and thank those stakeholders—and heard oral evidence from 12 of those during its hearings.

As we’ve heard before from previous speakers, at the heart of this bill is financial stability and the fact that financial stability is a public good. It’s a very important part of our country and, particularly, our economy. If we want to continue to have investment here in New Zealand, it’s important that we do have financial stability, and the Government has a role to play in that. Particularly as a small economy, it’s certainly vital that the Government sort of steps in at times to make sure that that stability stays.

The bill also clarifies the importance of separation between the Reserve Bank and the Government, so ensuring that the Reserve Bank is at arm’s length and not open to some of the politics that we see in this House. It’s important that the Reserve Bank is separate. It’s an important part of our democratic set-up here. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s a pleasure to talk on this bill, because I feel that it’s a bill where, as a select committee, a difference was made, and I think it’s a difference which aligns with the values of this Government. This is a bill that’s about securing the financial system in a way that has been—it’s a device that was used in America in 1933. It’s long been a feature of other jurisdictions that we guarantee deposits like this to stop runs on banks, and it is one that is funded by levies from those banks.

But what we didn’t want to see happen here—and it is what we listened to submitters about—was the upending of our smaller cooperatives and our building societies, etc. I belong to one of those, and I belong to it because the profit comes back to me. It’s a cooperative, and I’m very proud of belonging to it. I really wanted to see those littler competitors to the big Australian banks come through and thrive, and they have a much lower risk rate than the big banks do. We have built into this law principles of proportionality, which means that when the Reserve Bank is setting the framework, it will consider the plight of those banks and the need for it, because those banks really give access to a lot of people in our society who otherwise wouldn’t have as much access as they are given.

So I’m really proud of that particular addition, because I think that speaks to a value that is growing in our society—that kind of value of access and the need to do that—but I think it also speaks to the big banks about our support for the little alternatives. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on the Deposit Takers Bill at its second reading. We have heard a number of very informed speakers this evening provide commentary in regards to this bill, including the Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson. As has been acknowledged by a number of speakers already this evening, it is actually one of those examples where the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which members on all sides of the House here are on, have worked collegially together in order to prepare this bill and make some changes and improvements to it. I guess that is the purpose of the select committee process, in order to place due consideration, in terms of legislation, but, importantly, to look at opportunities to improve that legislation so that it can perform its duties appropriately once it is put into law.

I want to cover a few aspects, in regards to my comments on this bill this evening. Andrew Bayly started off our overview and provided quite a lot of detail in terms of some of the challenges that we saw with the 13 non-bank deposit takers, and I’ll come back to that aspect soon. Then Nicola Willis also provided an overview in terms of the stability of the banking sector, of which this legislation does provide a significant element. But, in terms of setting the scene, really, the circumstances for which this legislation will come into effect are pretty dire fiscal and economic circumstances: a scenario in which one’s bank—and particularly if you’re banking with one of the four major banks—collapses. That’s probably a scenario where there’s a hell of a lot going wrong in the world, let alone just here at home in New Zealand, for one of those major banks to collapse.

But, you know, it wasn’t that long ago—even though a day in this place does feel like a year sometimes!—back in 2008, when we went through quite a significant period of global instability as a result of the banking crisis: that contagion of banking collapses and lack of certainty in the market; the camera shots of consumers standing outside retail banks in the UK, trying to get their money out. They always say that, as soon as the first queue forms outside the bank, it is too late, because when people lose confidence in the underlying banking sector and lose confidence in their bank, that is probably the most important aspect. No matter how strong or good your regulation is, once the consumer loses confidence, that is the point at which there is no return. The Crown—or, in that case, in the UK, Her Majesty’s Treasury—was required to come in and deal with that.

So the deposit takers legislation puts in place, in effect, a compensation-for-loss mechanism for consumers that have deposits within their banks. The reality for most people, under this cost of living crisis, is that the only thing most people have got with their banks is debt or mortgages or credit cards. But, for those who do have deposits, significant deposits—

Anna Lorck: Good interest rates on deposits, Mr Watts.

SIMON WATTS: I’m hearing some contribution, across there, in regards to the current interest rate which you can get—

Anna Lorck: Deposit rate.

SIMON WATTS: —deposit rate—but we won’t get into that detail right at the moment. But the point is that, for those who do have deposits, in the scenario—in the very, very rare example—where a major bank will collapse and the person potentially has at risk their deposit, which they won’t get back, this mechanism provides a mechanism in order to provide that compensation for loss. I think, in regards to the stability of the overall banking system, that is an important component. It is not unique; it is a component of many international banking systems to have a mechanism of that sort to provide that degree of trust and confidence in the integrity of the banking system should that scenario play through.

The other aspect—and it wasn’t lost on the committee—is in regards to the New Zealand context in contrast even to the Australian context or, more broadly, the international context. I remember conversations that we had around some of the learnings of overseas banks who have been through these phases and periods of financial collapse and subsequent banking collapse—what they have learnt from it. The Hon Paul Goldsmith was saying, can he have a call—not this evening, but maybe at another opportunity, in the third reading, Mr Goldsmith. But what was I talking about? I was talking about the aspect in regards to the UK banking model, around the exposure.

The New Zealand model is actually pretty benign in regards to even the Australian model. We don’t have significant investment banking operations. That won’t form part of our major banking operations here. A lot of the counter-party risk and the trading risk in regards to the underlying assets and liabilities on the banks’ balance sheets aren’t managed here onshore, for many of our banks. It is actually managed in Australia, and that is quite a different banking make-up. The make-up of the banks that operate in New Zealand is primarily retail banks, where offshore many of the ones which have collapsed in the past have had a much wider diversity of banking operations, which just simply isn’t the case—which means, in part, actually, again, the risk profile in a New Zealand context is significantly lower than in an overseas sense.

We spent quite a lot of time in regards to those 13 non-banking deposit takers—those credit unions and those smaller banks—which I think most of us will be able to relate to, and particularly down South. There’s a number of these entities—of course, there are in the North as well, but I was thinking about the South when I was looking across to my colleague Joseph Mooney and the great work he does in his electorate. For the 13 non-banking deposit takers, I think the challenge for them was around scale. These are small entities, making up probably less than 5 percent, or even lower than that, as a total proportion of the New Zealand banking sector. They don’t have the scale, capability, or competence in terms of staff and technical expertise that the big four do.

So a number of the challenges back from that sector—and rightly so, I think—were that we are simply not equipped to deal with the regulatory burden that such legislation will place upon them. And, as a result, the ability for them to both scale up to deal with that, but also to be able to comply with some of the regulation, was seen as a cost burden that was unevenly spread on that aspect of the sector. I think it is a credit to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that that was given due consideration, and I think where we landed, taking on board the feedback from those entities, is a position which I think is appropriate. As Andrew Bayly said, time will tell in terms of actually the practical implementation of this bill as time flows through.

The other aspect that we discussed in regards to this bill was around the role of the Reserve Bank, actually, in terms of the administration of this legislation. It was fair to say that the unfettered powers that the bill would put within the hands of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was an area of question and debate. I think it’s not unreasonable to ensure, when the provision of powers is given to a single entity, that that needs to be appropriately balanced. We spent quite a bit of time ensuring that there were the appropriate controls and belts and braces in regards to their role. Again, I think we’ve ended up in a position where their regulatory oversight in regards to this legislation has been balanced with the fact that, actually, they and the decisions they make can result, and will result, in compliance costs and burden on a number of players—and again, as was said, more heavily actually impacting on the smaller players than the bigger players because of their ability to deal with that.

I think, just to finish off, in the interests of time—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Ha!

SIMON WATTS: Was that a call for another 10 minutes, the Hon Paul Goldsmith? I don’t think it was, but if it was, I appreciate your enthusiasm in this speech, because it is an important area of financial stability for our country—

Andrew Bayly: It looked like you were interested.

SIMON WATTS: And it’s good to have you back, Andrew Bayly. I’ll just finish off the end of this, but, overall, the National Party will continue to support this piece of legislation in the collegial interests of financial stability for this country. It’s with that that I commend this bill to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take the final call on the second reading of the Deposit Takers Bill. The purpose of this debate is to talk through what happened at select committee.

One of the most important things that happens in select committee is when we hear from the little guys, from those that don’t have the big voice, like we have from the big banks that are, you know, Australian-owned; so to have, under this process, the opportunity for credit unions from across the country to come and talk to us about what they saw were the challenges in this bill, where they felt they didn’t have the capacity to cope with the large amount of regulation, and also for those customers who want to have the access and diversity of banking.

So, in reporting this back to the House, it is important to acknowledge the work that they’ve done to help us form the next stage of this bill. Through that, we have put in a proportionality clause that will have the framework that will be worked through in consultation. Then, what is even better, that consultation work, the proposed framework, will come back to the select committee in the next Government and have the opportunity, through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, to be reviewed. I think that that is something that we can say thank you to the little guys, thank you to the credit unions, as something that as a select committee we listened to. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill, which I hope reaches its legislative conclusion this evening, is another small step towards making New Zealand workplaces safer and reducing the unacceptable burden of harm that falls on many New Zealand workers. I think that every member of this House would wish to see that New Zealand workplaces were places that are safe and that keep New Zealand workers healthy. Yet for anyone who is engaged with this issue, we know that we have a great deal more work to do if we want to reach that ambition.

To take just one measure, that is the measure of fatalities across New Zealand workplaces, twice as many people in New Zealand workplaces die on average per capita as in Australia, and four times as many as in the United Kingdom. That increased burden of harm replicates across different levels of harm, whether it is serious accidents in the workplace or some of the horrific long-term illnesses that afflict many people, often many years after they have finished at workplaces. There are many things that we have to do across our workplace health and safety system if we want to continue making improvements in the space, but there is absolutely no doubt—based on all of the evidence in Aotearoa New Zealand and around the world—that one of the most important things that we can do is to improve worker participation, including through the ability of workers to have health and safety representatives to put forward their concerns in the workplace.

That is why this was a Labour Party manifesto commitment, and one that we are proud to complete tonight as this bill makes its way through the House. I do want to, at this juncture, thank all members who have participated in this bill’s passage. Those members on the Education and Workforce Committee and members in the House have contributed to the debate from all sides. The select committee, in particular those members of the public and organisations who submitted on the bill, and, of course, the Government officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who helped to prepare and support this bill through the House.

I’ve been relatively clear, in my speeches on this bill, that this isn’t the biggest move that we’ve ever made on workplace health and safety. It’s a modest, additional measure that we believe will make a positive impact. And, actually, one of the things I want to say at the outset is something that I hope is positive and collegial, which is that this bill builds off the work of the Health and Safety at Work Act that was, in fact, passed by the previous Government. Now, the Health and Safety at Work Act was a response to the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, which itself was obviously set up to deal with the tragedy of the 29 men who lost their lives at Pike River. The royal commission absolutely affirmed the importance of worker participation and health and safety representatives within the system. The law was based on the model legislation from Australia and, when it was introduced to this House, gave the ability for all workers—at whatever size of workplace it is—to be able to request a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee. It was only during the passage of the bill through the House that the previous Government made a change to exempt those workplaces with fewer than 20 employees from those workers having that right to be able to request a representative or a health and safety committee.

Andrew Bayly: How many worked in the mine, Minister?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member asked how many were working in a mine, as if a mine is the only kind of workplace that the Health and Safety at Work Act covers. This really goes to the very point about the fact that our Government does not believe that there is a well-founded justification for the exemption that was brought in. That’s because we know that the burden of harm applies across workplaces both large and small. It is possible for people to develop occupational illness. It is possible for people to be injured. It is possible for people to be exposed to risks, whether they are in a workplace of 18 people or 22 people. In our view, therefore, there is no justification for saying to one workplace of 22 people that those workers have a right to request a health and safety representative to bring forward their views and make them safer, but not to the workplace next door of 18 people. It is about the risks that workers face and it is about the moral burden; the moral case here that it is workers who face the burden of that harm. It is workers who are carrying out the work in workplaces, who are the ones who face the risk of becoming unwell, of being injured, or of being killed.

They are also the ones who have the knowledge—this is the point about worker participation and health and safety representative participation. Those workers are the ones who have the knowledge of what is happening within their workplaces, who understand the nature of the risks, and often have the ideas and the direct front-line experience to be able to participate and put forward the positive solutions that can make that workplace safer and, in fact, generally more productive for everyone when they are given the opportunity to do that.

So the small, proportionate change that the bill does make—it’s two things. Firstly, just to remove that exemption so that those workers can request a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee. The words I use there are important in terms of understanding what the bill does or doesn’t do, because at times in the debate, it has been presented that it is a compulsion for every workplace to have a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee, and that is simply not the case. It gives workers the ability to make that request.

It is my expectation—based on the experience of Australia and based on what we see happen in New Zealand—that all small workplaces will not request the health and safety representative. In fact, I even doubt that most will. But I think that in those cases where those workers believe it would make a difference and would make them safer, that they should have the right and the ability to do that and then to work constructively with their employer through those mechanisms to build a safer workplace.

The second thing that the bill does, as an associated change, is to remove the current provisions within the legislation for the designation of high-risk industries. In the committee stage of the debate, the Hon Michael Woodhouse—who, of course, was associated with the passage of the first bill; was the sponsoring Minister, in fact—reminded the House of some of the absurdities that were created by that situation when he reopened the debate we had at the time of the Health and Safety at Work Act passage of the risks of worm farms, which were classified as a high-risk industry over and above certain other agricultural industries where it was known that there were these high levels of harm that occurred.

Effectively, what the member was inadvertently pointing out there is that by saying that only small workplaces where there is a high-risk industry that has been identified by officials or the Government, you automatically draw an arbitrary line that isn’t actually always borne out in practice. The previous Government found itself in that position, where it had to explain during the passage of the bill why the workers at a small business that had worm farms would be able to have a health and safety representative but workers in other kinds of businesses where there were real and extant risks would not have that same right.

We don’t think that the case is there to draw that artificial distinction. So by removing the exemption of small workplaces where workers cannot currently request a health and safety representative or a committee, we do away with the need to have the additional bureaucracy and the additional arbitrary limitation of only high-risk industries being able to request a health and safety representative.

We have heard as well, during the course of the debate, from the Opposition, some concern about the level of cost that might apply where a health and safety representative or a committee is established. It is true that in some of those cases, there will be some additional cost which comes into effect as a result of that. Generally speaking, providing those sort of representative functions will take a little bit of time and might take a little bit of money.

What we never hear from the other side of the House is a recognition that there is a cost on the other side as well; there is a cost in terms of human harm. There is actually an enormous economic burden that occurs across New Zealand workplaces because of the levels of harm and illness that occur in our workplaces that, by many, many multiples—many, many multiples—outdo the level of investment that is required to give workers in the workplace the ability to have their say and participate in healthier workplaces through representative structures like health and safety representatives or committees.

So I come back to where I started: by noting that this is a modest change to the Health and Safety at Work Act, but it is an important one that follows through on a Labour Party manifesto commitment. It is one that is founded in the principle that workers who face the burden of harm in their workplaces—regardless of the size of that business—should have the ability to request and be represented in their workplace, and have their health and safety concerns heard and be able to work constructively for workplaces that are fair and safe and decent for everyone within them. That is the vision that we have, and that is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There he is, bold as brass—the Minister Michael Wood, who has, amazingly, been stood down as the Minister for one portfolio, but carries on as if nothing has changed and he continues on as Minister of employment, delivering his speeches. It doesn’t matter if you have a clear conflict of interest that hasn’t been managed properly—no worries! Under Chris Hipkins, it just carries on. Maybe he might get round eventually to selling his shares, and then maybe he might be reinstated—who knows? Anything is possible in this Government.

So here we have the health and safety bill that we’re dealing with, the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if just once this Minister and this Government came along to the House and wouldn’t this just be amazing if they came along to the House one day with a bill that was to reduce the costs that small businesses were facing? If they just once—just once—came along and said, “Look, we’re just conscious of the fact that business is tough and that there are enormous costs being applied in order for these small businesses”—mum and dad - owned operations—“who are struggling to survive against rising costs and overwhelming pressures in terms of the interest rates, the rates that they have to pay, and everything that they have to deal with. Competition is tough, and they’re struggling to get by.”

Just once—once—could you imagine if this Labour Government would come along with a piece of legislation that said, “We recognise that it’s difficult out there, and we want to take a little bit of the pressure off you and reduce the costs that you have to face in your business.”—just once. Never—never—will you see that from this Government. All you ever see is legislation that comes along and says, “Here’s a problem that we’re going to fix by putting some more costs on to your business.”

Now, of course, everybody in this House is desirous of improving the record of this country and the people in this country in terms of workplace accidents. Since the previous National Government introduced the health and safety at work legislation, there have been hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on WorkSafe, on extra regulations, and on everything that every New Zealander can see in terms of the huge effort made around health and safety. All the cones on our roads, all the scaffolding on our buildings—everywhere you look, there has been hundreds of millions of dollars poured in to try to improve our health and safety outcomes in our workplaces, and the sad reality is that we’ve made only modest improvements.

So I would have thought the one question that a Minister of health and safety would be asking himself is: have we got the measures right, and what are we doing that’s working and what isn’t working?

Instead of doing that, when we look at the regulatory impact statement on this bill, it basically just says—and this is part of the problem with this Government. You’re meant to have a Treasury that’s meant to be looking carefully at regulations and doing a cost-benefit analysis. What it says, basically, is that “this is in the Labour Party manifesto in 2020 and it’s going to happen”. There’s actually no real evidence either way, and this is it, and the option is just this, basically, and that’s what we’re going to do. So that’s about the depth and sophistication of the analysis that’s been applied here.

So all I’m conscious of is the fact that what we’ve got here from Michael Wood—six times he was asked and six times he didn’t deal with one particular issue. On this matter, he has brought a piece of legislation into the House, which nowhere have they indicated that there is an immediate problem with small businesses around health and safety that will be solved by insisting that if one worker—if you have a business with three employees, for example, it only takes one worker to say, “I want to be the health and safety rep.”, and that means two days off work every year, going off to a training, and all the costs associated with that. That’s fine. But the point is, it’s no big deal. It’s just another couple of thousand; what does it matter? It’s just a bit of extra cost; it doesn’t matter.

But unfortunately, when it comes on top of very rapid increase in the minimum wages, an extra week of sick leave, an extra public holiday, and all the other things that the Government has added on, that’s fine—that’s fine. Then they look around and then they wonder why everything is more expensive for New Zealanders and they wonder why small businesses are struggling. And they wonder why, if we were to take the example of the mental health of small business owners being—all the surveys indicate massive issues. Massive issues there. When we look at health and safety at work, does anybody consider that as an issue, and the pressure that has been added on to those small business owners by this? Has that been factored into the considerations and thought? No; not at all.

So the only thing the Government can do is come along each week with a new piece of legislation that adds an extra layer of cost on to those small businesses, which, many of them—some of them are doing fantastically well, and good luck to them, but most of them are struggling under a barrage of extra costs, under a time of rapid inflation and poorly managed economy.

So my plea to the Government is to actually take a wider look at this and just once consider that maybe there is something they could do to take some pressure off those businesses in terms of the regular costs that they face. And then ask the basic question: of all the hundreds of millions that have been invested into WorkSafe and into health and safety, are we getting the best results for that investment? Have we got the settings right? That’s a reasonable question to ask, but I don’t see any real introspection and consideration on that. All we’ve got is an ill thought through manifesto promise in 2020 that is being rammed through the House with little consultation with the small business sector, and little real effort to understand the reality of the situation on the ground, whereby if you’re a small operation, three or four employees, and one person decides they want to be the health and safety rep, and if there are five employees and they want to have a health and safety committee, that’s all well and good.

But it’s just one thing after another, after another, after another, for those small businesses. And we on this side of the House are conscious of that. We’re concerned about that. We do want to do the best we can for all New Zealand workers, and one of the best things we can do is encourage those businesses to be strong and profitable and continue to provide opportunities. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I’ll tell you why: because it makes New Zealand workplaces safer. Be they big workplaces or small workplaces, you will be able to have a health and safety rep after this piece of legislation is passed tonight.

We’ve heard a few comments from the other side about the value of this legislation, about the cost of this legislation to businesses. I would ask, I proffer the question: what is the cost of going to work and coming home safely? What is the cost to an individual of being safe at work? I would say that that’s worth a lot.

When you survey small businesses, they constantly say that the most valuable thing in their entire business is there workforce. This is what this bill protects: it protects their workforce.

Why would a health and safety representative be requested in a workforce? The reason that one person would request it is because they have a concern about health and safety. I say to them: good on you. Thank you for putting your hand up to be a health and safety representative. Thank you for taking that step to making our workplaces safer. The National Party doesn’t care about your individual concern, but we in the Labour Party do. That’s why we’re passing this excellent piece of legislation, in order to look after you and your health and safety.

Just a point on Pike River: the National Party will know, because they passed the primary piece of legislation, that the Health and Safety at Work Act is based on a fundamental principle of a PCBU—or a person conducting a business or undertaking. At Pike River, there were many, many PCBUs. Different contractors, big ones, small ones, lots of different ones. I don’t know if all of those would have been over 20 people, and I can guarantee you that those on the other side wouldn’t know either. This means that every single business or person undertaking work at a place like Pike River could have a health and safety representative.

I think that’s worth something. This Government will stand up for every single worker, whether they’re a big workplace or a small workplace, to make sure that they stay safe.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I love talking about workplace accidents, because I think people on the other side there are actually showing a few workplace accidents lately. I just wish someone in their caucus might have put up their hand and said, “We’ve got some things going wrong here.” But do we have anyone in the Labour caucus stand up and say that? No, I don’t think so. Oh, no.

But anyway, coming back to this bill. This is a classic, tick the box to the 2020 election manifesto. “When’s the next election? Oh, it’s getting a bit close, isn’t it? Oh, we’d better ram this through.” And guess who’s ramming it through! Well, the latest casualty of workplace accidents: the Hon Michael Wood. I was just thinking of extending that, but I thought, no, I’ll just localise that to him.

But the issue is this is a poor piece of legislation. And no wonder Michael Wood is pushing it through, because, of course, he is known to have very strong ties to certain organisations that will want to bring about these sorts of changes, and, personally, I don’t think for the better. Just for the record, Pike River employed 174 people. So even under the so-called National proposals of 20 or more, there would have been multiple chances, multiple opportunities, and an absolute requirement for a health and safety committee to be set up under the proposed and current Act. So the proposition—and I think the Minister was actually showing poor form talking about Pike River in the context that this would have helped this situation. I am not sure that is the situation, because if you have 20 or more employees, then there is an automatic right to establish a representative or a committee.

So just talking about this bill. The Minister, when we were questioning him at the committee of the whole House—and I’ve got to say, I wasn’t on the select committee, but I was on the original committee that passed the original Act. I put to him the situation that this bill will lead to. You have an owner of the business, mum and dad, been working and grafting for 20 years, got a printing firm or something—I don’t know—and they happen to have one employee. And the one employee suddenly one day wakes up and goes, “Hey, Mr and Mrs, I think we should have a health and safety representative.” So that one person could form a health and safety representative. And, of course, they’d go away and do all the training. There is no need for that situation. The underlying premise that Labour keep assuming is that there’s this confrontational issue between owners of businesses and their staff.

As the member quite rightly pointed out before, owners of businesses know that the important part of their business is always their staff. This assumption that they’re so contentious, it’s such an ugly relationship that people can’t start talking about health and safety and feel unsafe for bringing it up with either the manager or the owners—that proposition is wrong. You could have the absurd—and this is what the Minister said wasn’t absurd—situation where a company with one employee ends up having a health and safety representative comprising that one employee. That is ridiculous.

The issue I kept asking the Minister in the committee of the whole House is why do you not believe that a majority should rule? After all, we act in this House here on majority rules. The Labour Party control Parliament and they will ram through this piece of legislation. It doesn’t matter what I say or what Mr Goldsmith says, and that is the normal course of events. So the way we dealt with it is that in the Act we said 20 or more could require it, and the issue is that you end up with a piece of legislation which is absurd and it is wrong. Of course we want to see safer health practices in workplaces. There shouldn’t be an issue with that. People should be able to request to go away on a course, and it costs what? It costs $1,300 to $1,800. I don’t think any businesses would have a problem with that.

But the one thing that the Act has, which is done away with now in this bill, is that it did highlight those industries of particular risk, and it is wrong to remove that. Those businesses acting in higher-risk categories, like our farming and our building and construction sectors, should be subject to much higher rigorous enforcement around health and safety. But this has been done away with in this bill, and that is wrong, and the concept that you could have one—what about if you have four employees or five employees? Why shouldn’t the majority decide? Why should only one person, even though 99 percent of other people in that same business disagree with that one person? Why should that one person, who may be a zealot or may have other ulterior motives, be the one that is the sole determinant of what goes on in that business? It should be by agreement of the employees. And if their employers agree with it, fine. But under this rule, one person—and it could be a recalcitrant person, and I’m not saying it may not be for the right reasons, but it could be for other ulterior motives—can shape the future and the arrangements of that business. That is wrong.

And the other thing I’d like to highlight, which came out during the committee of the whole House is that there was meant to be a formal review of the health and safety Act in 2018, and the Minister admitted that that had not taken place, even though that was a legislative requirement. I put it to you, and I put it to the Labour members of this House, that they have not complied with the Act. And luckily for the Government, I do not understand why it has not met the requirements of the Act. They want to push through a new piece of legislation, but they haven’t even met the requirements of the existing legislation. That is fundamentally wrong—fundamentally wrong. And if it was a private enterprise and health and safety came in here and said to Labour, “Why didn’t you review this?”, can you imagine saying, if you’re a company, “I haven’t reviewed my policies since 2018, because I chose not to.”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Could the member be very careful not to bring the Speaker into the debate.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yup. So if health and safety came in and said to a private enterprise that they hadn’t reviewed their health and safety frameworks, their hazard risks, all those sorts of things, because they’ve chosen not to, that would be a case for being sued by the health and safety committee. So this is wrong, this is a huge point in this legislation, and this bill, in my view, is not going to add significantly to improving health and safety. People should be able to have those conversations. There are already well-intentioned, well-provisioned provisions in the Act, and there is no case that has been demonstrated and no case in the RIS—the regulatory impact statement—that says that this is going to lead to better outcomes. All it’s going to end up with is funny little arrangements that will not necessarily improve the health and safety of New Zealanders. We should be focused on those high-risk industries and making sure they particularly get it right. And, of course, this does away with that in this bill.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. This is yet another commitment, another delivery from the Labour Government in protecting New Zealand workers. It’s not a secret that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of workplace harm—every day we see in the media workers dying, workers being severely injured. This is something that can be easily avoided by putting legislation like this in place, but unfortunately the Opposition over there keep failing to see the simple things, because all it takes is to just go out and talk to these workers and they will tell you everything you need to know. Since bringing in WorkSafe as a regulator, things have improved, but we still have the high rate of workplace injuries compared to other like-minded countries. And this could, again, easily be avoided by just legislating and putting something like this in place. We are a world-class country, we are a First World country effectively, but some of the legislation that we have is not fit for purpose, and this is one of them. Whether you work in a workplace that employs less than 20 or more than 20, it doesn’t matter—it’s all human life, and they all matter equally, and they all have a right to go to work and come back their whānau, to their families, safe. This legislation is just going to help to do that. It’s good legislation; it’s a good bill. I commend it to the House.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT for the final reading of yet another inane and unnecessary bill from a Government bereft of any business understanding, the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. The idea that businesses of under 20 staff need the Government to make them be responsible is an insult to all employers and shows a patronising contempt for employees. The metaphor of flogging a dead horse is very appropriate: a waste of energy on a lost cause or a situation that cannot be changed, because I know this is going to go through very shortly. The more we talk about the bill—the sheer ridiculousness of it, of why we’re bothering with it, why this Government thought it so important in a time where businesses are struggling to survive, pay wages, and all the other costs that this Government has imposed on them—it’s mind boggling. The fact is that they just don’t get it.

With typical arrogance, if you dare to disagree, you obviously don’t care about workers and are really just a horrible person. We’ve heard that once tonight, at least, and, well, at the last reading the Greens said, “They”—that’s ACT and National—“are happy and willing to accept that number of people not coming home from work, that number of families who lose a member close to them. That is what they are accepting when they stand up in this House and say ‘Everything is fine.’” Yep, so anyone who doesn’t agree with the method of improving safety, anyone who doesn’t agree with what they say, is a horrible person. It’s just totally lacking common sense.

All new regulation should be able to be justified under certain criteria, and they need to pass the test of three basic questions. Number one: what are the problems the bill seeks to solve, and will this bill solve them? The answer is no, it won’t. As the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) in their excellent, fact-filled submission said, there is no evidence of a problem at all. Small businesses are already doing it. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, employers must have records for all work-related accidents and take reasonable steps to resolve the cause for the future. How mature. The second thing is: what are the costs of the scheme proposed, and do the potential benefits outweigh them? Answer? Short answer: no. Long answer: definitely not; 210,000 training days, trying to get relief workers, special meetings—all stuff that is done already over a cup of tea and a biscuit. Number three: who will bear the costs, and are they fairly shared? Guess who bears the cost—all of the costs?

To continue the animal metaphor, this bill is a dog’s breakfast, a poor piece of work, and it’s a mess. Minister Wood’s inability to answer basic questions about the bill in the committee of the whole House made it obvious that the bill hasn’t been well-thought-out and is a response to appease his union mates, who have a disdain for employers and anyone successful. Increased membership is their only concern; disrupting happy, productive workplaces just collateral damage.

In the committee of the whole House, I asked the Minister whether those people who own their businesses but pay themselves wages and work alongside other employees—maybe in a three-, four-, or five-person cafe—can be health and safety representatives. Due to the fluid nature of their employees, it just makes sense. I still don’t know the answer—I asked three times; I don’t know. His answer was actually, “Again, this is a situation”—this is Minister Wood—“where I think members are trying to find enormously unlikely examples to try and discredit a bill where it is highly unlikely this will occur. I suppose it is the case that if an employer who is working in the workplace in an onanistic fit of health and safety fervour decided he wanted to be a representative to himself, then he might determine to do that.” I must admit I had to look up the word “onanistic”, and I urge members to do the same. It’s “O-N-A-N-I-S-T-I-C”. While I don’t think the term is relevant to this debate, it’s very appropriate in other ways.

The number of businesses with five or fewer employees is huge: 102,000 employees in businesses of one to five; 43,000 of employees in numbers of six to nine. The fact that the Minister doesn’t think that this could become an issue just astounds me. An ex - Labour voter said to me just at the weekend, “I’ve always voted Labour, but never again. They used to care about the worker, but their ideology has changed them.”

The submissions opposed to this bill, such as the EMA and the Motor Trade Association, explained the facts. They weren’t full of the emotive comments and unsubstantiated claims that a divisive subject often brings, but divisiveness has been a hallmark of this Government, and it’s something they’ll be remembered for long after 14 October. You name it: farmers, townies, landlords, tenants, women, men—many other examples that I can save for another day. This one: employees against employers, and it really is so unnecessary.

This bill is yet another example of a Government trying to appear as if they care, looking after their union mates, once again hammering businesses with silly regulation, and not doing a thing to help the workers they purport to care so much about. ACT opposes this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with real pleasure that I rise to support the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. I stand by all of my statements in previous readings of this bill. We, the Green Party, support what has now been recognised by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as a fundamental principle around the right of work to occupational health and safety, as well as the right to bargain collectively, freedom of association, the end of forcing compulsory labour and the abolition of child labour, the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation. It’s only recently that occupational health and safety has been added to those fundamental rights at the ILO, which is a representative body involving business and unions and Governments.

The vision and why that’s been added there is in recognition that every working person has the right to expect to return home and to return home uninjured at the end of their day’s work and that no one should die or suffer real harm just to make a living and that it’s unacceptable for businesses to see workplace injuries as collateral damage and just a part of doing business, which is not a reality. Many businesses don’t take that approach; many, many businesses recognise the benefits of when staff are safe and able to contribute to their workplace. That is actually the norm, but not the rule.

Has it been mentioned that 64 people died at work in this country last year and an estimated 750 to 900 people were killed by occupational exposure last year? We have, potentially, about 1,000 who have died as a result of trying to earn a living in this country just last year. We had over 30,000 people with injuries that required more than a week away from work. That is just those that come up in ACC data; we know that a significant number of injuries experienced by women do not show up in that data.

So this a significant problem for us as a country. And if, for some of us, we may be a little emotive about this—given how many people don’t come home, actually, I think it’s justified to be a tad emotive about the fact that our regulations and our laws are not preventing that.

Part of what the work out of the Pike River disaster was recognising was that a laissez-faire approach to health and safety does not keep people safe. What was recognised, in terms of the lead up to the change in the law in 2015, the independent task force found that worker participation was a crucial weak link in our health and safety system.

I really just want to challenge what we’ve heard, which sounded like a very rational presentation, that there is no need for this and no evidence supporting it. What we know is that we have far too many deaths. It’s twice—per-head-of-population—the rate of deaths in this country compared to Australia; four times the rate of deaths in this country compared to the UK. We can’t just say that this is just normal. It’s not, and it’s a result of how we are doing business and it can be changed. But the evidence tells us that taking our hands off and just trusting businesses and workers to get this right themselves does not work, and it actually leads to more harm and more deaths.

There is really a huge amount of international and well as domestic research that tells us what does improve health and safety that can help prevent deaths and serious injury, and one of the absolutely key things is worker voice and worker participation. That is what this bill is addressing. It is using the evidence to actually help improve a very significant problem. We know that—

Toni Severin: What’s your evidence?

JAN LOGIE: We hear things like “What is the evidence?” Another piece of evidence about this is that workers in small firms—those with under 20 workers—are significantly more likely to suffer a severe injury and injuries more generally compared to workers in large firms. Then we have evidence that worker voice and worker representation is something that helps with health and safety. Why would we not standardise our response in terms of worker voice across large businesses and small businesses? That’s what this legislation does. It’s based on evidence, and it’s addressing a very clear and serious problem.

I do not want people I know or care for not to come home from work or for them to come home having been made sick by exposure in their workplaces so that then they lose their quality of life or their life later. There are absolute grounds for this legislation and it’s urgent, but it is not enough in itself.

We actually need to do more, and we’ve had significant issues raised through the select committee process around ensuring that the intent of the legislation is being properly implemented in terms of training for health and safety workers, and I was very concerned to hear that the Employers and Manufacturers Association—who were quoted previously—have been running training that takes up the whole two days that workers are entitled to that does not give them the qualification at the end to enable them to issue provisional improvement notices to be able to actually ensure action on health and safety risks. There was a concern that that may not be consistent with the legislation and, at the very least, it is deeply unethical and it made me question their leadership in this area. We also, from this, had concerns that, actually, WorkSafe was not being proactive enough in terms of being able to enforce the existing legislation and provide the leadership that’s needed to provide the cultural change across the country.

We’ve also been hearing from the unions more recently, wanting the implementation of corporate manslaughter charges where there is evidence that companies have made decisions to prioritise their bottom line over ensuring the safety of their workers that leads them to a death. I believe, considering the size of our issue as a country, that that is something that we also need to be looking at.

While not large, this is a significant and really important step, and when the evidence from the officials show us that the cost of this scheme is actually outweighed by the reduction in terms of time off work through injury, then I just cannot understand the arguments from the Opposition against that that are choosing only to look at the immediate dollar and not the life consequence or the medium to long term benefit to businesses from doing this. It’s about time these things changed.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to take a short call on this bill, the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. As we have heard from other speakers, the current legislation limits worker access to health and safety representatives and that support, especially receiving education from a health and safety representative or a committee member, especially if the employer has 20 or less workers. Because currently, as we’ve heard, a business does not have to initiate elections for that education from a health and safety representative. This bill fixes that with this small change. It would remove the thresholds so that all businesses are required to hold elections if requested by workers. There are a number of colleagues that I have known—one in particular—who has lost their life in a workplace situation, because, as a Pacific Islander, they were too whakamā, they were too embarrassed to talk about their personal situation.

This bill, as we’ve heard in the first reading and the second reading, the objective of this bill is to contribute to improved health and safety outcomes in all New Zealand workplaces—specifically to reduce that work-related harm. I was not a member of the committee at the time, but now I am a member of the Education and Workforce Committee. I’m very pleased to be a member and to see this legislation go through the third reading.

As we have heard, in the current legislation, a person conducting a business or undertaking, aka a PCBU, can make a decision not to have an election, so it takes that right away from current workers in the workplace. So New Zealand has fatalities—it’s just too high in the workplace. We need specific abilities to ensure that health and safety measures are in place and that the members of the public, the members in workplaces specifically under 20 workers, this change will enable and protect our workers, giving them that ability to make that request. It is important that the fundamental of improving worker representation and participation to reduce work-related harm will go through tonight. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Penk—five-minute call.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill has been, obviously, subject to a lot of discussion and debate tonight, and I have the pleasure of providing the penultimate call for the National Party—actually it might be the last one that we have tonight. But as others have observed on this side of the House, there are various reasons that we can’t support what appears to be a well-intended bill. Of course, no one could argue with the aim of improving worker safety, if indeed that is what the bill were to be able to achieve.

But before I go on to note some of those more substantive points, I think it is worth noting—as we reflect towards the end of the process—that the Education and Workforce Committee provided a report in which there were a number of amendments that were made and those were agreed unanimously. So I think that’s an indication that even though members of the Parliament who felt unable to support the bill overall did nevertheless wish to agree to amendments that would improve the bill, knowing that it would be passed—it’s proposed by a Government that has a single party majority. So operating in good faith to improve the final product, in so far as they could, I think, actually reflected well on all those who are involved in that stage of the process. I wasn’t personally, but I followed the arguments that have been made at various stages of the legislative process, and indeed now I have this opportunity to contribute to them.

It’s worth noting, for anyone who’s been following the debate and isn’t finding it entirely clear what exactly is being done by the bill, a very important word in all of this is the word “and”. So as noted in the commentary, as provided by the Education and Workforce Committee, the current situation is that “a person conducting a business or undertaking can decline a request from its workers to initiate an election for a health and safety representative if it is not in a designated high-risk sector or industry and has fewer than 20 workers.”

So even if a business has fewer than 20 workers, if it is in what is considered a “high-risk” sector, then these higher standards actually apply to it. So it’s not the case that a business—either by virtue of being small or by being not dangerous, so to speak—will be able to avoid this requirement. But actually, it’s the combination of those two that would make the difference under the current law.

The second—and more obvious—point, I suppose to make in that is that we’re talking about the election of officers for health and safety and the establishment of committees. It’s essentially a bureaucratic, even technocratic—albeit democratic—function that this bill is providing. That’s not to pour scorn on the importance of democracy, or technocracy, or even bureaucracy. But these things have their place, and a small workplace that is determinedly and consciously classed as not being one that is high-risk, it seems that the emphasis is misplaced rather than saying, for example, what are the substantive measures that we can take to improve health and safety—whether it is by laws that will actually do something positive in that direction beyond the mere election of officers and establishments of committees and so forth.

One practical example in that regard would be that found in the National Party differing view within the select committee report, whereby our members on that committee had said, “Focus would be better placed on ensuring that WorkSafe operates as an effective regulator of the existing laws and regulations.” So we would prefer that additional effort, focus, resources, and so forth were concentrated in that area, and we think that would have a better chance of achieving tangible, positive change than one change that is merely technocratic, bureaucratic—albeit, as I say, democratic.

So distinguishing between high-risk and low-risk activities, one draws on the wisdom, as always, of Blackadder. If one compares the situation of Captain Darling versus that of Captain Blackadder and, of course, Baldrick—Private Baldrick, no less or no more—and the lorry load of paperclips that has been ordered on that morning, for example, by Captain Darling in a particularly exciting move not on the front line, but in the immortal words of General Melchett: “We are behind you, Captain Blackadder.” you know, some way behind you, etc.

Anyway, I’m not going to do it as well as some of those characters have. Similarly, my contribution is probably not as good as others. But nevertheless, we do oppose the bill for the reasons that I’ve said.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to take a short call on this important bill, and begin by coming back to some first principles. There are two that I want to mention, in particular. The first is around the Employment Relations Act, which stipulates very clearly the inherent inequality that exists between employer and employees. That is at the heart of this bill in terms of ensuring that workers have a voice and that that inherent inequality is addressed.

The second principle I want to just note is that those of us who have studied accounting at university, as I have, will know that part of doing business, you have two parts of your ledger: there’s revenue and there’s cost. And there are costs that are part of doing business. And people on the other side tonight have talked about the cost of this bill. Expenses are fundamental parts of doing business. On this side of the House, the Labour Government believes that paying the cost of ensuring that workers are safe at work so that inherent inequality is addressed, and so that workers can go home safely to their families at the end of the night, is an important principle that we proudly stand by.

Part of my study at university was also in employment relations. And one of the particular pieces of research that is very well understood by those of us who’ve worked in health and safety, as I have, is that if you have proper robust worker participation schemes operating within your business, it does actually lead to a lower number of incidents, a lower number of injuries, and a lower number of deaths. The Labour Government’s commitment to the working people of New Zealand is that we want less people injured at work. This bill will help with that, will help address New Zealand’s lax approach to health and safety, and I commend it to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I just want to give one example as a contribution to this debate as to a business that might be affected. Take a small building enterprise. They’re actually probably riskier than the big ones, in a lot of ways. People are closer to the action. They don’t necessarily have someone to turn to in that situation who is apart from the situation, because it might be the owner who is working alongside them, and so it is really important that they are able to go through such a process. And all it does—all it does—is make this business safer, and that’s good for productivity, and it’s good for the health and the welfare of everyone in that business and the business itself. That is where we should be landing in New Zealand. We need a culture change which involves workers in growing a healthy New Zealand economy, and this is going to help do that. It isn’t the biggest thing in the world, but it is a good thing. I’m proud of being part of a Government that brought in this change. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.