Wednesday, 28 June 2023

WEDNESDAY, 28 JUNE 2023

WEDNESDAY, 28 JUNE 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (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.

Motions

New Zealand Special Olympics Team 2023—Congratulations

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and with debate congratulating the New Zealand Special Olympics team on their achievements at the Special Olympics World Summer Games in Berlin, Germany.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House congratulate the New Zealand Special Olympics Team, comprising 39 athletes and 22 support staff, on their success at the Special Olympics World Summer Games in Berlin, where they won five gold medals, 17 silver medals, and 12 bronze medals.

On behalf of the Government, I would like to congratulate the entire team on their record achievements at the World Summer Games in Berlin. The team will be welcomed home to Aotearoa New Zealand as heroes this week, having achieved a record number of medals.

I’d also like to recognise that the team’s achievements extend beyond the incredible medal count. Our athletes have been smashing personal bests, learning more about just what they are capable of, and developing lifelong friendships and bonds along the way. Athletes representing Aotearoa New Zealand for the games are chosen for both their sporting ability and their resilience. As the games were hosted in Berlin, attending has meant undertaking the longest journey many of our athletes have ever made, while being away from their family and loved ones for three weeks. This trip to Berlin has been truly life changing for many of these athletes and support staff. I applaud our athletes for taking on the challenge of participating in this event and for demonstrating the true sense of being a team. They have strengthened their bonds together, supported one another through the excitement of attending the event, and attaining individual success while also supporting each other through any disappointments. These athletes are truly inspirational, showing us what it means to be thrown out of your comfort zone on the other side of the world and to come out on the other side stronger together, having gained new skills and developed confidence and greater independence.

There are so many highlights I hesitate to mention them, but I will acknowledge a few. Footballer Cole Bailey, who scored Aotearoa New Zealand’s first ever goal at a Special Olympics World Summer Games; ten-pin bowler Len Just, who was the oldest athlete in the contingent—I won’t say how old—winning gold and two bronze medals; powerlifter Lynett Williams achieving her dream of winning a gold medal, then winning three more medals, two silvers and a bronze; and bocce player Aaron Campbell from the mighty Ōtaki electorate enjoying two personal bests, winning New Zealand’s first Special Olympics gold medal and travelling overseas for the first time in his life.

I echo the words of the Head of Delegation, Rowena Massey, in saying that the rewards and skills the athletes have gained go so much further than the medal count. The lessons gained will support the athletes in their lives, supporting greater engagement in the community, employment, and education opportunities. On behalf of the Government, I say again: congratulations. We all welcome you home to Aotearoa New Zealand and encourage you to continue to strive for your best, have fun along the way. You have been an inspiration to all of us in showing what determination, resilience, and teamwork can achieve. Each of our athletes has embodied the Special Olympics oath: “Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.”

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great privilege to rise on behalf of the National Party to support the motion and to congratulate New Zealand’s Special Olympics team on their great performance at the Berlin Special Olympics World Summer Games.

I had the privilege of chairing our Special Olympics for some nine years. In that role, I also attended a world summer games in Los Angeles, and to attend one of those events and see, I guess, the transformational and almost life-changing effect it has on those athletes and their families and the supporters is pretty amazing.

Whilst we congratulate the athletes on their fantastic performances in Berlin, I want to acknowledge the team management, the coaches, the medical staff, and the supporters, including caregivers and parents, whose roles are so important in ensuring the success of this team and the total experience these athletes have—win, lose, or draw. This team—we’ve just heard the results of it. They won well over 30 medals, with 39 athletes competing. That’s almost a medal per athlete, and I think that’s pretty significant in itself. But, as I said earlier, win, lose, or draw, these athletes gain significantly from the experience of attending a world summer games, and, as the Minister said just a minute ago, most of these athletes had never left New Zealand before.

This team was led by Rowena Massey, who’s given great service to the organisation over a number of years. Her experience would have been a great asset to the team, as it is a very complex task to lead a team like the Special Olympics team on an international trip of quite significant length. So I think she would have done a great job of that, and also Dr Nicole Lundon. I want to acknowledge that both of these roles are totally critical to the success of the team.

To see the sheer enjoyment of these athletes as they compete on the international stage has to be experienced to understand how important participation in sport is to our Special Olympians. It’s not only the participation in the sport but it’s the participation in the whole atmosphere and the excitement of the event, which is what really creates great value for them. I also want to acknowledge all those, including the athletes themselves, who raised the enormous amount of money needed to ensure that this team could travel to Berlin to compete. They do a fantastic job, all of it voluntarily. Congratulations to Special Olympics New Zealand, their athletes, and the thousands of volunteers on this very successful mission.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Congratulations to the New Zealand Special Olympics team in Berlin 2023. The records that they’ve achieved have been extraordinary: 34 medals; 17 silver, 12 bronze medals, and five gold across nine disciplines. The 39 athletes and 22 support staff were led by the head of delegation, Rowena Massey, and chief executive Fran Scholey, and it’s a fitting testament to the founders, which Mr McKelvie may know, of Grant and Wendy Quinn, who, from small and pioneering steps, today, have built a legacy for this organisation.

The Kiwis joined 7,000 other athletes with an intellectual disability from 190 countries, and the games, being hosted in the German city of Berlin were a testament to the German spirit around the special winter Olympics. As Mr Robertson said, it has been truly a life-changing event for these athletes, and seeing them at the Brandenburg Gate celebrating was extraordinary.

My colleague Toni Severin, who is spokesperson for disabilities, highlighted to me that these people are selected on sports ability, mental resilience, and being able to handle staying away from home for three weeks. We really value them and the Special Olympics that they have performed in.

The touching moment for me was Dunedin powerlifter Ryan Stewart, who isn’t a big man, but he deadlifted 152.5 kilograms of weight—which Mr Nash would probably struggle to do! Maybe we should bring Ryan here, and we’ll have a deadlift competition! That was truly spectacular. Again, Mr Clark would know, he came from Dunedin, and his words were, “He had nothing to lose.”

But there were are a couple of things that did disturb. The level of funding for these people to support them is very, very low, and the host of athletes are not in paid work. And even golfer Mitchell Brown, who won gold, appeared on The AM Show this year, and he had to start a Givealittle to fund his trip to Berlin. I think it would be appropriate before we leave in this Parliament to bring these people to Parliament, and we can do that, I hope, Mr Robertson. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Green Party, I want to extend our congratulations to the New Zealand Special Olympics team for what many have described as being an amazing performance in these games in Berlin in 2023, with many athletes setting personal records and the team overall achieving a record number of medals during the competitions.

I want to extend a massive heartfelt congratulations not just to the medallists but to everyone who competed, their family members, and the support staff who were going there. I think, echoing the words of the previous speakers, all of the success has been done amidst huge resourcing challenges, and the fact that many of our disabled athletes are having to fundraise for whatever little resources are there speaks to the barriers that we are yet to overcome.

I want to also thank the journalists who took the time to cover these events, because for many of these events there’s also inequities when it comes to the broadcasting. And so it’s great to see actually the amount of New Zealand media covering the amazing performances and successes from the team as well.

And as the previous speaker also mentioned, all of this in the context of global uncertainty, where some of the teams overseas are actually facing threats from other politicians about cutting their funding or imposing sanctions on their own country’s Special Olympics team—so it’s amazing that the competition went ahead. It’s awesome that our athletes performed really well, and it’s a testament of both what they’ve achieved and what we have yet to overcome. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

CLERK:

2021-22 annual report of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority

2023-23 statement of performance expectations for the Earthquake Commission.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Auckland Council: Preparedness for responding to an emergency and the Chief Ombudsman’s report entitled Kia Whaitake, Making a Difference. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, in particular I stand by two reports that highlight positive outcomes from this Government’s policies. A Ministry of Social Development report released on Monday shows that total real after-housing incomes are 48 percent higher than at the end of 2017 for those receiving a main benefit. This Government’s Families Package, benefit increases, and changes to Working for Families have made a vital difference in the lives of low-income people and whānau. Statistics New Zealand’s employment indicators for May 2023, released today, shows that despite economic headwinds, seasonally adjusted employment has continued to increase by over 5,000 filled jobs. We know there is more to do but reports such as these show we’re on the right track and are making progress.

Christopher Luxon: Would an asset tax or a capital gains tax be good or bad for an economy already in recession?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have no plans to introduce either of those things.

Christopher Luxon: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a clear question. It wasn’t political; it was principled, about are these taxes good or bad in a time of recession?

SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister definitely has addressed the question, that’s the main point. It’s a hypothetical situation. The member does not have to subscribe to the hypothesis of the question.

Christopher Luxon: Wouldn’t an asset tax or a capital gains tax push investment out of New Zealand, deepening the recession we’re already in?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member is asking a question with the underlying premise that we are planning on introducing one or both of those things, and we’re not.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with the previous Prime Minister that they were “unable to build a mandate for a capital gains tax”, and will she rule out introducing an asset tax or a capital gains tax?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: To the first part of the question, yes.

Christopher Luxon: And will she rule out an asset tax?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I’ve already said, we have no plans to introduce such a tax.

Christopher Luxon: Will her Government bring back the tax on KiwiSaver fees?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have no plans with regards to taxes at this point in time, and so I can’t respond to what might happen three, five, 10 years from now. But we certainly have no plans to do such a thing.

Christopher Luxon: So she’s saying that a tax on KiwiSaver accounts is firmly on the table?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What I’m saying is that we currently have not announced a tax policy.

Christopher Luxon: So how can Kiwis have confidence to invest in the future when, instead of putting together a real economic plan, her Ministers are now designing new taxes in secret and won’t tell the country what they are?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I really don’t understand where that question even came from. I made no such inference and the question therefore makes no sense.

Christopher Luxon: So just to be clear, will she rule out introducing an asset tax or a capital gains tax while in Government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think I’ve made myself really clear. We have no such plans to do either of those things.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What real-world data, if any, is collected by the Government on healthy homes standards compliance?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing): This Government believes every New Zealander should have a safe, warm, and dry home. The healthy homes standards were designed to improve and deliver on this and improve the quality of rental properties across the country. The latest Government-commissioned Kantar survey of November 2022 found that 92 percent of landlords had either fully met the standards or have done things to prepare their property to meet the healthy homes standards. As at 31 May 2023, 97 percent of eligible Kāinga Ora homes either met the requirements within the healthy homes standards or had work in progress to meet them. We are also aware of what is happening on the ground through compliance checks by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) tenancy compliance and investigations team. In the period 30 May 2022 to 29 May 2023, they undertook 921 healthy home standards compliance checks—296 of which were the result of a complaint, and 625 were the result of a proactive investigation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she think that information from voluntary surveys is adequate to make evidence-based policy to respond to the real-world level of healthy homes standards compliance?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I think it is one aspect of ensuring that we have compliance with the healthy homes standards.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How many landlords or property managers have self-registered exclusions from the healthy homes standards for their rentals?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I don’t have that data on me. If the member would like to put that on notice, then I’m willing to respond.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the burden of ensuring healthy homes standards compliance fall on renters living in those sub-standard rental properties?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: As I said, the Government believes that every New Zealander should have a safe, warm, and dry home. There is a responsibility on everybody to ensure that there is compliance with the healthy homes standards. Again, I will go through compliance time frames between 1 July 2021 and 2025: all private rentals must comply with the healthy homes standards. If the member has a particular concern or tenants that have written to them, we welcome that investigation. They can ring 0800 TENANCY to report that to MBIE.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can the Government understand whether the healthy homes standards are working when they have no real-world data on compliance and no data on the self-registered exclusion and the burden disproportionately falls on renters to report these issues, and doesn’t all of this just make the case for a rental warrant of fitness?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: As we’ve said, the Government, again, believes that everybody should have a safe, warm, and dry home. We are doing compliance checks on the ground. Private landlords have to comply with the healthy homes standards by 1 July 2025. There is always more work to do in this space, and we believe that the best way to improve that is through doing compliance checks and having standards which were not in place before 2019.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I’ve said previously in the House, 2023 is a difficult year for many New Zealanders and especially so in the economic sense. However, our labour market does remain resilient with New Zealanders in work in record numbers, and wages growing to help deal with the challenges ahead. This morning, Stats New Zealand reported that employment rose for the fifth month in a row, with filled jobs rising by 5,461, or 0.2 percent, in May, taking the total number of jobs to 2.37 million. The main contribution came from services industries and from goods-producing industries. By region, the number of filled jobs in Auckland rose 4.6 percent on a year earlier, Canterbury by 3.8 percent, Waikato by 3.4 percent, Wellington by 2.7 percent, and Otago by 5.2 percent.

Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on confidence in the labour market and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Confidence in the jobs market remains positive with the Westpac-McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index at 105.6. A number above 100 represents optimism, while below represents pessimism. Confidence across regions was mixed with gains in Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay due to a lift in reported and expected earnings. All regions saw a fall in perceptions about current jobs opportunities, which reflects some of the issues that New Zealanders are dealing with at the moment.

Anna Lorck: What reports has he seen on exports and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is a challenging global environment for New Zealand’s exporters and that will continue for the rest of the year. However, last week, Stats New Zealand reported exports rose 2.8 percent to $7 billion in May, led by dairy products, fruit, and seafood. On an annual basis, exports rose 8.2 percent to $72.8 billion. Looking at exports by destination, annual exports to China rose 2.3 percent, to Australia by 7.5 percent, by 8.6 percent to the EU, and 12 percent to the US. The Prime Minister is currently leading a 29-strong business delegation to China to boost export growth with a key trading partner, in sectors ranging from dairy, meat, and wood, to emerging areas like gaming, health and wellness, as well as tourism and education. We are continuing to strengthen and diversify our economic ties with the rest of the world, including through our new free-trade agreements with the UK and the EU.

Anna Lorck: What other reports has he seen on economic activity in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats New Zealand reported that the New Zealand Activity Index, which is a broad and more up-to-date measure of activity in the economy, rose 0.7 percent in May compared with the same period a year ago. Activity indicators rose for heavy traffic movements, activity outlook and grid demand, along with a reduction in jobseeker numbers. Activity indicators did however ease for electronic card transactions, light traffic movements, manufacturing, and job advertisements in line with the challenges facing the New Zealand economy. We know that many New Zealanders are doing it tough. However, as a country we are well-placed to face the challenges ahead, with unemployment near record lows, and public debt levels well below those of countries we compare ourselves with. As a Government, we are continuing to strike a balance to support New Zealanders in the here and now, while investing in strong public services and a resilient infrastructure network to build for a better tomorrow.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with BNZ that “The New Zealand economy is currently in peak stagflation: two quarters of negative growth; a labour market that is unsustainably tight; and inflation miles above the Reserve Bank’s target”; if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, no, I would not characterise the New Zealand economy that way. The answer to the second part of the member’s question is in the qualification provided by the BNZ economists immediately after the quote the member used for the first part of her question. That quote is, “But the worm is turning. Inflationary and labour market pressures are easing, and interest rates have probably peaked. The outlook is brightening with a solid bounce in activity expected in the second half of next year.” I acknowledge that for those who are affected at the moment by the slowdown, these are challenging times. However, as a country, we face this period of slowdown from a strong starting point of high employment, growing real wages, and low public debt.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the BNZ’s comments, immediately following those comments, that “The New Zealand economy has stalled.” and “there is more pain to be felt as the economy bounces along the bottom torn between rising immigration and [higher] interest rates.”, and isn’t it actually the case that the worm for our economy will only turn when there’s the election of a National-led Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, in answer to the second part of that question, because the election, if it were to happen, of a National Government would see unaffordable tax cuts and massive cuts to public services, and the member needs to explain how all of that adds up, because at the moment they can’t even cost a basic policy, let alone have an economic plan that ends up.

Nicola Willis: Would the Minister care to explain why the Australian economy is performing so much better than New Zealand’s, with no recession; inflation 110 basis points lower, at 5.6 percent; official interest rates 140 basis points lower, at 4.1 percent; and both the current account and Government Budget in surplus?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many, many answers to that member’s question there. We’ll just take the very, very last point. The member might want to go back and look at the way that surplus is measured in the Australian economy, and the New Zealand economy, in that they have a one-year surplus this year and then go back into deficit next year, so questions like that would need to be answered. But I guess the point that the member needs to think about is that the two economies are both doing well, relative to the rest of the world, when we compare to pre-COVID times. The difference in terms of GDP to the same quarter last year—New Zealand had 2.2 percent growth, Australia had 2.3 percent; so it’s close. We work well with our neighbours. I do, however, given the members interest in Australia, look forward to her advocacy of a capital gains tax and a 45c top tax rate.

Christopher Luxon: Oh, that’s coming.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: From you, is it?

Nicola Willis: Is it Labour Party policy to increase the top tax rate to 45c and deliver a capital gains tax, or is that just the proposal discussed at Cabinet to be deferred to later?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member well knows, I’m in this role as the Minister of Finance. I’m not answering questions about what the Labour Party policy is or isn’t. But what I can say is that, once again, at this election, we’ll be there with a fully costed economic plan. The member’s got a couple of options: she could leave out a few billion dollars like Paul Goldsmith, or she could front up to New Zealanders about how she’s going to pay for public services with her unaffordable tax cuts.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Westpac that “it’s clear the New Zealand economy is losing momentum”, or does he prefer BNZ’s characterisation that “economic momentum has ground to a halt”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We can all play “pick-an-economist” if we want to, and I could also pick out Sharon Zollner, the chief economist who makes the point that the recession that we have at the moment doesn’t look much like a normal recession, with unemployment still at a near-record low, and the low levels of public debt that we have. Clearly, she also stated that we would have had positive growth in the last quarter if the cyclone hadn’t hit.

Nicola Willis: Why does he refuse to take any responsibility for delivering the biggest current account deficit since records began in New Zealand, a recession, exploding Government debt, sky-high inflation and interest rates—but he will happily stand in this House and take credit for any blip on the horizon that he can spin as positive today?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Over the course of the last six years, I have taken responsibility for the full picture of where we have gone as a Government from an economic perspective. We got through COVID better than most other countries; our economy is 6 percent larger than it was. Does that mean that every single thing that’s happened along the way has been perfect? No, it doesn’t, but I will stand by our record of having low unemployment, low public debt, an economy that’s bigger than it was before COVID, and having looked after people—and being able to produce an economic plan that actually adds up, unlike the National Party.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that his economic mismanagement has delivered New Zealand the biggest current account deficit in the developed world, with BNZ’s head of research, Stephen Toplis pointing out that “the last time we experienced such heights was back in the 1970s when New Zealand was referred to as a ‘banana republic’”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The nature of New Zealand’s current account deficit challenge is long-running. As the member knows, that the direction of travel here is the right one, and that it has now come down to 8.5 percent. I know the member wants me to take responsibility for high global interest rates; for a supply chain affected by COVID. I’m sure if the member stopped and thought about it for a minute, she would realise that those aren’t matters that are in the control of the Government. I’d also point the member to the fact that New Zealand’s net international investment position now means that, actually, the impact of that current account deficit over the last few years is effectively neutralised. This is very different from periods of time in the past when the current account deficit has been high.

Nicola Willis: Has he been advised what the impact for New Zealanders will be when the Government rips off its fuel tax band-aid at the end of the week, leaving New Zealanders to struggle on with the ongoing cost of living crisis and no permanent tax reduction; and does he agree with Gareth Kiernan, Chief Forecaster of Infometrics, that “households are now paying the price for the Government’s inability to cut its spending from higher pandemic-era levels now that we’re out the other side”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Of the four or five questions that the member put up there, I’ll comment on a couple of those. The first is the very interesting notion that it appears the National Party is going to magic up another couple of billion dollars to keep the fuel tax subsidy going, because that’s the clear implication of that member’s question. We put that measure in to support New Zealanders as inflation rose. Inflation is now coming down, and that measure is coming off.

Question No. 5—Energy and Resources

5. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How will Budget 2023 support businesses to decarbonise their vehicle fleets?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Through Budget 2023, the Government is backing businesses to accelerate the decarbonisation of their vehicle fleets. Heavy vehicles make up around a quarter of New Zealand’s total transport emissions, so these partnerships are vital to our decarbonisation. The clean heavy vehicles grant funded through Budget 2023 will support the purchase of low-emissions heavy vehicles, including trucks, vans, and buses, and includes electric and green hydrogen - powered vehicles.

Glen Bennett: How will the Government’s clean heavy vehicles grant support businesses to decarbonise?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s partnership with businesses will support the roll-out of around 500 low-emissions heavy vehicles and help businesses to lower their emissions. The clean heavy vehicles grant will also help businesses to reduce their fuel costs over that time by up to 75 percent. This fund builds on the success of the Government’s Clean Car Discount and Low Emissions Transport Fund to support the decarbonisation of New Zealand’s transport fleet.

Glen Bennett: How does Budget 2023 support the roll-out of a national EV charging network?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A lack of public EV chargers is a key barrier to the uptake of EVs. Through Budget ’23, the Government is partnering with the private sector to roll out a national EV charging network of up to 23 EV charging hubs. These hubs will deliver more locations for people to tank up their EVs, providing multiple fast electric vehicle chargers, including options for low-emissions heavy freight along our key transport routes. This is on top of the Government’s investment in EV chargers today, having delivered more than 1,300 EV chargers across New Zealand through the Low Emissions Transport Fund.

Glen Bennett: How else is the Government partnering with businesses to decarbonise transport?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government’s green hydrogen consumption rebate will bridge the price gap between fossil fuels and green hydrogen to support early adopters to reduce their emissions by 150,000 tonnes, the equivalent to cancelling out the emissions of hundreds of trucks. Working with partners in the private sector, this initiative will help make green hydrogen a financially viable option, developing the industry and driving down emissions in hard to abate sectors while creating new jobs and economic development opportunities in our just transition regions.

Question No. 6—Police

6. 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 BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I stand by my full statement at the time it was given, that “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1800 extra Police.” As the member is aware, we have now delivered over 1,800 extra police.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Do authorised officers have powers of arrest?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: No, they don’t; however, authorised officers have a large amount of work that they need to do in order to keep our communities safe as well.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How can she say Kiwis feel safer when, according to the 2023 New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, 39 percent of victims of crime do not think police would be interested or could not do anything?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I’m pleased to see that more than eight out of 10 New Zealanders rate police’s professionalism highly under the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. It is a tribute to the hard work police officers do day in and day out to help keep our communities safe.

Hon Mark Mitchell: The question is not about the professionalism of the police.

SPEAKER: Is that a point of order?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. The question is not about the professionalism of the police; the question is, how can she say Kiwis feel safer when, according to the 2023 New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, 39 percent of victims of crime do not think police would be interested or could not do anything?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: In reference to the survey that the member spoke about, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, I’m pleased to see that eight out of 10 New Zealanders rate police professionalism highly. Although down on last year’s figure, police have highlighted the changes to the reputation of police internationally as well as public concern about new crime trends like ram raids lying behind these changes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why, given that there are 1,530 more police on the beat, was there no police response yesterday in Christchurch to a violent offender placed under citizen’s arrest?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: That type of offending is distressing. The member will also well know that, under section 16 of the Policing Act 2008, the Minister cannot direct the Commissioner of Police as to where they deploy their resources or investigations.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Has the Minister sought an explanation from the commissioner?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Again, under the Policing Act 2008, section 16, the Minister cannot direct the Commissioner of Police in relation to investigations, enforcement, or the deployment of their resources.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The Minister answered a question about the seeking of an explanation with the repeating of what we know, which is that the Minister can’t direct. They are two different things, and, therefore, the question wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: I’ll let the member ask the question again. In my opinion, most New Zealanders might have thought that it was addressed, but you can ask it again if you like.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Has the Minister sought an explanation from the commissioner?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I am not aware of whether the Acting Minister has sought an explanation from the commissioner.

Question No. 7—Women

7. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour) to the Minister for Women: What recent announcements has the Government made about representation on public sector boards?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Earlier this month, Minister Radhakrishnan and I announced the results of the Manatū Wāhine Ministry for Women’s 2022 stocktake of diversity on public sector boards and committees. Ensuring women’s voices are around the board tables of our public organisations is crucial if we’re serious about driving meaningful progress for an inclusive New Zealand. I am pleased to report that representation for women on public sector boards and committees is the highest it’s ever been, at 53.1 percent, and women now hold 41.9 percent of board chair roles.

Soraya Peke-Mason: How does this compare to previous years?

Hon JAN TINETTI: In 2018, the Government set the target of 50 percent women’s representation on Government boards. The stocktake shows this is the third consecutive year we have achieved this goal and the 10th consecutive year we have seen an increase in representation for women. Women in chairperson roles has also had a 10 percent increase since we began collecting the data in 2015.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What does the stocktake tell us about representation for Māori?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Māori representation has increased steadily since 2019, when data collection for ethnicity on boards began. Māori board members now hold 26.8 percent of board roles, with wāhine Māori making up 15.1 percent of all public sector board and committee members.

Soraya Peke-Mason: And what does the stocktake tell us about ethnic representation on public sector boards and committees?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Since we began tracking ethnic communities’ representations on public sector boards and committees, we have seen representation increased by 64 percent. Pacific board members are 7.2 percent of roles, and Asian board members 6.1 percent. We are making good progress, and we still have so much more potential to unlock. New Zealand is an incredibly diverse country, and it is important we continue making boards and committees more representative of New Zealand society.

Question No. 8—Health

8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: What is the name of the supplier storing the 17.8 million expired and expiring Rapid Antigen Tests to which she referred in her statement yesterday, “I am happy to give the member the name of the supplier if they put it on notice”, and what is the overall cost to date of warehousing with this supplier to which she referred in her statement yesterday that “I am happy to provide the cost of the warehousing overall for the member if the member puts that question on notice”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): To the first part of the question, I’m advised that the current provider of warehousing and logistics for personal protective equipment (PPE) and rapid antigen tests (RATs) is Healthcare Logistics (HCL). In answer to the second part, I am advised by Te Whatu Ora that at this stage they have no cost data for HCL back to January 2022 when they became a single provider. From January 2022 to April 2023, the total spend was $44.27 million for all COVID-19 PPE and rapid antigen test warehousing and logistics. Prior to that there were multiple providers, and they are unable to disaggregate and collate the information in the time available. I have asked for that work to be completed at pace and provided to the member once it is available. I would also like to note that the total costs include the storage, warehousing activity, picking, packing, distributing, freight, and courier costs for distribution. RATs are only one component of the total figure.

David Seymour: Can the Minister clarify that the counter party she mentioned is named Healthcare Logistics, and is Healthcare Logistics a subsidiary of any other company?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In response to the first part of the question, yes, the firm is Healthcare Logistics.

David Seymour: What other supplies besides rapid antigen tests are being stored, and what is the value of those supplies?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I mentioned in my primary answer, personal protective equipment, which would include—I’m not certain it’s in this particular warehouse, but the types of COVID PPE that we purchase are masks, gowns, and gloves.

David Seymour: Does the Minister now see it was a mistake to ban other private companies from importing rapid antigen tests and even confiscate RATs from those who were eventually able to import some, when the Government itself has been so woeful at managing inventory that it’s wasted at least 158 million on expired or near-expiring tests and we now know are spending nearly $45 million storing inventory?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, and I reject the accounting—the creative accounting—in that question. I also reject, as has been documented in documents released under the Official Information Act, that there was confiscation of any rapid antigen tests. I do note, however, as I said in response to this question yesterday, that in order to deal with a rapidly changing pandemic, large purchases—at a time of global uncertainty around supply chains and for a country at the end of supply chains, we did need to make large purchases.

David Seymour: Does the Minister recognise that by banning others from acquiring rapid antigen tests, making the Government, effectively, the monopoly provider for a period of time, she has now wasted $160 million, around $32 per New Zealander, which is just the extra cost of having a Labour Government this week, with more costs to rack up next week?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No, I reject the accounting that the member is trying to do on the fly there, and I would like to point out that while it was not possible to predict the procurement needs we had for a rapidly changing global pandemic, we take the issue of responsible financing of the health system extremely seriously, which is why Te Whatu Ora, in the less than one year of its operation, has been directed to find efficiencies. And I can report that in its first year it has made savings that, were they to be annualised, would total $75 million. This includes savings from the removal of boards, savings on procurement, savings on optimisation of multiple data and digital packages that they have, savings on insurance, savings on inventory, savings on back-office shared functions, and the removal of duplicated positions in finance. We take efficiency in the health system extremely seriously.

Question No. 9—Emergency Management

9. Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for Emergency Management: Does he stand by all his decisions and policies regarding the Emergency Management Bill?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Yes.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Who gave him advice that the advisory role for Māori in his proposed new national emergency management system would work for Māori?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: As is usual process when considering a bill, we engaged with a number of stakeholders. That included those within the civil defence structure that were engaged and work regularly with Māori communities. There’s also a Māori advisory committee directly advising me and previous Ministers in the development of this bill, and I also consulted widely along this House, including my own caucus, who unanimously supported the bill at the time.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Why is it acceptable that in this bill, Māori are once again relegated to advisory level, rather than having real decision-making power at both national and local levels?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It clearly outlines in the bill that there is a proposal to include and require Māori representation at the civil defence emergency management group level, which is not an advisory level. It is the actual group which conducts civil defence activities in each region.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Is he aware that recent events, including Cyclone Hale, Cyclone Gabrielle, and flooding in Tairāwhiti over the weekend, highlights that the current emergency management system, which already enables Māori advice, is failing to meet the needs of tangata whenua?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I was in Tairāwhiti in the weekend. I spoke to Māori there on the ground, and the feedback that I got was that they were very happy with the engagement of the local civil defence structure. That’s not to say that that is in place in every region, and that is why the bill proposes what it does.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: What is his response to the call of Māori leaders across the country, including Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who have continually called for the Crown to recognise and fully resource a Māori emergency management system?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, the member was part of the Labour caucus when this bill was consulted on, and she expressed her support for it at the time. In addition to that, we have consulted across a number of local councils across the country, and the proposal was that setting a requirement for Māori to be part of civil defence emergency management groups without setting a minimum and allowing each region to find the number that best suits them—I expect that the number in Waikato might be different to the number in Southland, but that is their call, because it will work for them. The secret and the benefit of our success across various disasters in civil defence is that it is locally led, and that is what we’re proposing in this bill.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: How can he justify the bill to tangata whenua, who stepped up and led a response to every emergency event, and yet continue to be shut out of governance arrangements of the emergency management system in these legislative changes?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: With the greatest possible respect, I suggest the member reads the proposals, because the proposals are to require that Māori are at the level that make decisions in planning, preparation, resilience, and response. At every given opportunity, I have taken the chance to acknowledge the role that tangata whenua iwi Māori play whenever there is a response. It is always marae that opens its doors whenever there is a severe weather event or a natural disaster. They don’t pick and choose who comes in for welfare needs; they open their doors and take all that come. We, as a Government, recognise that; that is why we are proposing what we are in the bill.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Will he consider an amendment to the legislation to empower a tangata whenua emergency management system, including a Māori director of emergency management and a Māori emergency management committee structure; if not, why not?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It is my hope that the committee will decide to extend the time in which they consider the bill to take into account any lessons that arise from the response to the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Civil defence should never have any time for politics. That is why I engaged and gave every party in this House the opportunity to contribute towards the bill, and I actually acknowledge the contributions of the Hon Gerry Brownlee with his experience, in particular, of the Christchurch earthquake, because his contributions actually assisted us in the formulation of this bill. We will continue that vein and bipartisan approach in the development of this bill, and we will be open to all suggestions for refinements and improvements.

Question No. 10—Environment

10. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for the Environment: What progress has been made on repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act 1991?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Government is making substantial progress on repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) and is on track to do so within this parliamentary term. The RMA takes too long, costs too much, and does not adequately protect the environment. The RMA reforms will deliver results: plan making will be faster, fewer consents will be needed, and costs for approvals for housing and infrastructure will decrease significantly. Environmental outcomes will also improve. The current system is failing—business, developers, and environmentalists agree on this. After years and years of dithering by prior Governments, it’s time to repeal and replace the RMA.

Hon Phil Twyford: What benefits will the repeal and replacement of the RMA deliver for New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I’ve said, system process costs for developers and other people are excessive. The numbers are staggering. At the moment, New Zealanders pay around $800 million a year for those consents. After the new system is in place, people applying for consents are expected, on a conservative estimate, to save 17 percent, which would be $149 million a year, and the mid-range estimate puts that at $430 million per year. These excessive costs that developers are currently paying are passed on to consumers. Developers will instead be able to spend that money on housing and infrastructure rather than on consultants or filling out council paperwork.

Hon Phil Twyford: What is the Government’s view of the select committee reports on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’d like to thank the committee for the role it has played in ensuring the new legislation is robust. Around 94 percent of all submitters agreed on the need for system reform. Most major organisations were also broadly supportive of the main components of reform. Around 3,000 submissions were received on the bills. I want to thank submitters, who took the time and effort to submit. Reform of this nature is complex, and we rely on the input of system users to get the details right. The committee have recommended a number of sensible and constructive changes to the bill, and I look forward to diving into their recommendations and debating the bills with my parliamentary colleagues on all sides during the next stages of the legislative process.

Hon Phil Twyford: Does the Government have any plans to reinstate the RMA at a future date?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, we don’t. We campaigned at the 2020 election to repeal and replace the RMA—using the Randerson model as its basis—and this Government is delivering on that promise. To reinstate the RMA after repeatedly promising for years and years to repeal and replace it would be total madness.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, in light of the Minister of Finance and Minister of Housing encouraging Chris Bishop to ask a supplementary and given the restraints on them, I seek leave for the National Party to have one extra supplementary question in order that that can happen.

SPEAKER: Well, I could put the leave I guess. I could actually award it. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 11—Regional Development

11. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for Regional Development: Does she believe taxpayers have a right to expect good value for the Government’s investment in the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), and do comments from the Office of the Auditor-General that it was “not yet certain that Parliament or the public can have confidence that the investments made through the PGF reset will ultimately represent good value for money” concern her?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Development: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, the Government always takes reports from the Office of the Auditor-General seriously, and we acknowledge their findings. The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) reset was delivered in extraordinary times, when the Government was rapidly responding to the economic effects of the pandemic, which the report acknowledges. I am advised that Kānoa is going to engage with the Office of the Auditor-General on the report, and it is my expectation that they will make improvements to internal processes where needed. I also note the independent evaluation of the Provincial Growth Fund undertaken by Allen and Clarke and released in June 2022, which rated both outputs and early outcomes as effective.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, given her response that the Government always takes the Auditor-General’s reports seriously, is she concerned that many of the Auditor-General’s concerns from this report mirror the report from 2020 about the PGF overall, suggesting no lessons were learnt, and does this demonstrate that the Government still has no care for managing taxpayers’ money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, no, I don’t accept that and I point the member to the findings of the latest report from the Auditor-General, where he acknowledged that Kānoa - Regional Economic Development and Investment Unit’s performance of its due diligence of applicants had improved; one example of the way in which lessons have been learnt.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well is she concerned that the Auditor-General also found a lack of documentary evidence, meaning they had to rely on people’s two-year-old memories to fill in information gaps? And what are the 170 staff at Kānoa doing if not documenting processes for the $640 million of taxpayer money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, as I indicated in my earlier answers, there are indeed internal process improvements that are required. It is no excuse at all, but this was during a period where rapid response was required during the pandemic. But processes do need to be better, and I know Kānoa is aware of that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can the Government in all honesty say that the PGF represents good value for money when the Auditor-General has for the second time shown serious concern for how that money is being spent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, because the Provincial Growth Fund has created thousands and thousands of jobs: 14,949 jobs since its inception. I have been present at occasions on which Opposition members have been there and celebrated the opening of Provincial Growth Fund projects. These are projects that mean a lot in the regions. Does that mean that everything was perfect in the way that the fund was created? No, it wasn’t, and it’s important that we learn lessons and Kānoa responds with changes.

Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs

12. ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcement has she made about Aotearoa New Zealand’s support for ocean diversity and conservation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I recently announced the adoption of a new global treaty designed to protect and restore the biodiversity of the high seas. This treaty, which was finally embraced after two decades of discussions at the UN, represents a considerable leap in our shared ambition to secure the wellbeing of our oceans for future generations. Our location in the Pacific and our relationship with Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa continue to amplify that kaitiakitanga—or guardianship—are linked to our national identity. This treaty is a reflection of these principles; extending them on a global scale is important. This agreement enables the international community to establish marine protected areas, provides clear procedures for evaluating the environmental impacts of activities within these areas, and also includes a novel provision for sharing the benefits to marine genetic resources obtained from the high seas.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: How does the treaty enable the sharing of the benefits of marine genetic resources and assistance to developing countries in its implementation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources is a novel aspect of this treaty. It acknowledges the fact that while these resources may be found in international waters, the benefits derived from them—particularly those with commercial or research potential—should be shared equitably. This might include sharing research findings, technology transfer, or capacity-building initiatives. With regards to assisting developing countries, the treaty recognises that these nations often lack the resources and technical capability to fully implement its objectives. Assistance could take the form of financial support, technical training, or cooperation on scientific research.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: Can you share any specific regions that have been identified for protection?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The exact regions to be designated as marine protected areas under the treaty have not been finalised yet. The decision will involve careful scientific analysis and consensus among participating nations. However, the objective is to prioritise areas with high biodiversity value and those most vulnerable to human activity and climate change impacts.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Supplementary.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: Pātai tāpiri.

Hon Judith Collins: I’m sorry, what language? What was that?

Anahila Kanongata‘a: It was in te reo Māori.

SPEAKER: Anahila Kanongata‘a.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: What enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with the treaty? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, can you repeat that question; I didn’t hear it.

Anahila Kanongata‘a: What enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with the treaty?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As the high seas are beyond any single nation’s jurisdiction, enforcement will rely on international cooperation and the good will of States. Compliance measures are likely to include regular reporting obligations, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and a dispute resolution process. However, it’s important to note that the success of the treaty will ultimately depend on the collective commitment of all nations to uphold their responsibilities.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What action is the Minister taking to protect deep-sea corals and other vulnerable marine ecosystems on sea mounts in the South Pacific from bottom trawling by New Zealand - flagged vessels?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand is a strong supporter of high levels of protection in all areas of oceans and fisheries policy and actively works domestically in the high seas to improve management of bottom fisheries. New Zealand’s high-seas bottom fishing is already subject to international regulation by the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which adopt conservation measures based on best available science. This new treaty on high-seas biodiversity will improve effective environmental protection for biodiversity in the high seas. It is designed to work with regional fisheries management organisations.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday, 29 June for the second reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill, the first reading of the Emergency Management Bill, and the third readings of the Charities Amendment Bill and the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill.

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

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.

General Debate

General Debate

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to say that, as I go around this country, I can tell you that the people of New Zealand are hurting and that they feel that we have lost our way and that this is a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards. And they are absolutely right, because inflation’s at a 35-year high and we have a situation where—now for three years—wages have not kept up with the prices of everything and everything is going up. We are at an incredible place where I have met Kiwis that are skipping meals because they cannot afford the food. We have families that never actually imagined they’d be in a food bank, and yet they are there in record numbers today. We have half of us worried about money on a daily basis. We have 430,000 Kiwis now not able to pay their debts, and families are using budgeting services because they want to keep their homes and they now have to magic up $700 a fortnight just to pay the interest rates that have gone sky-high, under this Government, on their mortgage payments.

The reality is: if you can’t own a home because house prices have continued to rise and interest rates are out of control under this Government, because of its inflationary policies, we end up in a place where people are having to pay another $170 a week in rent. And then you go and talk to small-business owners and farmers up and down this country, and they have been buried by this Government in endless, endless red tape. As a result, they start to wonder why they even bother trying. Then, you get out on the street and the reality is: the risk of you being attacked is higher than it’s ever been. Why? Because violent crime is up 33 percent, retail crime is up 100 percent, gang membership is up 66 percent, and we now have a ram raid in New Zealand every 15 hours.

When you can’t get kids to school because we have a culture of excuses around COVID, around cyclones, around teachers being on strike, or maybe the gang came to your town and shut your school down for a week, we have some other problems. We can’t get 50 percent of our kids to school regularly. We have 75,000 that are actually chronically absent from school today. And if you do manage to show up at school, 50 percent of our year 9 students aren’t at the standard that they need to be at. Half of our 15-year-olds fail the most basic maths, reading, and writing tests—and no wonder that New Zealand is now out of the top 10 countries in the world on education.

Incredibly, there’s one person who’s been in charge of education for much of the last six years. Who is it? Yeah, Chris Hipkins, education Minister, who put another $5 billion into education, hired 1,400 more education public servants, and, uniquely, with a very special and unique and special skill set, ended up delivering worse attendance records and worse academic achievement.

Mr Speaker, I just say to you: the most simple expectation we have is that our health system is there when we desperately need it. And we cannot say that that is the case today, because here are the facts there: 30 percent of Kiwis now wait more than six hours to see a doctor or a nurse at an A & E or emergency department. It used to be 9 percent of us waiting that amount of time. Now, 53,000 New Zealanders wait more than four months to see their first specialist. When we left office, there was a thousand Kiwis waiting more than four months. And now we have 30,000 more Kiwis on the surgical wait-list as a result. Unbelievably, in a developed country, we shut a school because of a measles outbreak. Why? Because immunisations are down 11 points, down to 77 percent.

So, I have to say, any one of these things would be a huge embarrassment for a Government. But, taken together, what they represent is a Government that cannot get anything done, and it has presided over a decline in the quality of life of New Zealanders here in this great country of ours. I have to say, the message I get from Kiwis day after day after day is “I’m working incredibly hard. This is a great country. My family is doing everything right, and yet I know that everything’s going in the wrong direction.” They see it: the economy is broken, it’s now in recession. We are the only country in the Asia-Pacific region in a recession. We’re one of only a couple of countries in the OECD that’s in recession—that’s a serious issue. It’s because of mass economic mismanagement.

Then, what we see is crime’s out of control, and we see a healthcare system and an education system that’s literally falling apart. So what’s the response that we get from the Prime Minister, the person I call the “guru of gaslighting”? He just says to us, “Look, it’s all OK. Everything’s fine. You’ve never had it so good.” And then, when he’s really pushed and he’s really under pressure, “It’s not my responsibility.” It’s sort of like, apparently, a continuation of unsubstantiated rumours—that’s his approach to it. Well, he is responsible and these outcomes are not being delivered for the New Zealand people.

So I’d say if you break out of the Beehive bubble and beltway and you see Kiwis, the answer is that they cannot get ahead. They are not making it up, they’re not imagining it; they are bang on: New Zealand is going backwards under a Labour Government.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The other day, when Chris Luxon said the words “wet” and “whiny”, I didn’t realise he was giving us a preview of today’s general debate speech. Here we are in election year; one might think that the Leader of the Opposition might actually talk about what they want to do instead of spending five minutes complaining, and whingeing, and getting down to absolutely nothing except pointing out what he thinks is wrong. That is nothing to do with what New Zealanders want; what they want is a plan. They say they’ve got a plan, but actually they never talk about it. I think it’s quite clear why: because one and one doesn’t make three. They’re trying to make it out that that’s the case, but it simply doesn’t. They can’t promise to cut taxes, they can’t promise to pay off debt, and they can’t promise to pay more. Yet that’s what they’re doing. Every single day they’re going around telling New Zealanders what they want to hear, but not telling New Zealanders how it’s actually going to stack up.

Mr Luxon’s net ratings are falling through the floor. He is getting so negative that he’s now barking at every passing plane. That is where we’re at: he wants to grab every opportunity to complain, and to whinge, and to moan. He called New Zealand businesses “soft”. He called New Zealand beneficiaries “bottom feeders”. He’s now having a crack at the Royal New Zealand Air Force; is anybody safe? Perhaps his childhood heroes the Crusaders are the only ones that will escape his criticism and his complaints. All the New Zealand public need to see is to look over at what the Government has in store over the next three years: a plan that adds up to start with, a plan that will help those that are struggling the most, that will keep people in jobs, and will invest in core service that this country needs.

Here’s the thing: if you cut taxes like the National Party are proposing, they also have to explain what they’re going to cut. They were finally pushed into a corner to explain how they were going to pay for something, and they found $400 million of savings from consultants. The problem is they’ve spent that four times over. It doesn’t add up. If they cut taxes that will disproportionately benefit the rich, it is the rest of us that will miss out, because we need to continue investment in health, we need to continue investment in education, and the severe weather events that have just happened show that we need to continue investment in infrastructure. Why is it that the National Party never want to talk about their history in investment in infrastructure? Because that investment doesn’t exist.

For nine years, they froze maintenance funding for State highways, and then they have the gall to turn around and complain about potholes. There is a simple premise here: if you invest in infrastructure, it doesn’t fall apart, and when you finally get a Government that does invest in infrastructure, we’re having to play catch-up with their lack of investment, and also invest in the future. They hate facing up to facts, and this is also the same for the water services reform. They have never shown their numbers—they laugh, they always laugh—but a simple question and a simple challenge: show us your figures.

Nothing. Silence. They’re going around pretending that the status quo will deliver for New Zealanders, yet we can prove that unless we reform, ratepayers will face bills they cannot afford. They don’t want to talk about that. They want to scaremonger, they want to race-bait, they do not want to talk about the issue that in a cost of living crisis New Zealanders can’t afford their rates. We’ve got a plan to deal with it. They’re ignoring the issues, like they have on so many other things.

So my challenge to the National Party is quite simple: if you’ve got an alternative proposal, tell us how it’s going to work. Tell us how you’re going to pay for it. Don’t stand there and announce something, and a very simple question, “How are you going to pay for it?”—you can’t answer. Say, “Oh, well, we’ll sort it out in a future Budget”. My pick is they won’t have a future Budget. My pick is that New Zealanders will see that—as it was just shown to us in that last speech—there’s no passion there, there’s no belief. They don’t believe in what they’re proposing because they know it doesn’t add up. New Zealanders aren’t dumb. They know how things work. They rejected Paul Goldsmith’s proposed Budget the last election; they’re going to reject Nicola Willis’ because they know that one and one makes two, not the false promises that the National Party are putting forward.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. At public meetings up and down the country, the ACT Party are hearing the main concern New Zealanders have: the increase in crime. The last 5.5 years of the Labour - Green Government has seen a moral decline in all areas of society and an unprecedented increase in lawlessness that the whole country is talking about.

We’ve got a 500 percent increase in ram raids. Serious assaults resulting in injury are up 121 percent. Knife crime is up 20 percent. Common assault is up 40 percent since 2017. Mental health call-outs are up 40 percent. And there’s a huge increase in sexual offending. Police morale is at an all-time low. Since 2017, assaults on police have gone up 300 percent. Retail workers are being beaten up, and 30 percent of those people that do it are repeat offenders. They receive no meaningful consequences, so why not do it again?

The Dairy and Business Owners Group presented a petition last week, together with a manifesto of ideas. They are pleading for help. A dairy owner in Wellington has had so many incidents of theft and violence that he’s given up calling the police. He won’t even employ his own kids to work in his shop, because it’s too dangerous, and he hates the fact that he has to employ other people’s kids. There’s talk of vigilante groups to keep the city safe. Yesterday, in Christchurch, a member of the public tackled a thief and called the police, for no one to attend, and he was told to let him go. It’s not the New Zealand I knew.

This Government trumpets a 1:480 ratio of police to public. Christchurch has a 1:658 ratio. Where have the 1,800 police gone? Since 2017, Police National Headquarters staff numbers have increased from 926 to 1,732. One hundred and eighty three of these are sworn staff who used to be on the front line. Eighty four went to the firearms unit. Media and marketing has increased from 13 to 45; ethnic services from one to 45. That would be great if there was less crime being committed. It doesn’t matter how many police there are; if they are not going to the right places, then it’s a waste of money.

When I was in the Wellington Police, Courtenay Place was a hive of activity and fun. People had a great time and they felt safe because police walked the streets, arrested people when they had to, and kept a lid on all types of crime. The public were treated firm but fair. Cuddles were reserved for when you got home. Being soft on crime doesn’t work, and anyone who has any anything to do with young people knows that what they want and need are boundaries. It shows them that you care. Consequences change behaviour. But the police Minister proclaims she thinks New Zealanders feel safer, and the rest sit in their air-conditioned offices and tell the country that everything’s going OK. This is the Minister who didn’t know that there was a major police operation going on in South Auckland with out-of-control gang members.

Gang membership increased by 3,960—81 percent in five years—since 2017. They take over a town and get excused for their behaviour. Eight cars were stopped, with firearms found in five of them, and that’s considered a good-news story. There have been 2.8 firearm incidents involving gang members every day over the last year. On 20 June, the police Minister said that with a gun register we’ll be able to know where all the guns are. Gang members will not register their guns, Minister; they are the problem.

But it’s not just Labour’s fault. The Greens want to defund Police and refer to police dogs as “attack dogs”. It’s just nuts. The Māori Party blame everything on the police, justifying all crime with the lazy cry of “racism” whenever they open their mouths.

The ACT Party have seen this coming and have been warning the Government for years. We have policies that will sort it out: we will bring back three strikes, review electronic monitoring, provide more prison beds, and rehabilitation for all prisoners will be compulsory. New Zealanders are sick of crime and criminals. It’s the Government’s first duty to keep the people safe, and ACT will not hesitate to do it.

New Zealand police have been up against it for the last five years, but they are doing a great job. Unlike teachers, police can’t go on strike when they don’t get their way. But I hope the Minister is standing up and being a strong advocate for rewarding police appropriately in the current pay negotiations, because they deserve it.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): It’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate, at the backdrop of Budget 2023, at a time of economic challenges. As the Minister of Finance said on Budget day, it’s hard to remember a time when there have been so many challenges in terms of our economic, environmental, and social systems, but I am confident that this Government has a plan to address those challenges and to build an economic recovery.

I want to start with the health portfolio and note that cost of living pressures are having an impact on how people can access the health system. That is why it is so important that we have addressed some of the costs of accessing care through Budget 2023, and we know that we’ve had tremendous evidence for the change we made to scrap the $5 prescription co-pay to make something as fundamental as medicine more accessible to people. I know this policy will make an amazing difference, when it comes into force over this weekend, to people who need that help. We’re talking about seniors who might have multiple prescriptions to fill, people who need routine prescriptions for contraception, for their mental health care. We know that there is a tremendous benefit in terms of the cost saved in terms of people’s health, because so many medicines prevent ill health. We’re thinking of pills like for blood pressure, for high cholesterol, that stop you from going to hospital later on, saving both the person suffering and the health system money. It is a tremendous investment in people’s wellbeing, in people’s back pockets, at a time of pressure and also in the sustainability of our health system. This Government has a proud record in terms of improvements to access to medicines, when you put this policy alongside our 47 percent increase in Pharmac funding that we have delivered over the five years that we have been in Government.

In terms of the economy, multiple Governments have turned to science and research as a way of driving economic growth. Not all go as far as the National Party do and step into the realm of magic, the realm of magical thinking, where they argue that genetic engineering will remove the need for us to do anything about climate change. The Government has a plan to increase its investment in science so we really can tackle the problems that face our economy, including how we transition our economy to one that has high-wage, low-emission jobs.

A cornerstone of that work is the Te Ara Paerangi science reforms, and Budget ’23 outlined the process that we would use to get us started on the journey of making that change. It includes investment in some of our most talented people. I’m so pleased to see us support applied—or some countries call them industry—PhDs. This is to get our PhDs out of the ivory tower and actually connecting with industry or Crown research institutes where applied research is done. We will support the funding for those initiatives to grow and to be scaled up, because it’s that opportunity to bring cutting-edge science into practical problems that can lead to so many innovations that help make a practical benefit to our economy. I’m looking forward to working with universities and Crown research institutes to see that change through.

In addition, we have greater fellowship supports for some of our most talented young scientists, and I’m so excited about this opportunity, because young scientists do have precarious employment, and the opportunity to see them really start on their career so they can make a difference to our future is thrilling.

In the background to that—I think it’s important—I’m proud that the Government has taken the step to address concerns raised by the university sector about the sustainability of their funding, and that was announced by Minister Tinetti the other day. Degree-granting institutions like universities and other providers play an important role in our economy and our democracy. They generate cutting-edge research. They are the source of our workforce, including our research workforce, not to mention having a role in legislation as the critic and conscience of our society. I’m pleased to see that we can offer them a reprieve that helps them address some of the structural issues that they are facing. But we also need to address some longstanding issues in funding systems, and, indeed, Minister Tinetti has announced a review there. I am pleased to see it includes the Performance-Based Research Fund, which is also very important to our science sector. The Government has a plan to drive economic recovery in this country, and I’m pleased to see that science and research are at the heart of it.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, Mr Speaker, thank you very much, and what a magnificent weekend was held in Wellington for the 87th annual conference of the New Zealand National Party—this weekend, just in Wellington. Hundreds of delegates were energised, enthusiastic, and keenly getting on with the job of changing the Government and getting our country back on track in October this year because we so desperately need it. They were so excited at the prospect of a Christopher Luxon - led new Government getting New Zealand back on track that they wanted to do everything possible to change the Government in October.

But while we had a good weekend here in Wellington, it was raining again in the beautiful Coromandel electorate, which I have the privilege of representing. Again, this week, highways around the peninsula have been closed, citizens have been disrupted, communities have been cut off, businesses have been impacted, and health and safety risks have been put to the fore.

Six months after the collapse of State Highway 25A, the main arterial route across the Coromandel—six months almost to the day, work has yet to commence on reconstruction and reopening of that road. Now, there has been six months of dithering, delay, and excuses from our Government, from the New Zealand Transport Agency, and, indeed, from even our local council, who seem not to understand at all the impact that that road’s closure has on our region.

Every day that that road is closed, the Coromandel region bleeds, and this week, finally, after six long months, we have a proclamation from the New Zealand Transport Agency that it’s going to be late March 2024 before that highway will be open. Now, that’s just outrageous—completely outrageous. We’d been promised by this Government for months that it would be early 2024. Now, they are begrudgingly saying that it will be late March 2024. That will probably kick into April or even later.

Actually, what should have happened is that there should have been every possible push made and every possible resource allocated to have that highway opened before Christmas this year, because not having that highway open for Christmas this year means that the people of the Coromandel will face a fourth consecutive disrupted summer economic period. Some would say, “What does that mean for real jobs and businesses in the region?” Well, let me put it to the House this way: the reality is that for many of the businesses in the Coromandel, 80 percent of their annual revenue is generated, usually over the three- or four-month period of the peak summer season—80 percent of their annual revenue.

The last few summers have been badly impacted by COVID, then we had the dreadful weather events and road closures last summer, and now, because of inaction, a lack of focus, and a lack of urgency by this Government and its agency, the Transport Agency, we are facing a fourth consecutive miserable trading summer. Now, that simply means that jobs will be lost and businesses will close—and they have already; jobs have already been lost—but it also means that people are going to be inconvenienced and are having to add cost and time to the hours-long detours that are in place around the peninsula.

So communities like Pāuanui, like Tairua, like Whangamatā, like Hāhei, and like Cooks Beach are hurting and hurting very, very badly. Visitors simply aren’t coming—visitors simply aren’t coming. I’ve spoken to so many people recently who have said to me, “Oh, we’re sorry to hear about the Coromandel. When’s it going to be open again? We’ve got a place at Pāuanui”—or they’ve got a place at Whitianga or they’ve got a place at Tairua—“but we haven’t been since the road has closed because it takes so long to get there. We can’t be sure that the road will be open and we don’t have any certainty that the road will be open when we want to leave, and we’re fearful of getting stuck there.”

So six long months after the drop-out on State Highway 25A, we are no further ahead. We have a plan—at long last—maybe for an opening in March 2024, but no opportunity for a summer season in the Coromandel this year. So it’s with some sadness but also a sense of optimism that I say to this House that the Coromandel is battered and bruised, but we’re not beaten, and we will continue fighting on.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I join this general debate and want to acknowledge just how challenging it is for whānau and communities at this time. New Zealand is not immune to the impact of unstable global inflation rates, especially the impact on mum and dad mortgage holders, those renting, and those on fixed incomes. There’s also the constrained supply chain, which is having an impact on certain goods that consumers here in New Zealand are reliant on, like food and fuel, and a low unemployment rate where some sectors are still finding it difficult to attract the right skills in the right place with greater certainty.

Times are tough and the Government’s efforts to build a stronger and more equitable New Zealand during this challenging time means getting our priorities focused on families, on communities, on services, and on cost of living. A report recently released by the Ministry of Social Development shows that for those receiving a main benefit, total incomes after housing costs are 48 percent higher, inflation adjusted, than at the end of 2017. We cannot have those most vulnerable less assured and less secure about how they make ends meet. Our plan makes a huge difference for them.

This Government’s focus has been on easing the pressure of living costs for families. We continue to champion tangible steps towards making our welfare system fairer so that our fellow Kiwis on benefits do not fall further behind. These are the hallmarks of a fair and decent society that our Government will continue to stand up for. In addition to that, take our Families Package, where benefit increases and changes to Working for Families have made a vital difference in the lives of many low-income and modest-income whānau who work hard and want to get ahead.

We’ve also seen record numbers of people moving off benefits and into work, aided by the significant increase in the minimum wage. And as part of our plan to build a future where all whānau can get ahead, we’re making investments in areas that are critical to growing our economy: skills, science and technology, and infrastructure. We want Kiwis to seek out opportunities in low-carbon growth areas, and that’s why we’re backing, for example, the video games sector to expand and optimise the talent we have here in New Zealand and the global network of opportunity they can plug into across a rapidly growing tech and creative sector. We want to create high-wage jobs for the future, and for that to happen, we have to back the talent we have here at home and keep it here.

We continue to navigate through COVID-19 even better than the global financial crisis (GFC). I can remember when members on that side of the House from the same party took an approach after the GFC of austerity: “Cut, cut, cut.”

Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, they didn’t.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Oh, yes, they did. And it’s no surprise that that same message is being reflected and mirrored by the same party right now, even though we’re facing more difficult challenges.

I know that it’s important to ensure that the Government responds to the real needs that families are facing right now. Food security is real to whānau, so increasing our investment in food banks is a small measure to continue to reflect that we’re hearing and responding to the growing needs in our communities. It’s a short-term measure because we must have a more sustainable approach to helping whānau out of hardship. We’re providing the funding to community organisations on the front line, and it will help to ease the burden on families through these community organisations working tirelessly—tirelessly—to respond after the extreme weather events that have been felt by families.

We’re aware that many households are still finding it tough. However, we remain optimistic that New Zealand’s future is dependent on our economic plan, and that’s why we have to ensure that we’re doing things practically at a local level, like scrapping the $5 co-payment for prescription medicines, extending 20 hours early childhood education a week to two-year-olds, and cutting public transport costs for our young people. These measures might not solve everything, but they will most definitely make a difference in the lives of many Kiwis right now.

We’re also wanting to ensure that we have an economic plan that seeks to build and lift opportunity. Tourists are returning. Overseas workers are filling job vacancies. We’re upskilling more Kiwis and our debt levels are among the lowest globally and in comparison to those that we would compare ourselves with. We’ll continue to push ahead to diversify our export markets through the EU free-trade agreement (FTA), through the UK FTA, and through other trade agreements. We remain committed so that we can ensure every New Zealander can have opportunity. But we know that it’s about having a plan. We know it’s about doing things locally while having our eye towards our economic strategy. We have a plan. We know where our priorities lie and we know we have more to do so that everyday Kiwis can feel the benefit of a Government who cares.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): What a mess this Government has made of our valuable tertiary education sector. What a mess! First, the shambles of Te Pūkenga: the mega-merged polytechnic which has wasted over $200 million already and will waste another $220 million if it is allowed to continue. Last year, it produced an $86 million deficit, frittering away the hard-earned reserves of successful polytechnics and their communities. And now, the deficit disarray in the university sector that somehow escaped the notice of the Minister of Education, Jan Tinetti, and Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, prior to the Budget just one month ago. So yesterday, they had to make a special announcement of a bailout. What is it about this Government that they just don’t see these disasters coming that are of their own making? They have been very good at spinning the story that New Zealand is just experiencing what every other country is, but that is so very wrong. This Government has mismanaged the New Zealand economy and left each of us—our families, businesses, and community organisations—in a precarious situation because of the toxic combination of high inflation fuelled by wasteful Government spending, high interest rates, a severe balance of payments deficit, and now a recession.

So how has this played out in the tertiary education sector? Well, like everyone else, the universities and the polytechnics have had their operating expenses skyrocket with inflation, but they have also been hit with low international student numbers because this Government was slow and lazy with getting international students back into New Zealand. Australia wasn’t—they put in place incentives like dropping student visa fees, additional post-study work rights, and increased hours of work permitted while studying. They knew how important it was for their education sector to get international students back, and how important the pipeline of international graduates into skill shortage areas and their businesses and their industries was for the economy. Australia was out there promoting their country to the world, and what was our Government doing? Dithering about whether we actually wanted international students back in New Zealand and prioritising offering our education offshore—anyone who has tried that knows how difficult it is.

What does the Government not understand about the ripple effect of expenditure out into the community and supporting our industries and businesses in times of skill shortage constraints? And how about the impact on our universities of secondary school students who spent their senior years locked out of school? There are low first-year retention rates right across the university sector because many students haven’t been well enough prepared for the rigours of tertiary education. This Government has driven our universities to the positions they are in now, and yesterday’s bailout announcement will not stop the redundancies reverberating through the sector. It is band-aid politics: trying to cover up the inaction of this Government over the past six years. I have watched how heartbreaking it is to see good staff lost to the polytech sector, and now the universities are going through the same process. This could have been minimised if we had not had a Minister of Education preoccupied with the ideological centralisation of polytechnics and industry training organisations, misguided intentions to constrain the number of international students coming back to New Zealand, and mismanagement of our economy. The plight of our tertiary sector lies fairly and squarely at the feet of this Labour Government, make no mistake about that. National knows that our school pupils need to have a better grasp of the basics of education. We know that the Immigration Service must unblock bottlenecks—

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

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to continue on the theme of education today and talk about this Budget and how it is providing everyday support to households who have students—it’s expensive to have a student in your household—and how we’re supporting those households for today but also investing in our future, because putting money into the education system is an investment; it’s not a cost. So in addition to cheaper public transport, 20 hours of early childhood education, school lunches, period products, removal of NCEA fees—all of those costs that add up when you’re supporting a young person in your household as they go through education.

But it’s not just about today; it is about investing in tomorrow. I just want to note one little line in the Budget about Ngā iti Kahurangi—our little treasures—and the addition of 175 schools to that programme that includes, at the moment, 600 small and remote schools around the motu. It is $63.1 million and it makes a difference to children in our remote schools. I think about one of my neighbouring schools, Ratapiko School—a fabulous Enviro School. The last time I went there it wasn’t so successful because we were meant to be planting fruit trees and the weather, surprisingly, in Taranaki, wasn’t so great that particular day. But every time I go there, the students are so excited about sharing their sustainability journey with me, and it’s a really busy place. It’s two classrooms that cover eight year levels. In those sorts of environments, having really good lighting and really good acoustics makes a difference to the learning for those students. They are wonderful, busy places, and I applaud those teachers who have to cover all those curriculum areas across many levels. They’re doing a fabulous job of supporting our rural communities and giving every young person access to great education.

It is an exciting initiative. So what they’re focused on is improving classroom environments. It may sound mundane to be talking about lighting and sound and heating, but we’ve heard from principals about how those acoustic panels and the addition of LED lights has made a significant impact on their classrooms. The thermal insulation—and from this year, those schools will be able to get new carpet. That doesn’t sound like much, but when you’re sitting there having your story read to you by your teacher, new carpet ain’t a bad thing.

The result is that by being able to better manage sound—we heard from a principal about how with the choir, you know, getting their students to sing, and what a difference it makes when you’re singing in a space that is built to capture your singing in a different way from what it used to be. It’s really great for our students who have sensory challenges, and to make sure that lighting and good sound management means that they are much better able to access their learning.

Every little bit counts. It reduces the costs from their five-year plans. It frees up cash for those small schools to invest in other parts of the resourcing. It also has an impact on their ongoing operational costs, because we’re able to help reduce their costs for things like electricity. It’s exciting because those rural and small schools have additional challenges. It is expensive to get supplies out to a school and it is expensive and difficult to get tradies. These principals are the caretaker. They don’t employ a caretaker; they are the caretaker. This project means that schools are able to be bundled up, they have a project manager who can come in, and by bundling those schools, they’re able to have economies of scale and procurement, and they are able to make sure that these schools can access opportunities by improving those classroom spaces.

So why was the project expanded? Well, because it was successful. How do we know that? Because this Government does not just chuck money willy-nilly into projects that they think might make a difference. They go into classrooms, they do assessments, and then, after the work has been done, they do another assessment and make sure that it is having a real impact. We take our responsibilities to investing in our school system very, very seriously. It’s a wonderful thing, and it is a really great example of where we are investing in the future of our nation. It’s great to have the opportunity to have a shout-out to our rural schools at the heart of our rural communities.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Just when you thought the saga of this Government’s three waters reform programme had come to an end, this Government has slipped one more bill through at the last minute. Blink, because if you missed it you are not alone. But, in fact, the last bill passed last Thursday, and members of the public only have seven more days in order to submit and provide feedback on that. Labour’s “three waters back-down bill” is the legislative equivalent of building a plane as you’re flying it, and at the 11th hour they’ve added new funding entities, more entities, and more bureaucracy.

Kieran McAnulty wants us to believe that he has made fundamental changes to this reform, those introduced by Nanaia Mahuta are long gone, and that affordable water reforms have nailed it. At the same time, he tells this House that this bill is simple and that the changes are so minor that the select committee process isn’t even necessary and Kiwis only need 12 days to consider and give feedback on this bill and that is sufficient. Labour has given this Parliament a masterclass on how to fail and not sell and not deliver policy. Years from now, people will reflect on the Labour Government’s three waters reform programme and acknowledge this as the point at which this Labour Government truly lost the New Zealand public.

Remember that these reforms—the Government went out to councils and told them it was optional. Of course we found out eventually that this was not the case. Cabinet papers demonstrated clearly this was an asset grab by force, long before councils were told. Then there was a bill with over 80,000 submissions from the public, overwhelmingly opposed to these changes. But that wasn’t enough. They then decided “How about we entrench it?” They got caught red-handed trying to entrench parts of the bill that couldn’t be changed later on. Then they had the guts to tell the New Zealand public “Nothing to see here. Just one big mistake.” We all make mistakes, we all forget to take out the rubbish or maybe we leave something in the oven for a bit too long, but how many of us can say we accidentally broke the New Zealand constitution? Well, just the ones over there.

That is bad enough, but now we hear that the cost of this reform is around $100 million a year; $25 million a quarter, $2 million a week, $280,000 per day—that’s pretty bad. And you might think “What are they spending all this money on?” Well, $15,000 to write a job description for an entity that no longer exists as a result of this legislation, because now it’s 10 entities, not four. Consultants filling jobs like executive assistants for three times the rate that the average public servant gets for the same role, or $3 million on advertising campaigns that are blatantly saying that green slime is coming out of the taps and poor quality is the fault of local government.

This Government has no legs to stand on in regards to three waters and no legs to stand on in regards to fiscal management. Thankfully, there are only 107 days to go before the election and this Government is out of here. Only National has a plan in regards to dealing with and putting in place comprehensive reforms for three waters. Within our first 100 days, we will repeal this three waters legislation that is on the Table. The assets will be returned to our local communities where they belong and where they will stay under a National Government.

Instead, we’re going to give councils the opportunity to be financial sustainable. Regulation in regards to water quality and economic regulation—this is critical, and this is what National will deliver. The message is clear: only a National-led Government led by Christopher Luxon will protect local assets. Only a National Government led by Christopher Luxon will deliver better water services. And only a National-led Government led by Christopher Luxon will repeal three waters.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it’s an absolute pleasure to be talking in this general debate. I thought I’d bring the temperature down just a little bit and reflect on who we are as a nation, because today marks the 50th anniversary of Norman Kirk’s Labour Government’s protest against French nuclear testing. And I think it’s a good opportunity to look at how our Budget fits in with Labour’s commitment for a world-leading nuclear-free policy. On 28 June 1973, Fraser Colman, the then immigration Minister, left Auckland on Her Majesty’s New Zealand Ship Otago headed for Mururoa. This was the first act of our nuclear-free campaign, and it was a defining moment in New Zealand’s history and has shaped our nuclear-free policy and relationship with the Pacific ever since. It has led us to become pioneers of nuclear-free legislation. It’s pushed us to develop our own independent foreign policy, and it has made us realise that we are a Pacific nation. It has become part of our identity, and I think that we all agree that this is a source of national pride that we New Zealanders are ready to stand up for what is right and punch above our weight.

I want to highlight how our recent Budget continues this tradition and embodies the spirit of independent nuclear-free New Zealand. And as I said before, when we sent one of our Ministers to protest against the nuclear test, he sailed with vessels from across the Pacific, and it was a show of solidarity with the other Pacific Island nations, and it led to the Treaty of Rarotonga, where we worked with our Pacific neighbours to establish the world’s first international nuclear-free zone. We showed that we were good neighbours and that we could collaborate to protect a shared vision. This Budget continues that tradition of Pacific cooperation. This Government is investing in building up Pacific resilience with a $14.1 million investment in Pacific community resilience and wellbeing, which aims to strengthen the capability and leadership of the Pacific workforce. There are also capital injections of over $16 million planned for 2023 and 2024 as part of our Pacific Reset investment policy, and we are also investing $1 million into the Pacific Cooperation Foundation for the promotion of mutual understanding between New Zealanders and other countries and also people within the Pacific.

These are just some of the initiatives in this Budget that build on and strengthen our special relationship with our Pacific neighbours. New Zealand’s commitment to a nuclear-free policy was also the beginning of the development of our own independent foreign policy, a foreign policy that represents our values, even if at times that policy is at odds with our neighbours. This Budget also gives us the tools to pursue this foreign policy. It provides $277 million for the delivery of all elements of New Zealand’s foreign policy and $87 million on departmental capital expenditure. And this allows us to maintain our embassies and project our presence globally. Part of these expenditures is the refurbishment of our embassy in Moscow. To some, this may be a contentious issue, but in these uncertain times, maintaining diplomatic ties is absolutely essential. If Russian aggression leads to a period of nuclear brinkmanship where multiple sides rush to establish escalation dominance, Aotearoa, with our strong nuclear-free credentials, can be the voice of reason to work with all sides to prevent a nuclear exchange in Europe.

This Budget builds on our independent foreign policy. It builds Pacific resilience. It builds on our commitment to the international rules-based order. These are foundations of our nuclear-free culture that is part of our identity, an identity that is more relevant now than ever before. And this is something that we are respected for internationally and something that we should be absolutely proud of. In a time when there are forces acting around the world and within our country that aim to divide us, it’s important that on days like today, we reflect on those moments in history that have united us. And 28 June 1973 was one of those days—a day that helped shape us as a nation. So thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. In 2023, this is the state of housing for renters in Aotearoa New Zealand [Holds up images of rental properties]. But in 1988, our national Housing Commission declared—and I quote—“New Zealand does not have … huge, insoluble problems of homelessness and substandard housing that confront many other nations.” This was the final report of the then disestablished Housing Commission, which, to that point, had reported detailed data every five years to keep the country and policy makers informed about the foundation of what we then considered a stable society. It was, of course, a home for all New Zealanders to call their own.

I was born six years after that report, and in those years and across my lifetime, deliberate political choices—specifically political choices—made by people sitting in these chairs in this Chamber have shredded that housing dignity and stability, once guaranteed for all New Zealanders, trading it for a game of Monopoly, which the pecuniary interests register tells us also happens to disproportionately benefit around half of the MPs in this Chamber with interests in more than one property.

The housing crisis—which means that, in raw terms, we have the most expensive housing in the world on pretty much any metric you choose to measure, not to mention that that extortionately expensive housing is also making people sick—didn’t happen overnight. This dire situation is the direct result of political decisions. It is disproportionately hurting the 1.4 million New Zealanders who rent in this country that this Parliament, by a majority—and as an overwhelming majority of comfortable homeowners—continues to structurally disempower.

In 2017, we in the Greens worked with Labour to introduce the healthy homes standards and a slate of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, removing, for example, no-cause convictions and allowing renters to go to the Tenancy Tribunal anonymously. Some standards, we agreed, obviously, were better than nothing—a set of rules to ensure it’s clear how a game should be played is important, but those rules are pretty meaningless if there is no referee to meaningfully enforce them.

That’s what we have with the healthy homes standards. Last year, my written questions exposed that the Government has no idea about the level of compliance with regards to healthy homes standards for private rentals, it has no idea how many landlords or property managers have self-excluded themselves from compliance to the healthy homes standards, and it has no idea how many companies are holding themselves out as capable of verifying compliance with the healthy homes standards, let alone the variance in their approaches. The 1.4 million New Zealanders who rent are left to shoulder the burden of enforcing these basic rules—their foundational human rights to adequate, affordable housing.

It’s a funny thing, because whenever the Greens mention renters, we are immediately shouted down and told that the solution to this problem is somehow that landlords just aren’t given enough free rein, that the solution is somehow more commodification of basic human rights. Ironically, this is exactly what the national Housing Commission warned against back in that 1988 report: that the shifting of responsibility from the State to the private sector, that the selling of State houses with rent controls and the creation of the accommodation supplement would—and I quote—“‘add little to the total housing supply while allowing private landlords and property speculators to make even higher charges for a non-expanding supply of housing’, which would in turn ‘raise the purchase price of land and rented property’.”

Of course, we now know that they were right. We remain one of the only countries in the developed world that continues to provide special tax treatment and preference to properties, incentivising the flow of capital into unproductive property speculation, or what the University of Auckland researchers called—and I quote—“a politically condoned, finance-fuelled casino.”

In fewer than 40 years, political decisions have made housing not only one of the major drivers of inequality in this country but one of the major determiners of physical and mental health, not to mention educational achievement and school attendance. Who pays the cost? Well, disproportionately, it’s 1.4 million renters in this country.

Over the last few weeks, over the noise and the nonsense that comes out of this place, we’ve been asking them to tell their stories, and we’ve compiled just 50 of the 700 diabolical stories that we have heard, which we know are just the tip of the iceberg. We know this because we have spoken to those renters and we have seen the outright fear that they have expressed in coming forward and risking a black mark against their name. We know the solutions: it’s a rental warrant of fitness, a register for property managers and landlords, and rent controls—Parliament’s move next.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the last speaker in this general debate. Labour is backing our tertiary education. In the last few weeks, as a proud Wellingtonian and a former cleaner, student, and union organiser at Victoria University, I was deeply concerned by the proposed job cuts at Victoria University. The university is a key part of our city; it provides culture, energy, and jobs. I have spent the last few weeks, like many people, talking to many people from Victoria University—academics, students, and staff—who were very concerned about these proposed cuts. We all listened to their concerns and I’ve also been talking to my friends and colleagues in Government.

I’m proud to be part of the Government that is finally listening to these concerns and is stepping in to keep this vital sector thriving. We are providing an extra $128 million over the next two years for this sector. That’s on top of Budget 2023, which increased student subsidies by 5 percent, providing the biggest boost in university funding in 20 years. I want particularly to highlight the more than $28 million that Victoria University of Wellington will get from this over the next two years—that will make a real difference for Wellington students and academics. The extra funding comes from a transfer of funds that were not spent in Vote Tertiary Education. The fees freeze came due to the lower enrolments. We know this is not going to be enough, but this is going to make a huge difference.

I’m proud to have played a small role in advocating for this. But we know also that there are structural problems in universities’ funding as well, and that’s why the Government is also establishing a review to take a thorough look at tertiary education funding. The additional funding we have provided for the next two years will let the sector breathe for now. I have spoken to Dougal McNeill, who was a key in advocating for this, and he said, I quote, “This is a lifeline. It will never solve the whole problem, but this provides us with a lifeline. And thank you.” I understand the students and the staff are now calling for a moratorium on staff and programme cuts. Universities have an operational independence, but I hope this funding is considered as part of any further decision on courses and jobs. Victoria University has been a big part of my life and in the lives of so many Wellingtonians and we need to do everything to keep it alive and thriving.

I want to thank many people who advocated for this. This includes Dougal McNeill, who is from the Tertiary Education Union; Vice-Chancellor Nic Smith; and Jessica Ye from Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association, and I want to keep working with all of them on what we can all do to keep Wellington succeeding. I would like to thank the Minister, who stepped in at a critical time in doing this and providing this funding. She engaged. She listened. She was concerned like many of us. She stepped in at the right time.

Budget 2023 does a lot of things, but, for me, part of the proud moment is just this week we reached the milestone of 12,000 public houses. Like many low-paid people, when I moved to New Zealand, I was provided with a Kāinga Ora house and that gave me a head start in life. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here today. I wouldn’t be able to be doing what we’re doing. So what Labour is providing, by providing 12,000 public houses, is changing people’s lives. We are helping people to thrive by having a roof over their head. Wellington will have a good share of this. There will be 300 new homes, which will provide homes for 900 people, which is the Arlington project—something that we are very proud of.

And finally, Budget 2023 also stops the $5 prescription fees. A few weeks ago, I spoke to a friend who runs a pharmacy here in Wellington, who told me that the Government needs to step in and do something. After the announcement, immediately she called me to say thank you to the Labour Government, but also to say shame on National, who is vowing to bring this policy back.

We are proud of Budget 2023. We are proud of Grant, who did the unthinkable in putting this Budget in at such a difficult time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill

Third Reading

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill be now read a third time.

We’ve finally got here after not too long; several months of to-ing and fro-ing and working—I’m glad to say—across the House collegially to get to this place today. This piece of legislation is around generational investment for the people of the New Plymouth District. The New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill—or let’s just call it the “PIF”—will help to protect one of New Plymouth District’s key financial assets.

The PIF is around the release of a key cornerstone of the New Plymouth District Council’s financial strategy and approach. There are considerable benefits that I’ll talk about. Not only does the annual release help to reduce rates but the maintenance of the substantial PIF reduces the council’s borrowing costs and supports the council’s AA+ credit rating—and, of course, at this point in time, rates are something we talk about a lot. So it’s important to do everything we can to ensure that we alleviate the challenges and, hopefully, add some cherries and some good things on top as well.

I note there have been some questions on how the PIF is used, in terms of the general rates. Let’s just talk about supporting the social, the economic, the environmental, and the cultural wellbeing of the New Plymouth District. And this is simple, as we use this fund, because the council’s general rates funds support so many services and promote these wellbeings within our district.

The general rates are used by the council to fund things such as our beautiful parks, like Pukekura Park; like our Festival of Lights, which has gone on for decades and decades in that park; to fund our world-leading and award-winning coastal walkway; our wonderful and modern art gallery, the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery and the Len Lye Centre; Puke Ariki, our museum and our library. It supports our pools, it supports our sports grounds, our marae, and our urupā grants. It supports Venture Taranaki as well as—can I mention—the second round of the pop-up Festival of Lights, which is coming up very shortly, which is around celebrating and commemorating Puanga, or Matariki, as many of you would know it as, in other parts of the country. Also, look at things like our airport and Te Rewa Rewa Bridge, and things that we as a region, that we as a district, have been world leading in, have been champions and award winners of, and this PIF has been part of supporting our rates over many years, and I’ll talk more about that.

What this means is that a small amount the council gets each year from the PIF does provide the support for our community wellbeing. Because the PIF reduces the total rates requirement, it does make it easier for the council to promote wellbeing initiatives within our community, and I’m grateful to the council for that. It also significantly reduces the rates bill for members of the community, which is obviously an absolute blessing as we deal with the costs of living and other challenges facing us as a nation and as a globe.

I understand that the council has looked at the best use of the PIF release several times in the past and has concluded that the general rates are the most appropriate way to do so, by using the PIF to benefit as many members of our community as possible. The main alternative to using the PIF is to fund certain services or capital works, which means that the benefit of the PIF only end up being used by the users of those services or works. Now, I’m grateful that our council has, over the years, been very forward thinking, and I believe that this piece of legislation that they’ve brought to this House and that I’ve had the privilege of supporting and shepherding through, as I said at the start, is around that generational investment into the people of the New Plymouth District. It’s important to remember that this bill does provide some clear legal direction—that the PIF is to benefit the New Plymouth District community—but the bill then leaves the “how” to the council to determine into the future. That “how” is determined in consultation with the New Plymouth District community.

That brings me to my next point, and that is where the bill does not leave it to the council to determine its future. The thing is that the bill provides for the PIF to be used in a sustainable, perpetual manner and that the council will be required to manage the PIF in a way that maintains or increases its value. That means it should be growing and that inflation or other areas, where there may sometimes be small releases, are to ensure this fund is held in perpetuity. Now, I look back at when the PIF was first set up. There’s a history behind the electricity reforms of the early 1990s: we ended up with an organisation—Powerco—that council owned the majority of shares in. In the early 2000s, that was looked at, and the diversification of the investments was looked at by the New Plymouth District Council. Then, the decision was made to sell off Powerco and set up the PIF. It began with about $259 million and, as of just a few months ago—this year—it’s sitting with $349 million in it. We want to lock that in to ensure that future generations will benefit from it. That’s why we look at a rather conservative release of around 3.3 percent of the PIF on the year on balance. And, of course, this is the market reality. We need to be cautious; we need to be careful to ensure that future generations will benefit from this fund.

We also want to acknowledge that the PIF is there for those tough times, for the vulnerabilities that we have as a region when it comes to natural hazards and other disasters. We look at what’s gone on with cyclones on the East Coast, and we look at the challenges that we face on the West Coast. And we also look at all our beautiful Taranaki maunga, which is standing tall—standing tall—looking over us and looking after us, but we also know that the numbers have been done and there’s a 50 percent chance in the next 50 years that that mountain could erupt. If and when it does, we have checks and balances in place with the PIF so that we can ensure that access is there—not for the sake of vanity projects or elected members showing off but for any needs when it comes to a crisis or a challenge. To activate the exemption process would require the council to first be satisfied that, under the bill, doing so is the best course of action for the benefit of both the current and the future communities. Well, that is not easy to do. It clearly applies to recovering from those major, once-in-a-generation events, and we have that in place.

Second, council would need to modify the governance deed with the New Plymouth PIF Guardians. Doing so would require a 75 percent majority vote of our councillors, again ensuring its safety. The bill therefore puts in place a strong legal test, which is then followed up by the existing strong political test. These combine into a double locking of the PIF to ensure that the council and community have certainty around this financial asset.

Finally, I want to acknowledge all of those who have been involved in the work on the PIF. I know that we have His Worship Mayor Neil Holdom with us today; we have Gareth Green, the chief executive of council; we have Joy Buckingham, group manager corporate services; and Greg Stephens, the senior policy adviser, who has been more than overly helpful and supportive, both to me in this process and, I know, to the council. To Jonathan Salter and to Mark Butcher, the chair of the New Plymouth PIF Guardians, we say thank you for all the work that you are doing to ensure that the region, the district of New Plymouth, has this investment. Generations before have been wise with their investments to ensure it’s in place, and you are ensuring that you are doing what is right and being wise for generations to come. So I thank you for that, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you to Glen Bennett for shepherding the bill through the House, and also for a comprehensive 10 minutes where, really, the virtues of New Plymouth and Taranaki have been espoused. Towards the eight-minute point, when you started talking about the Taranaki maunga perhaps erupting, I have to say that living just around the corner from you—I hope that you have a boat, because if that eventuates, I’ll be running around the corner to see you and jump in your boat! I’d like to acknowledge Mayor Neil Holdom and the team who are up in the gallery. This has been a good process, run through the Governance and Administration Committee under the watch of Ian McKelvie, who is here today.

Really, as Glen Bennett said—he’s really covered it all, and I’m just really here to say that National supports the bill. We support the fact that the council will be putting independent financial management in place to make sure that all the decisions are made only by people that the council appoints. Generally, the fund has gone very well—it has had its moments in the past where maybe it hasn’t gone so well, and maybe investing in dairy farms outside the beautiful New Zealand structure might be a lesson and learning for us all, given that we’ve got some of the best dairy farms in the world.

Beyond that, I’m not going to add a lot to this, other than to congratulate the council—and just put in a plug for Inglewood, Urenui, and all of the towns that I represent in the wonderful Taranaki-King Country electorate that are akin to New Plymouth; not quite inside it but still part of the New Plymouth Council. We look forward to working with you and, as we go forward with this fund, making sure that it does perpetuate into a real perpetual investment fund that contributes to the whole of the district. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. As the proud MP for the true sunniest part of New Zealand, Nelson, earlier this year I gifted my wonderful colleague the MP for New Plymouth, Glen Bennett, a little box of sunshine from my electorate just to show that, while we may have some things in common, both coming from provincial centres, it is Nelson that deserves to hold that true title of the sunniest part of New Zealand.

It was a pleasure to sit on the select committee that considered this bill, the Governance and Administration Committee, and it was a useful exercise for us to understand the process that the New Plymouth District Council has followed to get to this point. Can I commend them on bringing a bill to the House. It is unusual to bring private and local bills to the House, and this term of Parliament has seen quite a number of them. Following the final reading of this bill, I’ll have the pleasure of talking to a private bill from my electorate. So we are seeing a number of these bills—I see Mr Penk across the House with his private bill that my committee is also looking at—going through the House at the moment.

But may I just talk to what has led to this bill, in terms of the history of it, and Mr Bennett did cover some of that, but I wanted to talk to that a little bit more because it explains the need for there to be a mechanism. The council has chosen this mechanism—but there could have been a number of mechanisms—in order to protect this fund. The fund was originally worth $259 million and it emerged following the sale of the Powerco shares in 2004. It was designed to enable the council to do two things: one was to invest in services and organisations that benefited the social, cultural, and economic potential of the district. There was also an intention for the fund to reduce the rates of ratepayers. It’s a very topical issue at the moment, where we know we have—

Todd Muller: Cost of living.

RACHEL BOYACK: Actually, Mr Muller, we know that for many years our councils have really struggled to invest in their infrastructure, and this is something that has been building for some time. So I can understand why both the council and the ratepayers of this district could have seen this opportunity and thought, “Yes, this is a great opportunity to help reduce the rate burden for our community.” But what happened, which has been traversed a wee bit throughout this bill’s passage, was some investment decisions were made that were perhaps unwise and not necessarily prudent or led by those who are independent enough to be able to make decisions in the best interests of the fund.

That’s one of the challenges with any fund of this nature: it can be a sizable amount of capital sitting there and communities will rightly want to call on it for projects and to do things with it and to make investment decisions. But what I know that the council understands, and has spoken to the committee about, is the need to ensure that the fund remains in perpetuity. So there is both the need to do the investment but also to ensure that the investment decisions are sound and are put in place by those who have that ability to make those financial decisions in the best interests of the fund. The fund dipped down—it lost over $100 million—which for the community would have been devastating. I think a fund like this is the envy of so many of us; I would love to have a fund of this nature in my communities. And so that would have led to, you know, a real sense of dismay amongst the community. That is what has led—and I want to commend those who are in the gallery today from the New Plymouth District Council—to this process.

I’m just going to talk a little bit about how those investment decisions will be made under the bill. The council must ensure that investment decisions are made only by persons designated or appointed by the council to make decisions on the investment of the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF), acting independently of members and those members’ personal or political interests. But the investment decisions must be made on a prudent commercial basis, in a manner that is consistent with best practice portfolio management, maximising return without undue risk to the PIF as a whole, avoiding prejudice to the reputation of the council and the New Plymouth District community. It does say here—and I think possibly a little bit of caution around this—that nothing in the Act limits or prevents investment of the PIF outside of the New Plymouth District. I do note comments earlier around investment in overseas farms, and I think that’s probably something that I’m sure the council will be considering when investments are made of this nature.

There’s another point I just wanted to bring up, which came through from some submitters on this bill, that I think is important just to respond to and ensure is noted in the Hansard as part of the passage of the third reading of this bill, and that is around the application of the funds wider than the New Plymouth District. There were some submitters who felt that if—and it is a potential, which is a hypothetical, not something that is actually going to happen, but that if—a merger of councils were to happen in the area, this submitter’s view was that the PIF should then be able to be used for the benefit of the fully merged councils that could emerge into, you know, some type of larger authority. The view of New Plymouth District Council—and the view of the committee supported that view—is that because the investment in this fund came from ownership through New Plymouth District Council, through the sale of those shares, it is appropriate to ensure that there is a ring-fencing of those funds for the purpose of those who reside in the New Plymouth District Council catchment area and the ratepayers of that area.

That’s not to say that a decision couldn’t change in the future, and that’s not a decision for this House. That is a decision for those who are the caretakers of this private bill—the New Plymouth District Council—but that certainly could be changed, potentially, through a High Court order or through an amendment to the bill in future if such a hypothetical were to occur. So the committee felt that that was a fair position for the council to be holding in terms of how those funds are appropriated. I myself have a connection to some of these areas that have received—

Glen Bennett: Go on, tell us.

RACHEL BOYACK: I will tell you, Mr Bennett, I will tell you—

Glen Bennett: Because you want to move there.

RACHEL BOYACK: No, no, I don’t want to move there. Mr Bennett has just asked if I wish to move to New Plymouth, and I can assure him I do not. We will have a shipping route joining us shortly, a shipping route move between New Plymouth and Nelson, which I understand is on track to commence shortly, which is very exciting. But I don’t think I’ll be taking it to permanently join you there Mr Bennett.

But the very first time I was privileged to sing as a member of the New Zealand Youth Choir was actually at the TSB Showplace in New Plymouth, a theatre that I understand has received financial support from the PIF. So I am a person who has benefited from some of the fantastic—

Glen Bennett: Sing for us.

RACHEL BOYACK: I’m not going to sing for you in the House, Mr Bennett. I must admit it: I’m a bit rusty these days. But what we know is that investing in these types of activities, these types of organisations, really helps to lift a community in terms of its social outcomes, its economic outcomes, and its cultural outcomes. And I know that, with some sound investment, with ensuring there is that independence sitting around the fund, the Perpetual Investment Fund, commonly referred to as the “PIF”—provided it has that sound independence in terms of how it’s managed, I am very hopeful and assured that it will continue to support and grow the New Plymouth community. It’s an excellent bill. I commend my colleague Glen Bennett on its passage through the House and, on this lovely evening in Parliament, I commend the bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Mr Speaker, when you’ve been around as long as me, you don’t have time to waste on a lot of words, so I’m not going to take a lot of time of the House! But I have to break into the peace—the peace that’s broken out across the House—because I think it’s worth going back in history a bit. Of course, I go back to the time of Peter Tennent and the start of all this stuff, and he was quite a big man and he dwarfed me—but that’s got nothing to do with this.

The real issue I want to raise is the issue of peace in the House. I’m an ex-Tui shareholder, and I well remember there were no friends made between the Taranaki and Rangitīkei in those days. It was quite a divisive argument. Of course, the New Plymouth City Council, I suppose it was in those days—or the district council—then went off and bought a whole lot of dairy farms, and having effectively undermined the whole of the dairy farmers in the Rangitīkei, they then went off and brought a whole lot of dairy farms in Australia for goodness’ sake—in Tasmania. So I suppose that that actually is the start of, I guess, what’s got to this bill, because certainly this bill will straighten out the investment principles of that fund.

As has been well documented in the House today, this went through the Governance and Administration Committee, and I think it’s a very good piece of legislation, and it will protect, at last, the significant amount of funds that the New Plymouth District got out of the Powerco shares sales. Of course, very briefly, a number of us will remember every region or district that had Powerco shares treated them in a different manner. In my part of the world, they paid out—I think it was $1,200 per Powerco shareholder—and it was all gone within a week. At least in New Plymouth the district has retained that fund. So that’s all I really need to say on the issue. It’s been well documented by Glen, Barbara, and co., and that’s my lot. Thank you.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. I’ve possibly been paying rates in the district longer than most members in the House, so it’s great to be able to stand here and bear witness to this process.

We have heard a bit of the history. I can remember in the 1990s when those Powerco shares—the idea of holding those shares was definitely about the dividends being used to reduce the rating requirements for the district. That seemed like a good idea at the time. And then what happened, of course? The idea was to sell those shares so that there could be some diversification, because anyone who knows anything about good financial management knows that you don’t rely on one investment, and diversification, of course, reduces exposure and risk. And, of course, there is a very clear commitment to protecting that investment in perpetuity for the benefit of current and future ratepayers in New Plymouth.

Unfortunately, with the sale of those shares, as we know—we’ve heard about the investment in the largest dairy farm in Tasmania. And I’ve heard the distress from the other side of the House that there was a perception that investing in Aussie was a really great idea, and, of course, it didn’t quite prove to be as sensible as they hoped. The interesting thing was that, at one point, that investment was approximately 60 percent of the portfolio. So, while the intent was to diversify, in the end, by investing in the Tasmanian dairy farm, they ended up consolidating again, and that risk, that exposure, was very much exacerbated when we had the global financial crisis. Those challenges of the decrease in the fund to be able to deliver on rate reductions was significant, and, of course, we saw it move from subsidising 30 to 40 percent of rates down to around about 10 to 15 percent.

It was really controversial at the time, and I can remember the grand promise from the chief executive, when we had the sale of Powerco, that by 2020 we would be earning so much from that fund that, if the council so chose, it would no longer need to ask the ratepayer for the annual $25 million worth of general rates money. We were promised no rates. Well, it didn’t quite work out that way. So it’s really great that we had really forward-thinking, visionary, and ambitious council members who did the opposite of what the member across the House talked about in sort of just saying, “Cash it up.”, and it all being gone in a day. The intention was magnificent; it didn’t quite play out that way. So this bill is a result of trying to ensure that the fund is protected, that it is able to be invested wisely, and that there are really clear directions around what happens to that fund.

I need to commend the council for making sure that they consulted widely with their community, and there were challenges and questions raised about how best to protect that investment and what that structure might look like. A lot of work went into looking at all of the options and sharing those options and discussing those options with ratepayers. Then there were questions also about what we do with the returns. Generally, those returns have been used in a general rates reduction.

Clause 6 very much talks about what happens with the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF) and how it benefits the New Plymouth District. There were some challenges and some questions—and they were really valid ones—about what happens if the boundaries change. The assumption is that the most likely scenario is that the New Plymouth District grows and there is a consolidation of districts across Taranaki, and so they looked at other districts who have similar arrangements for how they have managed funds that have been generated by their ratepayers and how they had been geofenced to protect them. But there hasn’t really been a solid discussion—the question was raised at select committee—about what happens if there’s a boundary shift and people who live currently within the New Plymouth District are suddenly not part of the New Plymouth District. I don’t know why there would be any community who would want to leave the New Plymouth District, but what would happen if the northern boundary shrank, for example, and, say, it moved down to Waitara and those that lived east and north of Waitara were no longer part of the New Plymouth District?

There are potential challenges, but the great thing about a committee process is that those questions get asked and they are answered, and we were reassured that there are ways to make sure that the people who have contributed to that PIF over the years will be the ones to continue to benefit. I think the wording of clause 6 is helpful. While at the moment it’s generally about a rebate, it does say in the clause that “The PIF, or any part of it, must be managed and applied by the Council only for purposes that the Council considers, on reasonable grounds, are wholly or principally for the benefit of current and future communities of the New Plymouth District.” I think that wording gives some permission for the benefits and the investments that come from the returns of the PIF to be thoughtfully done with not necessarily the immediacy of a rates rebate, for example, but an intergenerational investment—an intergenerational investment—whether that’s around sustainability or whether it is around investments that will make sure that our future generations are catered for. So I’d like to think that that wording actually empowers and enables the council when it is deciding what to do with those funds, even though there is a hard geofence around that district—that there will be ways of accommodating those ratepayers if, in the future, they are not part of the district.

I do need to acknowledge my colleague Glen Bennett for the hard work that he’s put in in shepherding this through the House. I do need to acknowledge the council and the good people of New Plymouth, my fellow ratepayers and community members. It is a fabulous place, and I know that we claim the sunshine hours, but I live in a part of the New Plymouth District that also claims some pretty good rainfall records—a couple of metres a year. Water is a precious thing, and where I live, of course, the geography of the maunga is such that it is a wonderful asset, actually. It makes sure that we have this beautiful rainforest, and we have some beautiful farm country.

This bill makes sure that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. In the past, we have put all our milk into one tanker, and it didn’t pay off for us, so the ability for the fund to be managed in a way that is prudent, that is commercially viable, and that is intergenerational in its management of the portfolio is a really great thing. I’m proud to be a resident of the New Plymouth District and of the Taranaki-King Country electorate. It is a fabulous place to live, and that’s why I’m really, really pleased to see how the community has taken this issue really seriously and has come up with something that will stand the test of time.

I think that our leadership in issues, such as a just transition—not just nationally but internationally—is another example of how we are able to think about the implications of decisions that are made not just for today but intergenerationally. I know that because I go to my public library in my local village on a Saturday morning with my children, because I know the council believes in investing in our communities. I know that I can take my children to our local pools. I know that we’ve got fabulous parks—obviously Pukekura Park, which is significant enough to be a Monopoly position. And it is because of this wonderful visionary, ambitious place that I love that I commend this bill to the House

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the hard work that His Worship the Mayor, Neil Holdom, the Mayor of New Plymouth District Council, has done to facilitate this bill, and why ACT will support it. The Perpetual Investment Fund currently holds about $300 million in a diversified portfolio. That fund, that portfolio of assets, actually started off with the sale of council’s ownership in Powerco—a power lines company; an electricity distribution business.

What foresight did that council have by diversifying its asset portfolios beyond the single infrastructure business that it had inherited after that champion of free-market liberal reform, the Hon Max Bradford, reformed the electricity industry in the 1990s and gifted many of these local government organisations a power lines company that was previously in council ownership and control but was broken out as an independent entity. What foresight New Plymouth District Council had to then sell that and take the proceeds from that sale and apply them to a diversified portfolio of assets, which currently includes fixed income—cash, that is; private equity; and alternative assets—property, infrastructure, and hedge funds. Well, that’s the kind of thinking—that’s the kind of forward thinking—that ACT would encourage New Zealanders to get behind, and that’s why we’ll be supporting the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. Diversification of your asset base equals greater resilience for communities like New Plymouth.

It would be fair to say that we’ve heard a lot about New Plymouth’s weather today. We’ve heard about New Plymouth’s natural hazards. All of those things actually add up to further justification for why a diversified portfolio held by the Perpetual Investment Fund makes much more sense than selecting particular asset classes because they’re politically popular or lecturing asset owners about why certain classes of assets or investments are appropriate or not, as we’ve heard from other members in the House today. ACT says that the choice of assets, the choice of investments for the Perpetual Investment Fund of the New Plymouth District Council, should be entirely up to that entity. With that, we wish New Plymouth District Council all the best, His Worship the Mayor Neil Holdom all the best, and we will be supporting this bill.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge Mayor Holdom, as I understand he is here with his team in the House. Mihi ana ki a koe e te rangatira. I had the pleasure of meeting you for the very first time last Saturday at Te Rā o Tā Māui Pōmare.

It is great to take a call on the third reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill, which is sponsored by my colleague Glen Bennett MP. Again, I commend my colleague Glen for his sponsorship of this bill. New Plymouth sits in the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate, where I am based as an MP. While I live at Rātana and was raised in Whanganui, I have strong ties to Taranaki by whakapapa and by whenua and have close whānau that still live there. Whilst a district councillor, I heard the calls of many ratepayers over many years who have struggled to pay their rates. This can go some way towards helping to support and, perhaps, take a little bit of the anxiety out of this annual cost for each and every one of us in this country that own a house or residential home.

Just a bit about the background—I know you’ve heard it all before, but let me just say that this is clearly something that needed to be done. The fund’s original intent of being a sustainable fund to annually subsidise these rates was not achieved. It is sad to see the loss of some $113 million in value over those five years, but I celebrate this bill because of what it is now going to achieve, and that is the original intent. I’m grateful for local government in terms of their long-term planning, for that process helped the council to identify and land with the establishment of this bill. That was in 2021; the offices there, during their long-term process, reported on introducing a local bill in order for it to achieve its original intent. The benefits of that were all about living in this current district boundary: providing legislative protection to its capital base and its benefits back to the communities in perpetuity.

I want to acknowledge the work, again, of the council officers. Many are passionate about what they do, they are hard-working, they are diligent, and sometimes they are not recognised for the contribution that they make to our communities and local government; I say ngā mihi nui ki a koutou—thank you. Due diligence was exercised in terms of a process, alternative options were considered—including doing nothing, which of course was not an option, as it would not have achieved its original legislative protection on the capital base. Council also considered other local legislation, including the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Act 2018.

I have seen the vision of the New Plymouth District Council, and I’m very excited for them. Their vision is to be a “sustainable lifestyle capital”—great slogan there, Mayor Holdom and councillors. Their district offers so much to the people that live there: spectacular natural beauty from Maunga ō Taranaki ki Tangaroa—that’s from the mountain to the sea; thriving towns and communities; and a productive rural sector. How will they do this? They are looking at doing this through partnerships, through delivery of quality services, through community, wellbeing, sustainability, by nurturing prosperity, by being resilient in building it. I see this as helping them towards achieving their vision.

The bill ensures the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF) continues to benefit their communities in a number of ways—that is, by setting an annual release to be used to subsidise those general rates. In 2022-23, the release was around $10.4 million, which helped to reduce those rates required by around 8 percent, a savings of $163 per year, per ratepayer—I know how big that savings is for many, many people, including myself. The release enables the council to also provide a level of service higher than what they could afford through just your ordinary rates processes. The bill acts as a key cornerstone for our financial position, providing halo benefits. It means that council has financial assets larger than external borrowings, which is reducing the cost of borrowing. I’m pleased to see and support the AA+/Stable/A1+ credit rating that this offers.

I have talked before about embedding the lessons of history while being flexible for the future. What does this actually mean? It means the council of the day must be satisfied the flexibility of the fund achieves a better outcome for the wellbeing of both current and the future communities of New Plymouth. It also means that it cannot—and this is important—be used to simply keep rates down to gain political advantage, ensuring it can be accessed following a significant natural disaster or other unexpected event. That is really important, particularly in the environment of climate change that we live in today.

To avoid any further losses, it is important to ensure the real value of this capital is protected and that any reduction be considered under justifiable situations. They were very clear: had to be justifiable situations. It is to that end that I emphasise a submission from New Plymouth PIF Guardians Limited, that they “[support] the intention of the bill to provide the statutory provisions to ensure the real capital value of the fund is continuously maintained or increased, and to ensure it continues to be used for the New Plymouth District community, in perpetuity.” Of particular relevance in terms of this, they actually outlined this in clause 8, where “[it] provides that investment decisions are to be made independently of Elected Members and their interests. The clause provides additional assurance on the independence of [New Plymouth guardian] to manage the PIF in the best interests of the New Plymouth District [Council].”

Again, the case in point here is it provides that investment decisions are to be made independently of elected members. Council has also considered establishing a trust to hold the PIF, with council having trustee obligations to use, for the benefit of the New Plymouth District Council to be maintained in perpetuity—of course, the main problem: that would remove the PIF from the council’s balance sheet, which significantly reduces council’s credit rating and increases its borrowings and its insurance costs. It would result in council exceeding its net debt limit.

Just for clarity, and just very quickly in summary, what the bill does: it defines terms used in the bill; it provides the enactments applicable to the council’s financial management responsibilities and accountabilities. Clause 6 provides that the PIF is to be managed and applied wholly. Clause 7 talks about and outlines the principles of managing and applying the PIF. And clause 8, of course, as mentioned, sets out the requirements of that investment. I am pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House, and heartfelt congratulations to everyone involved to make this happen: the ratepayers, the communities of New Plymouth, and, of course, the council. Kia ora koutou tātou katoa.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. The Green Party supports the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill, and we acknowledge Mayor Holdom and others from the council who are in the gallery.

Coming from Ōtautahi/Christchurch, the city council there had the wisdom to retain assets like the Christchurch International Airport Co. and the Lyttelton Port Co., and, through Christchurch City Holdings, is able to receive quite significant dividend returns from those enterprises, which does reduce the amount of rates that residents have to pay. Similarly, if the council hadn’t sold off Powerco in 2004, it may have benefited from the dividend returns from that company. Nevertheless, it did.

This bill is a sensible and short bill that does provide that the returns from the fund will be maintained so that they’re not overpaying to the council to reduce rates, but maintain the capital value of the fund. It also has some criteria around investment decisions in that they must be on a prudent commercial basis, and I note the provision that they must be in a manner that is consistent with “avoiding prejudice to the reputations of the Council and the New Plymouth district community.” I would hope that that includes ensuring that the fund is investing in activities which reduce emissions—which is consistent with reducing climate pollution—and moving to a more sustainable future, and not activities which might bring the council into disrepute because they are very emissions-intensive or do things like promote environmental degradation.

The bill will ensure that the fund revenues do continue to be used for the benefit of the New Plymouth District for present and future generations. I commend Glen Bennett and what he has done to shepherd the bill through. He and others have described in detail the many attractions of New Plymouth and the Taranaki District, so I will just end by commending the bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to take a call on this bill. Can I just thank the submitters into the process, thank the Governance and Administration Committee, who examined the bill, and thank the few people that submitted on it. It’s not a huge bill, but obviously it’s very significant for the people of New Plymouth, in wanting to make sure that this perpetual investment fund that they’ve got is actually fit for purpose now and into the future.

I connect with this bill, actually. For some years, I sat on the Rotorua Energy Charitable Trust, which came from the sales of power shares back in the day. That was an investment fund that was put in front of the community. We grew that pot as a community over the years, and now it is a very large sum of money. It’s very carefully looked after by a very capable board of governors that sit over the top of it. So I know the benefits that this can produce. I know that, at home, our Rotorua trust distributes around $4 million a year back out to the community in a safe and responsible way to ensure there’s the vibrancy and there are facilities for the community to play sports in, to do recreation in. Those kinds of things make a real difference for a community, and I can only imagine that this bill is going to be able, again in New Plymouth, to create a really responsible management over the fund, make sure that it doesn’t deplete too much, as we saw in the global financial crisis, and ensure that the people and the whānau, the community that live in New Plymouth, are able to have a fund which is theirs and that is looked after for their own benefit and purpose.

Just a grand total of five submissions—one from the New Plymouth District Council, one from New Plymouth Perpetual Investment Fund Guardians Ltd, one from the very capable MP for New Plymouth, who’s going to win again after October the seat of New Plymouth—

Hon Member: Go, Glen Bennett!

TĀMATI COFFEY: His name is Glen Bennett—a very, very capable member of Parliament and, actually, responsible for championing this here through the House. He is the sponsor of the bill, and he did make a submission. Then there were a couple of individual submitters that jumped into that process as well. The general feeling was that they supported the bill. They wanted to ensure that the Perpetual Investment Fund was appropriately managed and that investment decisions were made independently of councillors and their interests.

I want to use this as an example too. In my time sitting on the Rotorua Energy Charitable Trust, one of the things that we were really certain about was making sure that it wasn’t a slush fund for the local council. We wanted to make sure that, actually, it was a fund that was for the community, from the community, and having councillors in there kind of made it—you know, there were a few members of the community that were really concerned that it would actually just end up being another bank account for the council to be able to use. Knowing that we had submissions into the process that talked to that—that really prioritised having that independence from council and independence from councillors—I think is a really important point to note. So this is a good piece of legislation. It’s come before the House. I thank the few people that submitted into the process. I thank the New Plymouth District Council for bringing it in.

I’ll just chuck in my little New Plymouth story as well, which is that my whānau—the Coffey name, actually—comes from Rāhotu. We have a lot of whānau that still continue to live up there and the name has carried on through the generations. New Plymouth is a beautiful part of the country. It deserves the very best and, for that reason, I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call Tama Potaka—five minutes.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Before I get started, I just wanted to acknowledge the passing of Whetumarama Wereta, an absolutely legendary person of Aotearoa who was on the Picot task force and also the Royal Commission on the Electoral System and married to the noble Tumanako Wereta. Matua te tapu. Taranaki Maunga, tū tonu rā mō ake tonu.

[Sacred father. Taranaki mountain, for ever stand before us.]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this third reading of the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. I want to acknowledge my colleague in the House here, the MP for New Plymouth. He and I have a couple of things in common. We both love Surf Highway 45, and we both love Taranaki Maunga. He, though, is a Waitara Bears fan; I’m more of a Coastal Cobras man, to be fair.

National supports this bill. It comfortably sits with our party’s view that local communities retain responsibility for local challenges and support their communities with diverse and stable revenue flows. Local assets staying in local hands—remember that, local assets staying in local hands.

The purpose of this legislation is commendable: to ensure that the Perpetual Investment Fund continues as a long-term financial investment for the holistic wellbeing of current and future communities of New Plymouth; social, cultural, economic, and environmental—sounds like a Tā Mason Durie tapa whā model to me.

Long-term investment that is required across a number of Government and non-Government organisations, iwi incorporations and trusts, and charities must all consider the long-term demands that they have on their time and their cash. As a shareholder and committee member of the illustrious Parininihi ki Waitōtara Inc. (PKW), one of the biggest investors in Taranaki, I too recognise the value of the recalibration that this legislation brings, Mr Bennett. Without these organisations, like the fund, like PKW, the councils, and the values that underpin them, our cities, our whānau, our communities, our towns, our country would be far less well off.

To that end though, what I will say is that clause 8 of this bill does look suspiciously like the mandate of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. It looks like an almost copycat enterprise, and our fellow Greens member over the way was talking about reputation issues—well, I’m sure that the super fund is very interested in wind investments and other things that are happening in Taranaki, and the sooner the better.

I won’t take much longer but to say that we support this bill, and I look forward, Mr Bennett, to Ōpunake being labelled the best town in New Zealand. Kia ora. Ka kite.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege to speak on this important local bill, which the member for New Plymouth has championed through this House. I acknowledge all of the members of this House who have spoken so warmly of New Plymouth and of him and of our guests in the gallery today. I acknowledge His Worship Neil Holdom the Mayor, Gareth Green chief executive, Joy Buckingham, Greg Stevens, Jonathan Salter, Mark Butcher, and Sarah Vrede. It is a real privilege to be having this debate about the health of a region we all care about, with you to join in our conversation today.

I’d like to pick up on a point, which has been touched on by a number of colleagues around the House, about the protections in the bill that have been arrived at through consultation by the council and then through consideration by the committee. That protection that I’m going to focus in on is to make sure that the investment decisions—which shares to buy and sell and so forth—are not political decisions. The bill provides that the investment decisions must be made independently of elected members, on a commercial basis, and the member who just resumed his seat, Tama Potaka, made this point: that those provisions are modelled very closely on those of the Superannuation Fund. Some members of this House have also noted those similarities. New Plymouth PIF Guardians is also a similar name to the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, and that was a deliberate choice made by council. It was also deliberate that, in clause 8(2), it’s very similar to the wording that protects that fund managed by the guardians of the Superannuation Fund.

I want to touch on that because that point really highlights the intergenerational nature of this fund that New Plymouth will have. It will be a fund that has a similar sort of intergenerational and institutional level of oversight over its investments. These are investments which are meant to invigorate the economy in this area. They’re meant to make targeted, strategic investments that are good for the long term and are good for future generations. Does that sound similar to some other investments that are happening in this region? Yes, it does.

This region is very lucky to be a post-settlement region. Earlier in this Government’s term, Ngāti Maru was settled. The Crown made an apology to Ngāti Maru on 29 October 2022, making it the final of eight iwi within the region to reach a settlement with the Crown for historic grievances, many that arose during the time of the Taranaki Wars. It was a real honour for me to be involved in that process as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. Some of the most important work that this Parliament does is considering the historical grievances and historical wrongs of the Crown toward iwi and then to be able to see the aspirations of iwi for future generations—their plans for housing, their plans for cultural revitalisation within an area—and a reconnection with their whenua. It is so important that this Parliament is involved. So, for that region, we have Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Mutunga, Te Ātiawa Taranaki—these settlements that have now occurred that make way now for a settlement of the maunga, a reclaiming of a history and a special association that so many of us have as New Zealanders. But also, those mana whenua, those ahi kā groups, can now have negotiation with the Crown, which will enable a reclaiming of the stories associated with that maunga, and an apology from the Crown.

So it’s in that context that, when we talk about the intergenerational nature of this fund, we as parliamentarians can express our excitement and our hopefulness about the ability of the New Plymouth fund—which is, as I understand it, $349 million worth—to interact with those iwi investments which are able to happen now. Ngāti Maru alone was settled $30 million from the Crown, and those investments will rapidly grow in an area which is growing and in primary sector investments which are much in demand on a global scale. So the ability for these eight iwi to work hand in glove with the council is absolutely important. I understand that the council has a thriving iwi chairs forum and that the relationships that exist between council can only grow now that they are backed up by this institutional level of investment, which can only get better.

I wish the council well. Again, it’s a real privilege for you to be here. I look forward to seeing those relationships grow and enable the Māori economy to thrive in the region. I commend this bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the chance to speak on this bill, and I acknowledge those who are here from the region.

I just want to start with a couple of stories from the Waikato region. I’m from Hamilton, and we have made two glorious mistakes with our funding in the last generations. The first was that the Waikato Regional Council managed to sell its shares in the Port of Tauranga, and that was a great economic decision that led to a fund being set up which, effectively, hasn’t really grown much in that period of time and hasn’t delivered much for the Waikato region. The second story is that, when we were in Government last time, we actually set up the ultra-fast broadband network. Hamilton City Council was one of the key players in that, and it actually had Taranaki, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty, and the reason we set it up was to create a community business for the Waikato. Now, they—bless their socks—a few years later, once they got all that capital, decided to sell it and put it into a fund for the purposes of their network, which defeated the purpose of what we’d set up.

What I’m saying is to be very careful with these kinds of funds, because there are some things that I think really stand out to me that are problems: first of all, council being involved in decision making. No offence to any councillors here, but the reality is that a council being involved in that decision making under clause 6 really is a problem.

Secondly, there is a risk averseness that comes into these funds. Often they invest in shares—and this is what the ACT Party said. They said that it’s great to see diversified investments that will be spread around, and you’ll have 20 percent in US shares and 20 percent in New Zealand shares, and all that. There is a great economic loss from doing that. There is the economic return you get in the dividend, but you have the economic loss of the failure to have the asset in your area.

Arena Williams: This is free financial advice.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, nah, it is, and it’s great advice—you should listen. That is a big problem that many managed funds do pose for councils. They become risk-averse, they invest on a diversified basis—which is what everyone will tell you is the greatest thing since sliced bread and great financial planning—but the reality is you lose the capital input into your area.

I would encourage you to look at iwi. I don’t see many iwi going out there and going into managed perpetual funds. They use a different structure. Tainui Group Holdings (TGH) is a perfect example. Their asset base is completely different from the political base. The asset base has been given the job of getting to run it like a company to make money and they invest in land and they invest in assets in the region, and that is the parallel with local government. Local government has got a right to be there for ever, and that’s your role. Like with iwi, it’s a long-term role.

The problem with many perpetual funds is that they become investments that are run by risk-averse people that don’t invest in an area for long-term gain. I note that in clause 8(3) it says that you can invest outside the region, which gives the licence to do that, and I think you should be very careful about that.

So my encouragement for you, once you get this legislation, is to actually go and look at something like Tainui Group Holdings. It’s a better investment model. It takes it out of council decision-making, because I can tell you what you will be doing in five or 10 years’ time: you will be deciding to build some social housing in a certain area and thinking that that’s a great idea. TGH doesn’t do that. They go build investments into Ruakura Superhub and into commercial and industrial buildings, they do investments into land, and they do investments into businesses that actually generate money. You can be diversified in that range, but you don’t have to actually have it as a slush fund for council decisions.

I would really encourage you to take a wider perspective than what your advisers will be telling you, because they’ll be telling you diversification and all that, and you’ll be paying them handsomely for that, but the reality is that iwi don’t do that. Iwi are making more money than any managed fund I’ve seen in New Zealand that a council has held, and they use a different structure which is a much more commercial structure. You can divorce the council from that commercial structure, and that’s what you should do if you want to bear long-term growth.

You’ve got one of the best regions in New Zealand—it’s got amazing potential, and as long as it links with the Waikato, it’s got even better potential—but the reality is: don’t lose that opportunity. I’d hate to see in 10 years’ time that you have even $400 million in some managed fund with $50 million of that on the US stock market and the value isn’t in your region. It’s about using those assets for commercial purposes, not for political purposes. I’m not saying that that’s what you will do, but it will get to that point at some point because the decisions made by council won’t be commercial.

We encourage you to go ahead with this bill, but there are better approaches out there for how you actually structure it. Go look at iwi. They have the same long-term role that you have. They aren’t going into prudential managed funds like this. They are going into asset-based businesses that are run by commercial entities that then have a role of reporting back. It’s a completely different model, but it’s a better model, and it has worked. So I’d encourage you to have a look at that.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill—final call, actually—as this bill makes its way through the House. I’d like to begin by acknowledging some of the comments from the previous speaker there, David Bennett, who is a member of Parliament based in Hamilton, like myself. Just to pick up on a little bit there, particularly in terms of—the previous speaker mentioned Tainui Group Holdings. They have had tremendous success across the Waikato region and into South Auckland. As the member said, they’ve done that by investing in assets—in fact, many times being a landlord for Government agencies, like there was a recent opening of the ACC building in town. The Ruakura Superhub is an excellent investment—a $3 billion investment. The Tainui iwi had a settlement of $170 million back in 1995. They have turned that into $1.5 billion worth of assets. That’s a significant increase, and primarily they have done that, like the previous member said, by investing in assets, making wise choices around that.

Now, on to this bill, the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill, which is a local bill. Before I get into the bill, I’d just like to mention to those who are either listening at home or watching at home the purpose of local bills. A local bill is a bill that a local authority, a council can—it’s basically an opportunity for a local council to raise an issue that is very much local in nature, and they can bring it to Parliament and they can have it put through Parliament through a local member. In this case, the local member is Glen Bennett. One of the advantages of local bills is that, when we have a members’ day like today, local bills go to the top of the Order Paper, so they are prioritised above members’ bills on days like this.

We’ve seen many examples of local authorities putting bills through. I think it’s an important part of our democracy that we do have this option, because, if we didn’t have the local bill option, what would happen is that councils would have to talk to Ministers in a Government and try and get a Minister to adopt a bill. As we know, Governments of all colours always have quite full agendas, because, when they go to the election, they basically make promises to the voters through their manifesto documents and then, if they are voted in, they’ve got three years to get that through, which is a short time. Personally, I think it should be longer, but we won’t get to that topic right now. So the local bill mechanism is a very important part of our democracy, and it’s good to see that the New Plymouth District Council have used this mechanism and they’ve used it well, and they’ve used local, supportive MP Glen Bennett, someone who’s very passionate about the region.

I’d like to acknowledge some of the work of some of the local people who have provided leadership in this bill. First of all, His Worship, Mayor Neil Holdom. I actually met with Neil around three years ago—met in his office—and, at that point, it was a particularly challenging time because the Government had just passed legislation in terms of no new permits for oil and gas. Neil explained to me, at the time, that the Taranaki region was very much dependent on that area for their economy. I don’t want to quote exactly what he said, but he sort of said, “Look, you know, we’re open-minded and we understand that some sort of transition needs to happen.” That transition is now happening, and, in a moment, I’ll get on to the New Plymouth area in terms of some of the economic opportunities there and how this fund can support those economic opportunities.

So I’d like to acknowledge Neil Holdom’s leadership in particular. As I understand it, he’s primarily been the driving force for this bill, so I’d like to acknowledge his leadership. Also Gareth Green, Chief Executive; Joy Buckingham, Group Manager, Corporate Services; Greg Stephens, Senior Policy Advisor; Jonathan Salter, Special Counsel, Simpson Grierson; Mark Butcher, Chair, New Plymouth PIF Guardians; Sarah Vrede, Director, New Plymouth PIF Guardians—

Hon David Bennett: Who mowed the lawns?

JAMIE STRANGE: No, no, it’s important. It’s important to mention these people. These are the local people who have brought about this change, and that’s an example of our democracy working well. Democracy is there for everyone, and as a Government, we are very much about grassroots. We are very much focused on working with local people and local outcomes.

Hon David Bennett: Oh, come on, Jamie—there’s nothing local about the Labour Party; you’re taking it away.

JAMIE STRANGE: As the member opposite will know, we are very much focused on understanding, unlike the party opposite, who are sitting up in their ivory tower wanting to give tax cuts to the rich while we are down in the trenches.

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

JAMIE STRANGE: Thank you. I will return to the bill. Right, now, so just a little bit of history on the bill here—just a little bit of history on the bill here. The bill is, basically, being put forward to protect New Plymouth’s Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF) from future local body amalgamations. It was drawn up in 2021 and, as I understand it, there was a bit of anxiety from some members of council who were worried about a possible amalgamation and that, if that amalgamation happened, the residents of New Plymouth may have to share the returns from this bill with others. And so, basically, it was proposed by the staff: “Hey, why don’t you look at a local bill?”—which is good advice. The bill—you know, we’ve explained how that works. The councillors voted eight to five to progress the bill, which was then introduced to Parliament in 2023.

Now, it wasn’t a unanimous vote, but enough of the councillors voted for this to progress. I believe that some councillors felt there was no rush, due to amalgamations not being on the horizon, and the reality is that amalgamations aren’t on the horizon; it’s not something we’re looking at as a Government.

Hon David Bennett: Yes, you are.

JAMIE STRANGE: It is a topic—well, maybe the National Party might be looking at that, but we’re not. I mean, there are always discussions across the country around amalgamations, and from time to time it raises its head up and down, and that may or may not continue in terms of that. But, look, I just wanted to get a little bit of the economic development.

Now, the bill basically protects the PIF for local residents. The PIF focuses on social, cultural, environmental, and economic outcomes. I just want to pick up, particularly, on the economic aspect. The Taranaki region is a region that’s growing quickly—that has good projections in terms of economic development. Many parts of the economy will be well known, around agriculture, food production, tourism—we’ve visited as a family ourselves and enjoyed many of the tourism aspects—but also manufacturing. Manufacturing is particularly important for a resilient economy. Offshore wind—I recently went to an event which highlighted some of the opportunities there in the offshore wind area.

I would like to encourage those who are making the decisions on this fund—the trustees or the fund managers, the guardians—as they look at economic outcomes for this fund to continue working, as I know they’re doing, in terms of building partnerships with other regions across New Zealand. I think it would be remiss of me, as someone living in Hamilton, to not encourage them to look north in terms of the Waikato region. The “golden triangle”, as it’s often phrased—the Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga area—makes up 50 percent of New Zealand’s population, 52 percent of GDP, 57 percent of the value of all building consents, and a huge amount of exports. In terms of economic development, I think that the Taranaki region would do well to have a look north and see what sort of partnerships could be opened.

I acknowledge that we probably would need to do a bit of work in the transport area. The road is certainly challenging at times through there, but, yeah, look, I think it’s important. A lot of people talk about this “golden triangle”—Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga. I’ve started to coin a phrase: the “golden diamond”, extending that “golden triangle” south, sharing the love.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order. That’s actually a council phrase—chamber of commerce—Jamie, not yours.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That’s actually not a valid point of order.

JAMIE STRANGE: The “golden diamond” is a phrase I’m proud of and that I am progressing. I see my time has come to an end. I very much enjoyed this speech and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill

Second Reading

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It is a pleasure to take the first call on the second reading of this important bill for the Cawthron Institute and my electorate of Nelson. Can I begin by putting my thanks on record to a number of people who have supported the passage of this bill. First I want to thank officials from the Office of the Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Ministry of Justice for their wise advice. This bill has meandered its way through the Parliament a little bit. It has required the occasional piece of advice from the Office of the Clerk, from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and from the Ministry of Justice in order to get to this point, and I do want to place on record my sincere thanks to those officials for their professionalism in supporting this bill through its progress.

I wish to acknowledge members of the Cawthron Institute Trust Board, chair John Palmer, and two further trustees who have put a lot of energy and time into this bill, Sarah-Jane Weir and Harvey Ruru, who have been part of our discussions as a trust board over the last couple of years as we’ve progressed this bill through the House. I also wish to thank local iwi for the way in which they have engaged with the trust board to ensure that their views were heard throughout the development of this bill and through the select committee process. I particularly want to note the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and the members from both sides of the House who have engaged constructively throughout this process. There have been a few amendments made to this bill, a number of questions through that process, and I want to acknowledge everyone who has diligently and wisely approached this bill so that it comes back to the House in a better form. That is very much appreciated by me.

Finally, to the two lawyers who have advised the Cawthron Institute throughout this process, David McLay and retired Justice John Wild, who have both supported the Cawthron Institute through the passage of this bill—and can I acknowledge that John Palmer, the chair of the Cawthron trust is in the gallery today alongside David McLay. I just want to acknowledge the tremendous work that you’ve both done to get us to this point. Finally, I do need to acknowledge the Business Committee, because we are in a position tonight to progress this bill through to the end of its passage, and I hope we will get there. We will be able to take this bill through the second reading, through the committee stage and through a shortened third reading tonight, and I hope we do get there because that will allow this bill to actually become law and then be utilised by the Cawthron Institute.

Before I get into the details of the bill, I do just want to note my own interest, which I noted in the first reading of the bill, that I wear a couple of hats, one of which is being the local MP for Nelson that is putting this bill through. But also, I sit as one of—what we colloquially call—the statutory trustees as the member for Nelson. I have a role as a statutory trustee on the board of the Cawthron Institute. So I note that interest at the beginning of this speech.

So first to who the Cawthron Institute is and why it is such a taonga within Nelson and also within New Zealand. The Cawthron Institute is New Zealand’s largest independent science organisation. It was established in 1921 and is over 100 years old. It was one of a number of organisations that were established as a result of a significant bequest from the philanthropic businessman in Nelson named Thomas Cawthron. Alongside the money that he left for a science institute and museum, he also left significant bequests to other parts of Nelson that are very special to those of us who call Nelson home, including the church steps in front of Nelson cathedral, the organ located within the former Nelson School of Music, the chains on Rocks Road, and, for those of us who have the lucky benefit of living in Nelson, when we drive around there are reminders of Cawthron’s contribution to our region everywhere we go.

There are a number of areas that the Cawthron provides significant research and support for, both within New Zealand but also on a global scale. We have an incredible number of scientists. We have around 300 staff at Cawthron, many of whom are young scientists who come from around 35 different countries from around the world, including China, Poland, the United States, France, Fiji, Australia, Germany, Sri Lanka, England, and Italy. There is significant scientific research occurring at the Cawthron Institute in areas of aquaculture, freshwater health, ocean health, our land and soils, seafood safety. There are two particular areas of research that have been in the media a lot, one of which is the work on algae and Asparagopsis, which is algae that can be feed to cattle and help reduce methane emissions; and the project around neosaxitoxin, which has a highly localised anaesthetic, and the incredible work that Cawthron is doing in conjunction with Boston Children’s Hospital to develop a new anaesthetic that does not have addictive properties. These are the kinds of projects that Cawthron is renowned for.

Cawthron is an organisation that was established before we had things like the Charities Act and so therefore has its own private Act of Parliament. But this Act does need some freshening up. In the past couple of decades, we’ve had two High Court orders made in 2003 and 2007 that amended, through the High Court, elements of Cawthron’s governance arrangements. We then had changes to the Trusts Act in 2019, and all of those changes together began a process of it becoming somewhat confusing about what the actual governance arrangements of the Act were. And so there’s components of those, which I’ll talk to in a moment, which needed to be tidied up.

But the most substantial change that we have in the Act is that we are adding a further what we call “statutory trustee”. So we currently have 10 trustees sitting around the table at the Cawthron Institute. There are four who are there by nature of their roles: the MP for Nelson, the Mayor of Nelson, the Mayor of Tasman, and the Anglican Bishop of Nelson. Those four trustees then appoint a further six trustees to govern the Cawthron Institute at that trust board level. There is a missing person around the table that the trust board has long wanted to add, and that as a representative of local iwi. So a significant amount of consultation has occurred with the eight iwi of Te Tauihu, across the Top of the South, and, from the point that this bill receives its Royal assent, Te Tauihu iwi will be able to nominate an appointee who will also fulfil what we colloquially call a statutory trustee. So they will have similar powers to the four of us in terms of being able to then appoint the further six members of the trust board.

Thomas Cawthron’s view was that one should be governed in a way that reflected the community. The will that he left made that clear, and it is the view of the trust board unanimously that it is appropriate, particularly when we have other elected representatives, the Anglican Bishop, that iwi are a significant part of our community and should be represented.

There are a couple of other small changes to the bill, one of which is to include the objects of Cawthron within the bill. We didn’t actually have that listed into the Act itself, and so this bill will amend the principal Act by sitting at the trust board’s objects, namely the advancement of science to benefit to Te Tauihu and Aotearoa New Zealand with a focus on natural resources.

There are some other changes relating to remuneration, and there’s one particular I want to note, which was that, through various court orders and adjustments to the principal Act, we have actually become somewhat confused around whether trust board members should be remunerated. Now, the trust board members do have a clear view that this is, for most people who sit around the table, a voluntary role. But we also note that we do require commercial expertise around the table. And so there will be times when it is appropriate to remunerate someone. We have made a change, though, to ensure that the statutory trustees—the MP and the mayors—are not able to receive remuneration.

So I look forward to the remainder of the debate tonight and the committee stage, where I can get into the detail of this somewhat more, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it is a pleasure to speak on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill. I congratulate the member Rachel Boyack who has just taken her seat again, as one of the privileges I think of being an MP is being able to shepherd a bill as worthy as this through the House, which means a lot to the local community of a trust that was established over 100 years ago—how the world has changed since that trust came into being. I’m sure that Thomas Cawthron would be—or his legacy would far exceed his expectations I’m sure that he had 100 years ago. I didn’t know the chains around Rocks Road were donated by Thomas Cawthron. He was certainly a successful businessman, but philanthropy is something that we don’t see as much of these days in the way that it was in those days, when a wealthy person such as Mr Cawthron made a magnificent contribution to his community which not only endures today, it has way surpassed what it set out to achieve in the beginning.

I have been to the aquaculture park at the Cawthron Institute, and I urge anyone who gets the opportunity to go there—you should, it’s an amazing facility. I think Rachel said there were 300 staff—is that right? Three hundred staff at Cawthron and these are all highly skilled people who are passionate about their work. They’re not just turning up to do their work, they’re passionate about what they can achieve. I’ve had the privilege of hearing a presentation from the chief executive of Cawthron at a social event, who spoke with such passion—him and his wife gave a team act, as it were, about the importance of the ocean.

Covering 71 percent of the surface of our planet is the ocean. We are on the dry bits of land—a very small part of it, and a lot of the answers to the problems that we have today lie within the ocean, and Rachel spoke about that earlier with Asparagopsis and methane, for example. There are a lot of other things—there are a lot of medical uses for compounds that are found in the ocean, and that’s part of the work that is done at the aquaculture park, but I’ll come back to that.

I think it’s unusual today, and it speaks to the era that this bill came from that we have four trustees as of right, and two mayors and the member of Parliament which all kind of make sense—and the bishop. There wouldn’t be many pieces of legislation on the books where a bishop is required to be a person on a trust or leading that. No, I think it’s a pity, actually, that it’s not more often used in our society. I know we’re more secular than we ever were in those days, but it sort of speaks to the respect with which—and how—things were done in those days, and I think it should be acknowledged.

It was overdue to have an iwi representative formally recognised, even though they were a part of it, and Cawthron has a really good relationship with Te Tau Ihu, but having it formally in the legislation is—while the bill’s going through it might as well have that, and I think it must do actually. We did have a bit of an issue, through the whole process, where we heard evidence about variations on the spelling of Te Tau Ihu. And I guess that’s just a legacy issue, which we dealt with. But it was fascinating, and I do, as has been said before, thank those people from Cawthron who spent a lot of time helping us through the select committee process to get this bill right, and I’m sure we have.

It actually raises an issue, where these pieces of legislation, in theory, if things change in time, and they will, it will require another Act of Parliament to change that legislation and bring it into line. We did discuss how could we make this bill more enduring, and I’m comfortable we’ve done the best that we can. It’s probably not enough, but we won’t know that for decades, and none of us will be here in this House, I suspect. Although you never know, Simeon Brown might be—entering his middle age by then. It might be—but it is important that we think about these things, and, I don’t know, we did put quite a bit of time and effort into thinking about that. There was a lot of good contributions around the select committee table, as well as from the officials that were advising us, and the legal adviser for the trust, to try and get that sorted. I think we’ve done as best we can.

As I said, as has been alluded to before, bioactive compounds in the ocean are a really important area for research, and we’ve really barely scratched the surface. A topical issue that’s just happened in the last few days, Seagate, really highlights how little of the Earth’s backyard that we have actually researched. Going down to great depths, we barely—we just really deal with the shallows, but we’ve got a lot of aquaculture in Nelson and in the Marlborough Sounds, very close by where this aquaculture park is. The research that Cawthron does happens and has a good use every day in our region, and in Nelson—or my region and over the hill in Nelson—and everywhere else in New Zealand. Aquaculture is going to become an increasingly important source of nutrients and protein for us, for healthy diets and healthy lifestyles, and also a low impact source of food. Obviously, we need to do the research to ensure that we can make the best use of that. The aquaculture park also can actually—these bioactives that they can research, they can go right down the value chain, or even to the stage of running plant-scale production and synthetic modification of those particular compounds for use in medical and other areas.

That, as I’ve said, with all those 300 people there, the work that they’re doing in those particular buildings—they’ve got tanks where they are able to grow these things and observe them more closely than out in the ocean. It’s a phenomenal facility. Keeping them at different temperatures and different chemistries in the water, they’re able to make assessments of what would happen from a pollution perspective in the water, and how things might be actually even cleaned up by natural organisms in the water, and how that can be all controlled. The algae and cultural facilities is what I referred to—they’ve got a wet lab but they’ve also got a dry lab, and so all of that money has been put to good use.

I’m not going to take up any more time on this, but I would just like to reiterate that I congratulate the member for bringing this to this stage. I also congratulate the Cawthron Institute and their directors for the work that they’ve done, and indeed their staff for the dedication that they have. I think it’s testament to that how well the bill was supported through the select committee process, and indeed by the officials that made this process a lot easier than it could have been. So with that I commend this bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill for its second reading. I just want to thank the member of Nelson, Rachel Boyack, who brought this bill before the House. Like everyone else has mentioned, she’s an extremely formidable MP, and it’s really good that she’s bringing this bill through the House, and then also for her ongoing work with the Cawthron Institute as a trustee on their board.

This private bill will make it easier for the Cawthron Institute to operate in a proper manner without needing High Court or parliamentary approval. It’ll clarify the administrative and governance matters, such as the responsibilities and powers of the board of directors and things like remuneration. This bill helps modernise the governance of the Cawthron Institute Trust Board, and it’s fit so it can continue its work more efficiently.

The most important aspect of this bill, for me, is that it allows for an additional representation of the iwi voice. Until now, the Thomas Cawthron Trust Act of 1924—it only allowed the board to have three statutory members, and they were: the MP for Nelson, the mayor for Nelson, and then the Anglican Bishop of Nelson. So to better represent and support the people of Nelson and New Zealand, it’s important that local iwis can participate in structures like the Cawthron Institute, and with this private bill Te Tauihu iwi now have a seat at this board, and this will be a huge benefit to the work of this leading science institution in New Zealand.

The Cawthron Institute has been an important part of scientific research and progress in New Zealand history for more than 100 years now, as has been mentioned in previous contributions. Since 1921, the institute has helped advance science to the benefit of all New Zealanders in many different fields, from things like agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, marine freshwater systems, and things like that.

Last year, the member for Nelson and I, along with a few of our other colleagues, went and visited the Cawthron national algae centre just to see some of the innovative research that they were doing. It was a whole lot of visits we did, but we ended up spending the afternoon there, which was absolutely fantastic. Interestingly, the first stage of the centre was officially opened by the Prime Minister two years ago, and that was just two years after $6 million worth of funding was provided by the Government’s Provincial Growth Fund. Cawthron also contributed $2 million towards the centre. The centre will enable the Cawthron researchers to build on their existing expertise to meet growing global demand for algae-based products and solutions. They’ve had some fantastic studies going on, from the extraction of bioactive compounds from microalgae for high-value pharmaceutical products through to methane-busting seaweed, as has been mentioned in other contributions. You know, there are enormous possibilities for a thriving New Zealand algae sector. It has significantly contributed to the growth of New Zealand’s primary industries, and now it’s helping protect our marine and freshwater environments.

Interestingly, seaweed cultivation is the world’s fastest growing aquaculture sector, with the global seaweed industry worth more than US$6 billion per year, and there are many species that have potential to be transformed into a range of commercial products. When the member for Nelson and I visited this institute, I thought there’d only be one kind of seaweed, but, interestingly, there’s a whole range of types of seaweed that are out there, and they are testing different types to see what response they have with methane busting, which is fantastic. That will get transformed into different commercial products as well as offering environmental benefits to counteract climate change. So we’re seeing some fantastic, innovative ideas going on down there.

The Cawthron Institute employs hundreds of highly qualified personnel that stand at the forefront of research in their fields globally, and recently the Cawthron Institute announced a breakthrough discovery in the production of algae-based pain medication that could become an alternative to opioids. So some fantastic innovation going on there, and they’re refining that as we go on. This was also made possible thanks to a $950,000 contribution by this Government.

Their work also protects our marine and freshwater environment. They have developed a promising prototype bubble blower installed beneath a pontoon to help mitigate biofouling, and it has the potential to be an important tool to reduce the spread of marine pests in our marinas. There are many marinas around the country that would absolutely benefit from this once it’s out there in full swing.

Their salmon breeding facility is also impressive, and we also visited that. So this area, it’s a segregated area within the facility. You go in there, you put on the white overalls, you put on white protective, like, boots to go over your shoes, and you go in there and you can see the experiments that they’re doing in there. It’s a selective breeding process, so what they’re trying to do is enable or research salmon farming that can be done in deeper waters and in waters of varying temperatures. What that will enable us to do is establish salmon farms in different areas that we’re not currently farming in. So that’s some very exciting research going on in that space, and this will allow Aotearoa to ensure that we can continue farming salmon as our sea temperatures change.

Other initiatives, like the Cawthron New Zealand River Awards, are very good too. They celebrate the achievements of people committed to improving freshwater health and show this institute’s contribution to the development of healthy ecosystems across New Zealand. This private bill will help the Cawthron Institute modernise its governance and proceed with its research to the highest international standards.

With the select committee process, I want to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—

Glen Bennett: Great committee.

DAN ROSEWARNE: —for its work on improving this bill—yeah, absolutely, it’s a very good committee. I’ve subbed in on it on a number of occasions. But, you know, there have been some simple but important clarifications that have been made throughout the pushing around of this bill, and I agree with a lot of them—so, for example, that elected officials should not receive remuneration for their position on the board of the Cawthron Institute as they hold this position only because they are elected officials. It’s also important to better define the role the Te Tauihu iwi member will play on this board. The select committee decided that this member should also have the power to select six other board members. However, other considerations, such as the remuneration of that member, will be decided by the board itself, as iwi members often participate on such boards for other reasons than monetary remuneration.

What I’m really excited about with the Cawthron Institute is that a lot of the other contributions that they’re going to make as they further evolve in their research, particularly in the R & D space—their research, as we can all agree, is cutting-edge, and I have no doubt that integrating mātauranga Maori and iwi voices will really strengthen their board and the work that they do going forward. So I really commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill. I was not on the select committee that heard the evidence on this bill and made the decisions on it, but it’s unusual for a private bill to come to the House, in my experience, and have quite the number of changes that have been made to this bill. And I suppose that the trust board were fortunate to have had Rachel Boyack as the promotor of this bill, because she is a stickler for detail. Ha, ha! And she’ll make sure every word is right. But also it went through the select committee under the chairmanship or stewardship of Naisi Chen, and she’s a little the same.

I want to comment really on the background of this trust. I think it’s pretty extraordinary that one person can make such an impact on New Zealand—I know Stuart Smith talked briefly about this before. One person makes such an impact on New Zealand industry and, I guess, science and business a hundred-and-something years after setting up a trust to effectively—I think it was originally set up to promote agriculture, actually. There’s some irony in that too, and I’ll get to that in a minute. But now it’s quite a spectacular set-up. And it’s been well documented by the previous speakers as to what goes on at the Cawthron Institute, and I think it’s quite exciting.

The comment I wanted to make was the current chief executive, of course, comes out of the fishing industry and he tends to have a habit of criticising the meat and wool and dairy sectors and thinking that the fishing industry’s more sustainable. Well, the fact is the great thing about the dairy and meat industry is we’re totally renewable. We renew ourselves every year and we don’t yet have proof that the fishing industry is totally renewable. I think it probably is, having been the spokesperson for fisheries for quite a while. I think it probably is, but none the less I don’t think it’s great for us to criticise other sectors. And it’s very interesting, because we’ve seen this just in the last weeks really in the forestry industry where we’re tearing each other apart for no good reason. At the end of the day, this institute is of great benefit to New Zealand Inc., and I don’t think it matters whether it’s—in fact, we heard a little bit about the potential for it to produce all sorts of algae and things like that. Of course, to do that that will have benefits right across the sectors because you can produce these things, they turn up in animal feeds, they turn up in all sorts of places. So the work they do, I think is pretty special.

One of the things that interests me about this—and, no doubt, David Bennett will have a comment on that later—is it’s very difficult when you get community-based organisations appointing people. And lots of councils and communities grapple with this issue. This one’s quite interesting because it has the mayor, the two MPs, and the bishop—the Anglican bishop, David Bennett. Ha, ha! Most important to Nelson, of course. But it is interesting it also has an iwi member that appoints those trustees. I think it’s sort of an interesting structure and it’s a good structure, but the bill was needed and it’s been well documented again. The bill was needed to deal with this, because there was some uncertainty created by a variety of different issues that meant this bill was required to put back in order the things that were doubtful, I suppose.

I think it’s quite exciting. The bill, I suppose, sets up the structure for an entity that’s hugely important to New Zealand. I commend the work of the select committee in getting to this point with it and I need say no more. I’m sure it will be a great success and there’ll be more discussion on it tonight. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for our dinner break. I will resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. tonight.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Members, the House has resumed. Before the dinner break we were on the debate of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill. I, obviously, don’t live in Nelson, but as evidence that they are far-reaching in their impact and their influence, as someone who has very strong connections to Havelock, it’s been really interesting to look at—you know, as we’ve all done our homework, it’s the impact that they’re having. They are far reaching in their efforts.

I have to say congratulations to the member from Nelson for the care and the diligence and the thoroughness with which she has brought the bill to this point in the House. She talked about the incredible work and effort to make sure that iwi have been brought genuinely along the way, and about the engagement with staff and with the community about the changes that needed to happen to make sure that this wonderful institution remains future focused, forward thinking, and able to be as innovative as it has been for more than 100 years. I think it’s testament to the commitment that the member from Nelson has to her community and to this institution that we’re in this place today.

People have already noted that there have been changes to the bill, and, again, I think that just shows how diligent the community is to this trust. I do need to talk for a moment about the fact that this trust is intensely local in its influence but also incredibly global. It hasn’t just been around for more than 100 years, but it is very committed and really comfortable with being really future focused and able to lead not just Nelson and Marlborough in the top of the South Island but actually the whole world in its thinking and its actualising of our just transition that needs to happen.

As we all do our homework and we find something that excites us about what the institute has done, it was really interesting to read about the dear little village of Havelock and the estuary at the head of the Marlborough Sounds. It’s the largest estuary there. Over the years, it has suffered, and it has become one of the muddiest estuaries in the country. I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with that. It has claimed a lot of my gumboots over the years as I ventured out from my grandfather’s sawmill—which Mr Brownlee will know, being connected to the Brownlees there in Havelock. There was just something really attractive, leaving the paddock at the end of the sawmill and being really determined to get out to the maimai. I never made it out and back with a gumboot intact, so I can attest to the muddiness of that estuary, but that’s not a good thing. Estuaries shouldn’t be that muddy. And it has had significant contaminants come into it over the years.

And what has happened is the Marlborough District Council, with the significant assistance of such an internationally renowned institution, has been able to really thoroughly explore every metre of that estuary and discover where the sediment and those contaminants have actually come from, connecting them up to where the council thought they were coming from because of consents and all those sorts of things. So, actually, what it’s going to do is give the council great confidence with its future decision making about how it will restore that amazing part of our country that I have strong connections to.

We’ve heard already about some of the incredible innovation—the bubbles in Waikawa Marina—and, I guess, their ability to test things out. I guess that’s recognition of their absolute fundamental understanding and commitment to our coastlines and to our oceans. And I guess that’s where you can shift to thinking about the significant investment that they’ve done with their brains, as well as resources into how we futureproof, how we make sure, whether it’s seaweed and methane reduction, as we’ve already heard about, or carbon capture with seaweed, but also the opportunities for protein and how we actually realise that just transition and how we make sure that we think about food and fibre. And it’s not just food and fibre and taiao but land and sea and their ability to be really inventive. And everything’s evidence based, which then reduces risks and it makes it much more likely for us to be able to boldly go into a future that can feel quite terrifying.

One of the other things is that—you know, when you go googling—you have an understanding of their intergenerational commitment. Those of us who have taught NCEA are always really, really grateful and really cherish opportunities for our students to actually go and do their assessments in real-world situations, not just because they’re learning things that are of practical use, which is the beauty of NCEA, but actually things that excite them and mean that they will then go on and continue to study and invest and commit into something as exciting as looking at our aquaculture and our future, investing in our biodiversity, or protecting our environment. So, for example, they have students from all over the place. All the way down to Otago, students come up to Nelson, and they actually get to be scientists in real labs and do a level 3 internal around their mussels. I think that’s really exciting, because when students really engage hands on in real-world experiences, they then go on and they become excited learners, and they become excited scientists and people who are going to help us to do some amazing things in the future.

They have open days, they have scholarships, and they are obviously incredibly excited when people want to engage with them, because they know how important it is to bring our future generations into that process of making sure that we’ve got a world we can—and want to—live in, in the future. They, like I say, have had students from across the country come and experience and do real-world assessment and achievement. And it’s great to see them being really ambitious and really excited about how they connect mātauranga Māori alongside science in a more Western sense, and being able to really bring those experiences and that world view to local children.

It’s really interesting to see that they talk about having the students from Waikawa Bay—so over the hill from Nelson and then over the hill from Havelock—over to Waikawa, where the bubbles are, and hearing how excited those environmental scientists are about sharing the diversity of the world view, which is actually really important if we want to be creative about how we move into the future with things like seaweed or other forms of aquaculture.

It’s a wonderful institution, and we’ve heard that all over the place, and it is really great to see the incredible care that has gone into bringing this bill to this point in the House. The changes that have been made obviously recognise this and show how much it is valued. The only other thing is when you hear them talk about the global opportunities that they have, and it isn’t just seaweed; it is about making sure that whatever we do with aquaculture is sustainable. We’ve had some really ambitious industry over the years in Marlborough. I’ve had plenty of scallops and mussels in Marlborough over the years, and it’s really great to see them supporting aquaculture with science, understanding where the limitations and where the opportunities are, to make sure that we continue to make sure that this aquaculture is something that can be sustained into the future.

It’s a really exciting moment. It’s a lovely opportunity to be able to show off to the world, via this process, the exciting things that we can do in this country. It will assist us to continue to be world leading, to be ambitious, and to support the diversification and the significant transition that we must make for a just transition, not just for industry but the restoration, like I say, of parts of Marlborough. Making sure not only that we restore the parts of our coastlines and our waterways but also that we don’t do further damage and that we can be really ambitious in the future.

It’s a wonderful piece of legislation. It’s a nice opportunity to hear across the House the recognition, the importance, the innovation, and the world-leading science that we need to have in this country if we aspire to be the best that we can be and to be ambitious. And because of this, I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, and I also congratulate Rachel Boyack on bringing this bill to the House. Cawthron Institute has been an integral part of Nelson’s identity for 100 years in New Zealand—owes a lot to Thomas Cawthron. Thomas Cawthron came to New Zealand in 1949 at the age of 15 years. Life was tough, and he started work straight away, soon realising he wasn’t great at the physical stuff but he had a strong work ethic, which was going to see him right. He went to Wellington in 1849 to work in an office and returned to Nelson in 1855, five years later, when his father got sick. He had an eye for business and was a clever economist, getting involved with contracting work, and in 1859 he began a career in shipping at Port Nelson. He ran shipping companies for the next 25 years and made a lot of money with investments and in property and shares—and I suspect he would’ve opposed any capital gains tax.

Besides the Cawthron Institute, Thomas Cawthron will always be remembered for his financing of the Church Steps, the School of Music organ, the chains around Rocks Road, and many other projects for the people of Nelson. He died in 1915, aged 83, leaving the city with over £200,000 for the purchase of land and the construction and maintenance of an industrial and technical school, institute, and museum, to be called the Cawthron Institute. He was an amazing man with amazing foresight which has had an immeasurable benefit for Nelson, for New Zealand, and, ultimately, for the world.

The institute’s focus is on growing and ensuring the safety of the seafood sector, developing bioactive resources, and improving the health of our freshwater ecosystems and oceans. There’s a huge range of skills, with expertise in aquaculture research, marine and freshwater resource management, food safety and quality, algal technologies, biosecurity, and analytical, and a fantastic, enthusiastic, and multicultural staff. The objects of the board are—there are four of them—to “clearly articulate the objects of the Trust Board and the powers conferred on the Trust Board … [to] provide the appointment of a member of the Trust Board nominated by Te Tauihu iwi … [to] specify the legal liability of the members of the Trust Board; and [to] update and modernise the governance arrangements of the Trust Board”.

ACT opposed the bill at the first reading because we fundamentally believe that appointments to anything should be on merit, not based on race. Many Māori work at Cawthron Institute, and there is no doubt that Māori are able to be on the board because of their skills and abilities, not because of who their grandparents were.

I’ll read a short quote from an award-winning book I’ve just read; it’s called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It says, “The megafauna of New Zealand—which had weathered the alleged ‘climate change’ of c.45,000 years ago without a scratch—suffered devastating blows immediately after the first humans set foot on the islands. The Maoris [sic], New Zealand’s first Sapiens colonisers, reached the islands about 800 years ago. Within a couple of centuries, the majority of the local megafauna was extinct”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): Order! Could I just check the relevance of that to this bill, please?

CHRIS BAILLIE: It’s relating to the environment and what the Cawthron Institute stands for. That’s the end of the quote.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I will allow—I’ll listen to a little bit more, but I just caution the member that we are discussing the second reading of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, so I would ask you to bring your comments back to that.

CHRIS BAILLIE: Sure, I’ll just finish that sentence. “The majority of the local megafauna was extinct, along with 60 per cent of all bird species.” We’re all human, and the idea that everyone has innate knowledge depending on birthright doesn’t sit well with us—as if my Scottish ancestry means I must like haggis and play the bagpipes. However, despite these reservations, we’re not going to spoil the party. Thank you to the current board, especially John Palmer. There are some things we just won’t agree on, but that’s OK. I’m sure the Cawthron Institute will continue its great work and grow even more over the next 100 years. ACT supports this bill. Thank you.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, which is my first time, as I’m not a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. None the less, I’m a huge supporter of Rachel Boyack, the local MP for Nelson, and what a wonderful job the member has done.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’ve always said that.

PAUL EAGLE: I’ve been consistent about that, haven’t I? Yes.

When I look back at her purpose for bringing this bill to the House, she talked about it being a privilege as a member of the institute trust board and one of the statutory trustees, as she is. She tells a story that all members of the trust board have their personal liability limited and indemnified by way of this bill. And I’ll come back to that, because I know that it’s been some journey—she mentioned it in the House earlier today; she mentioned it in her first speech. And I hope, as she said today, it’s done and dusted, and so we get through a truncated third reading and she can take it through the committee of the whole House stage, with all of your support.

I too want to thank a number of people who are involved. These things don’t come to the House without the hard work—and for some it’s many years. And I know, through the member, that the chair of the trust, John Palmer, is here today. There’s also Sarah-Jane Weir and Harvey Ruru. I had the pleasure of working with Archdeacon Ruru when I was in New Zealand Police, and he was, I think, the iwi liaison officer for the Tasman district. But they have been what the member would say are the driving forces around the introduction of this bill.

The lawyer is always important—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Yeah, bro.

PAUL EAGLE: —and I think David McLay should get a mention. I see the member for Christchurch Central trying to put his hand up. He’s a Minister now; not a lawyer, but—oh, he’s both. But David McLay should get a mention for his patience and perseverance in getting the bill to the stage. It is a high bar to get anything like this into the House—and so it should be.

When I look at the purposes of the amendment bill—and, look, just bear with me, here—to provide for the appointment of a member of the trust board nominated by Te Tauihu iwi, to clearly articulate the objects of the trust board—I love all that legal language—to specify the legal liability of the trust board members, and update and modernise the governance arrangements. And, can I say, many other bills are brought to this House in terms of modernising legislation—I know the omnibus bills do that really, really well. In addition, there was a change made to the existing Act by the Trust Act of 2019, which I’m told was inconsistent with a previous High Court judgment, and this bill, this process, will correct that error.

There is some historical background there and several of my colleagues from across the House have talked about that. But it’s worth noting, first and foremost, that it is New Zealand’s largest independent science and research and institute—that’s been here for 100-plus years. They had their centenary in 2021, and I thought, “Wow”. And when I googled, actually, and had a look at some of the literature, I thought, “Well done for surviving.” I often think there are so many turns and intersections that institutions like this can have, but they can also live or die by the sword in terms of what they do. And, of course, I understand why the member for Nelson is bringing it, because it does play a special role in the life of Nel-Nelsonians—there we are. But it’s also what is known as the “jewel in the Crown” of the Te Tauihu, top of the southern region, the South Island, there.

Its benefactor, Thomas Cawthron—a name that anyone from Nelson will go, “Oh, yeah. Yeah, the institute.” And there are plenty of Nelsonians living here in Wellington and they certainly will always have some knowledge, small as it may be, but powerful in terms of its contribution. And I would like to say that words like “philanthropist” and “pioneering businessman” come to mind in terms of his contribution to the scientific community and the city of Nelson. Some might know that he was born in London in the early 1800s: 1833. Somehow, he hopped over the ocean and got into Nelson in 1849. But, none the less, he’s always had a link to the sea because he did focus on shipping—I guess his enterprise that focused on shipping enabled his philanthropic endeavours.

Can I also just acknowledge some of—and I know the member’s got a love in this area, too, in terms of music—

Barbara Kuriger: She’s already refused to sing today.

PAUL EAGLE: She refused to sing. We may have to get her to sing after the final speaker, and she can demonstrate, as a tohu, her work to signify the late Thomas Cawthron’s efforts. And I know that the Nelson school of music is a beneficiary—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That’s right, it is a school of music.

PAUL EAGLE: Oh, OK, it sounds like we’ve got some students, or maybe people want to be students of—there’s a future career there, members, and you, too, can maybe sing in the iconic Christ Church Cathedral there in the heart of Nelson. Look, he gave some funding which is important—$127 million in today’s term—and got that, I guess, industrial and technical school, now known as the Cawthron Institute.

I want to say, when I talked about reading some of the literature that the Cawthron Institute has put together—a great website, I have to say—it’s a respected and focused science organisation. I know that every year I read some report, some endeavour that the wonderful staff there have put out that’s really advancing the scientific world, either here or overseas.

One of the areas of focus that I like about the institute has been on aquaculture and seafood safety—maybe just seafood, but aquaculture none the less—and ocean and freshwater health. These are some of the areas that I think have been very valuable in my little patch of the world.

And I always have to talk about Wharekauri, the Chatham Islands, and some of the work there. I would hope that one day there’s a much stronger link between the institute and the work that the Chathams and those on the Chathams do—they really have everything, the world, at their fingertips in this area. I just think they need a visit by a few scientists or two from the institute to help, particularly in seaweed—I know that there’s been work being done around that area—but also mitigating problems associated with warming seas and climate change.

If I look at the bill, I’m not going to repeat some of the changes to some of those clauses that have been talked about. But I do want to say that there are a couple of clauses that will ensure that the locally iwi can appoint a statutory trustee—I just wanted to get that right—to join those four existing trustees: the member for Nelson, the mayors—Their Worships—of Nelson and Tasman respectively, and then the Anglican Bishop of Nelson. And I think that’s honourable, and well done to the member personally. Actually, it’s a small piece of detail, but I believe—in terms of modernising legislation and reflecting where Aotearoa New Zealand is leading, and particularly some of the mahi of the institute—that’s an admirable piece of work to ensure that that is enacted to have somebody from the local iwi appointed as a statutory trustee.

I’ve only got a short time left. Can I just once again acknowledge the member for Nelson, Rachel Boyack: her mahi, her passion, how this has been a big part of her life, and for ensuring the work of the institute—the flow-on effects of their work across Aotearoa New Zealand and the rest of the world. It ticks a box with her passion for music—I think that’s a good thing—and I look forward to her getting this through the House tonight. Kia ora.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Kia ora a te Māngai o te Whare. Kia ora tātou katoa. It has been my pleasure to use the last 15 minutes to get up to date on this bill that I’ve never seen before in my life. It’s actually a pleasure to find out more about the Cawthron Institute Trust Board. We are talking about a hundred years of much loved work in the community, if I’m to take the kōrero from the rest of the House as any indication, and I acknowledge that a lot of the local and connected passion and connection to the work of the trust has been laid clearly on the floor in here.

So what I will do is pick up on some of the points of difference and expertise that I can offer to this conversation. A really important one is especially where it concerns our kaitiaki duties for our taiao, our living systems, and for generations to come—a hundred years is several generations. That is the sort of long-term thinking that this bill is about and that we should all be about in our responsibilities.

So just for the record, I am stating that the Green Party is, of course, supporting this bill, that it’s a private bill, and again, we congratulate Rachel Boyack, the Nelson member. The focus for me in my time will be the part of the bill that appoints a member of the trust board nominated by Te Tauihu iwi. To add to the significance of that iwi appointment, I wanted to acknowledge the letter that all the members will have received and just quickly go through the support from the iwi that represent that part of the private bill. So I am really happy to see that Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Koata Trust, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō, and Rangitāne are all working together and collaborating and working with the Cawthron trust board on that part of the private bill; again, reminding us all that it is as a statutory trustee of equal status to the others. Fantastic!

I thought I’d pick up on what is on the Cawthron website in terms of what that private bill is picking up on. I was really pleased to see that the Cawthron Institute, as New Zealand’s largest independent science organisation, is proud to support a strengthening relationship with iwi and the significant value of mātauranga Māori—indigenous knowledge, experience, and connection. This is leadership. This is exactly what Aotearoa can be a leader in around the world. For the past several hundred years, we have seen an undermining and an ignorance of the value of indigenous knowledge—particularly when it comes to the work like that of the Cawthron Institute—which is all about protection and is a particular focus on research from agriculture to the oceans and picks up on the damage and the devastation of our living systems that has been happening over the many, many generations and over the many, many years.

One example that I was thinking about, if you’ll allow, in terms of identifying why that part of the private bill needs some considerable focus—I was thinking about the example of kauri dieback. We’ve had some fantastic researchers, some based here at Victoria University of Wellington, I believe, over the years who have been doing their research in the traditional places, in the labs, and so on and so forth. It wasn’t until they were interweaving their research and their experiments and looking for—I’m not going to use the word “cure”—a way to better protect kauri—

Simon Court: There’s no cure.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON:—and that’s why I’m not using the word “cure”—but looking for a way to better understand what will enhance the resilience of kauri trees, of these ancient, ancient, ancient ancestors of our forests. She spoke with so much pride to the Māori Affairs Committee several years ago, when she talked about it wasn’t until she had generations of knowledge from a particular kaumātua who was able, through an oral whakapapa, to identify particular species that acted as guardians and gateways to protect the tree, the kauri, from kauri dieback—that the devastation of that ecosystem and the interdependent relationship between what the kauri tree requires for that protection was only made visible to her because of the mātauranga Māori. And she was then able to conduct her experiments for resilience and protection and to narrow down the areas where she could focus. And we all know—well, maybe some of us don’t—that the amount of research when you don’t have a foundation of knowledge that you then have to go through by trial and error can be years and years of difference. But with his whakapapa knowledge of the ecosystem of the kauri tree, she was able to narrow her research right down.

That is the sort of innovation that this trust is leading for all of us. That is the sort of innovation that the smart people know is necessary. Our world and the protection of it was never, ever supposed to survive with just Western knowledge alone. Never, ever is any species supposed to survive with the dominance of only one school of thought. And we can look at the ecosystem of a forest again to understand that. Any one species depends on the interconnected relationship between all of the other species. There is no one primacy. There is an interdependent relationship and any damage and devastation of one part of the ecosystem actually impacts on all the rest of the parts of that lifecycle.

This is what this private bill is properly recognising, and I hope it serves as an inspiration for all of us about what is possible when we not only honour the knowledge that we have all been denied, that we will be bereft of, but when we also uplift the whakapapa connection of mana whenua across all of our regions. That is an accountability that can speak, that cannot be narrowed down in just words. That is generations and generations of accountability and duty as kaitiaki.

I realise that others have been focusing on other parts of the bill. I wanted to be able to contribute what I have a particular privilege in knowing, and I hope that I have added to the contribution, particularly from a Green Party kaupapa perspective. Kia ora.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s a privilege to rise and take a call on this bill, and I’d like to first of all thank and congratulate Rachel Boyack for bringing the bill to the House, and I’d like to thank those involved in the institute for the work they do. I too was new at looking at this—I’m quite a new MP—and one of the things I’ve really enjoyed about the job is that it is just wonderful for your curiosity: you’re always finding out new things, and you’re always seeing the incredible work that people are doing out there; it’s an incredibly optimistic job in that way.

This was an institute that was set up over 100 years ago, and the seed funding was about the equivalent of $100 million. That’s a lot of money, and it went into the right place; it went into an area that is desperately needed in New Zealand society—the growth of our knowledge in the area of science. It cultivated the area of Nelson at the same time, and it’s brought very bright-sparky people to that area, but that knowledge has been shared through the country. So I’ve seen some of the work in other places, and I suspect it’s work that was built on the work that was done in the institute.

For example, one of the privileges that I’ve had is to go to Ōpōtiki, where there is a mussel farm that’s been built offshore. It’s been built with money from the Government and it’s involved the iwi in the area, and it’s been built around, really, a partnership between all parties. It’s led to very high quality work in a real attempt to meet the needs of that community. The mussels that are being farmed aren’t being used to eat; they are being used for exactly this: the use of the shells to build products which will be based on the research of this institute, which has discovered that the use of those shells can build up muscle and can repair from injuries. So that’s gold to this country; that’s an incredibly important thing, and what I saw it doing was transforming a community a long way away from Nelson in an incredibly valuable way in this community. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that that, too, was a collaboration with the iwi, and as things have evolved, this organisation has also wanted to step up in its objectives and its structures so that it is doing that job.

So we’ve seen an institute, from what I can see, that’s moved away from some of the things it originally dealt with. It was quite important to things like the pit fruit industry and it was important in the area of hops and forestry, and it’s ended up evolving into something that is quite specialist in the area of protection of marine life, the environment, fresh water, and sustainable primary industries. It’s moved into that space and it’s now an absolute world leader. It employs 300 people from 35 different countries, and those people are working in a space which I think is interesting because it’s independent; it’s not beholden to anyone, and it’s able to do that work and be absolutely focused on research, and that’s an incredibly important job.

It’s got a strange structure in terms of its governance being with MPs and mayors of Nelson and Tasman, so it’s evolving in that space too. Adding an iwi member to the trust’s board for the duration—it has chosen the duration that is the same duration as for the MPs, and it’s also got a board of directors. It’s going to set out objects, and I think that’s an important thing—I’m a lawyer; I like to see things which are certain in that way. Originally, the Act didn’t set out the objects. It now will, and those objects presumably are going to be broad enough to allow this evolution of the work that goes on, and basically a healthy reflection of those needs that perhaps we need to move into spaces sometimes. There needs to be some room for an organisation like this to grow and not always resort back to changes through what was, I think, through the Attorney-General and the High Court—there have been changes here. So, hopefully, this is a setting for this very important institute which is robust and allows that institute to thrive, and with it, New Zealand will thrive, because this is absolutely critical to our survival, this kind of work.

I just wanted to talk about a little bit of the other work that I can see is incredibly significant. I understand that the institute has made great strides in the area of using seaweed as a carbon sink. That’s an incredibly important piece of work—I don’t think you could get more important than that, and the potential of it is quite incredible. And I also know that up in Auckland, we’ve been grateful for the work that the institute’s done with regard to an algae that spreads in the water. It’s the method of trying to contain something that’s actually a really terrible algae that can suffocate other marine life—that’s been very helpful in Great Barrier Island, to try and contain that. So it sounds like it’s really got its work cut out for it as we hit a time of great challenge in terms of climate change, and it is a place of learning and of people being able to come together and foster those kinds of ideas.

I really like that it’s not based in Wellington; I really like that it’s based somewhere which actually is so elemental and it’s going to foster a town like Nelson, it’s going to bring life to that town, but it’s actually presumably attracting people because it’s such an area of natural beauty that the people who come to it, the scientists who come to it—I bet they come because of things like the Nelson Lakes, and I bet they come because of the beautiful waters of the Abel Tasman. So, you know, it’s a beautiful idea and I wish I saw a little bit more of this focus on some of those regions and some of those areas as places where we could really foster that kind of work rather than all in our bigger centres, because it’s an important thing to spread that, and it’s an important thing to be that connected with nature.

So I would like to commend those who are involved in bringing this Act into play here, and to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for having looked at this bill and done the work required. I am thrilled that today this will be passed and the institute will be on a strong footing into the future. I wish all of those involved—particularly the scientists, that they will actually make the best use of the opportunity they’ve got and enrich our country and create one that’s not only more productive, but also one that’s way more sustainable than it has been, and that we will move into areas of sustainable primary production based on this kind of science. So I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—Joseph Mooney, five minutes.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, a private bill brought by the member for Nelson, Rachel Boyack. And congratulations for the work that’s no doubt gone on on behalf of the member and also all of the others who have been involved. There has been quite a bit of work, I understand, from a number who have been involved in bringing this to the House.

The National Party supports this bill. It does bring some changes and it reflects the wishes of the region for something that has been really important for the Nelson region for over 100 years. It is quite fascinating, actually; I think one of the good things about this is that it’s given a chance for more people to learn about the Cawthron Institute and what it does in Nelson. I agree with the previous member, Helen White, who said it’d be great to see more of these types of things in our regions. It is a key driver of science, of community, of lifting up the information base of the region, an economic driver as well, and probably focusing on things that aren’t seen as necessary is important for other regions for reasons that are understandable for those regions. But in Nelson, for example, the sea and the connection to the sea is hugely important. It’s the port where many of our biggest fishing companies base themselves from. It has a very vibrant sea life. I actually lived for a year myself in Nelson many years ago and I’ve been surfing there, I’ve been kayaking, I’ve seen the orca swimming past very close to the Boulder Bank, very close to me, and it’s quite something. So it’s quite a special part of the world, actually, and it’s great just for all of us to learn more about the Cawthron Institute and what it’s done.

I think I’d just say it’s probably been said before but it’s just worth going into this a little bit. The Cawthron Institute was established in 1919 by the last will and testament of the Nelson philanthropist Thomas Cawthron, who had a vision. He had a vision that science could contribute to the growth of a young New Zealand. That’s a fantastic vision that still holds true today, well over 100 years later. In fact, I think we’re realising more and more how important science is. So he was someone who contributed a lot to Nelson and New Zealand with that vision and that bequest. Following his death in 1915 he bequeathed the equivalent of $100 million in today’s terms—so a really huge amount of money and at the time the largest single bequest—to establish and maintain a technical school, institute, and museum which are the forerunners of today’s Cawthron Institute. It was officially opened in Nelson in 1921, following the establishment of the Cawthron Institute Trust Board. And it is New Zealand’s largest independent science organisation, producing world-class science that helps to protect the environment and support sustainable development in the primary industries in New Zealand and worldwide.

And when I look at the work that it’s doing, I have a personal interest in this: it’s aquaculture. I think aquaculture’s a big opportunity for New Zealand that we haven’t really taken advantage of yet in the way we could. There is some good work happening there. It’s on freshwater health, it’s on ocean health, seafood safety, and algae and bioactives. These are things I have a personal interest in because I spent a year of my life in my younger years, actually, studying marine science—and it was in the North Island, actually, in Tauranga. But I got a PADI Divemaster at the same time, so I did a lot of diving, did a lot of work transecting, studying the different organisations in the ocean, the science of the ocean, the health, etc. Our oceans are a huge resource in this country and something that I think all of us have a connection to, even though where I live now is quite a distance away from the ocean—I live in the mountains now. But I think all of us on these islands have a deep connection to the ocean. And it’s great to see this institute in Nelson which is focused on those matters which are really key for the country.

I think I’m going to have an opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of this bill, so I’ll save a few more comments till then.

Hon Member: No!

Barbara Kuriger: We’re not having a third reading!

JOSEPH MOONEY: Oh, we’re not having a third reading?

Hon Member: Stick around for the committee of the whole.

JOSEPH MOONEY: OK. Well, just—Thomas Cawthron, he’s a self-made man who used his considerable fortune to make many gifts to his adopted city, including the steps in front of the church, including helping set up the Nelson school of music, where I actually was a student at one time as well. So I have a number of connections to this. It’s been a pleasure to speak on it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I call Ingrid Leary—five minutes.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): When I listen to the contributions in the House tonight, I’m getting a sense of kaitiakitanga coming through really strongly from all the different perspectives. We have heard about Thomas Cawthron and what he did to show kaitiakitanga to his adopted city. We’ve heard many stories about him. One of the ones I enjoyed reading about when I was researching this was the fact that although he was a good businessman, he was also seen as quite thrifty and perhaps a little bit mean. In fact, the piece was quick to explain that he wasn’t mean; he just wouldn’t give handouts with direct asks, yet if people had medical issues, or certainly when there were disasters in the region, he was one of the first and the most generous to respond. So certainly an astute businessman with a big heart, and what a fantastic legacy—his philanthropy and his kaitiakitanga for his adopted city.

I’m reminded about that again when I look up into the gallery up there and I see the chair of the institute, John Palmer, and also the lawyer, David McLay, both of whom came several times to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee when we were looking at this legislation and who were really deeply, personally connected to what they were wanting to achieve from his legacy and from the philanthropy that they felt such stewardship over. So I really want to thank them for the care that they’ve taken, because it is people like them that ensure that these fantastic initiatives that get some life and sometimes have to stall or go through processes come out the other side in better shape.

There’s also the kaitiakitanga from my colleague Rachel Boyack, who we’ve heard tonight, but I must say it again; she has done a superb job in bringing this legislation to the House and understanding all the nooks and crannies of it. I can say, having worked through the bill at select committee and also just looking at the paperwork now, there were quite a few changes and some very technical things to deal with in such an antiquated piece of legislation, and Rachel Boyack showed her acumen in doing such a great job to ensure that we, as the select committee, were across things and could put this into the best possible shape.

So what the bill does is it updates and makes sure that the governance arrangements are fit for purpose. We’ve heard about the High Court orders that were necessitated previously that, hopefully, won’t have to happen again. But also there is the kaitiakitanga from introducing in the constitution, in replacement section 3, inserted by clause 6, “Te Tauihu iwi member”, a position on the board for mana whenua. I’m so happy that Marama Davidson from the Greens was able to explain and perhaps take our ACT colleagues along that journey of why mana whenua is important, why Te Tiriti is important in this context. She really made that very clear to us in her contribution. I don’t understand why we’re still having discussion in this House about things that have been recognised in law since the 1970s or 1980s. Certainly, there was unanimous support for that position from the trust board itself, so why ACT wanted to bring that into this debate is rather perplexing to me.

We’ve heard about the kaitiakitanga that the trust itself does in terms of the expertise that it has around aquaculture, blue technology, data science, biosecurity, and so on. One of the examples that I really like is this idea of seagrass, the three-year project where—I imagine that the seagrass is a little bit like gut flora—they are producing it to be able to find ways to clean up some of the pollution in the sea. There’s also their freshwater fish management programme, and anti-biofouling, which I hadn’t heard of until looking at this legislation, which is around ensuring that there are natural ways of keeping ship hulls and jetties and so on clean from contaminants.

We in this House have spent a long time discussing this bill and we have also spent a long time in select committee. When I asked my friends up in the gallery what the messages were that they would like to convey—because this really is their story—they impressed upon me that this is a story about philanthropy and the value of philanthropy. We’ve heard about that this evening. But also there is the vexed question of whether we should be spending this much of Parliament’s time doing this type of process. So I will leave you with those thoughts, and, in the meantime, commend all involved and this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, and I’ve enjoyed the anecdotes. It’s not been a very technical examination of the bill and that’s probably not appropriate, but I think some of the broader contexts that have been introduced into this discussion have been helpful.

I want to start with the last one that Ingrid Leary made about whether such local bills, local Acts, are appropriate in a modern age. Actually, I’m pretty ambivalent about that, or perhaps a bit more than that—a bit more sanguine. Bear in mind that this is a 100-year-old piece of legislation and it hasn’t troubled the House too much over that century. So to be able to give effect to some of the court rulings that have been necessary over the years to modernise this legislation, while accepting that from time to time it may be necessary for the courts to have a say, is I think an appropriate use of the House’s time. I don’t want to sound in violent disagreement with Ms Leary, because she’s got a good point, but I just have a slightly different perspective.

Speaking of perspectives, I did appreciate Marama Davidson’s contribution to this debate, but I want to focus a little bit more on the positive. ACT had opposed this bill at first reading, and I was surprised by that. They’ve stated their reasons—and Mr Baillie reiterated them tonight—albeit my understanding is that that position has changed. I get the context of the concerns that they may have around certain aspects of co-governance or the universal franchise, but I, frankly, think that this is not only not an appropriate place to be having that discussion, but this is the very, very sort of legislation and trust and organisation where iwi can make a huge contribution, and will—and already have, frankly—in te mana o te moana, kai moana, seaweed. They are already contributing significant history, science, and strategy, and it’s entirely appropriate—and the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee strongly supported this call by the trustees—to have a member of Te Tauihu on the board. In fact, our biggest concern was how to actually spell it. One needs the wisdom of Solomon in that, and I think the select committee’s report on that matter shows that we sat firmly on the fence.

There were also some, I think, helpful changes through the select committee process, which was, I think, conducted in a very good spirit, and with the permission of the Business Committee, we recommend deletion of another perhaps rather antiquated provision for the setting aside of what used to be called a capital conservation account. In old accounting parlance, reserves like that were pretty common, but modern accounting standards mean that they’re no longer necessary. We struck the slight problem that deleting that section in the Act was going to be outside the scope of the bill, so we went to the Business Committee and said, “How about it?”, and they said yes. That was an appropriate response, and I think it also reflected the pragmatic and, I think, collegial manner in which the consideration of the bill was conducted.

I want to thank those who contributed to that consideration. The officials, as is stated in their departmental report, basically can’t make strong recommendations because it’s not a Government bill, but they were very helpful and they engaged with the trustees, and we thank them for that.

During the consideration, I was rather ignorant of the Cawthron organisation, and I visited it during that time and was struck by the sheer, extraordinary amount of research and science that’s going on there that, as others have said, will have not only domestic but global impact for the better. I wish them every success in meeting the many challenges that they have had to face, firstly, after storms and floods in the last 18 months or so have made simply carrying on a bit of a challenge, but they also do science in a way that simply blows my mind. I commend them for that, and I look forward to seeing this bill passing this evening.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I rise this evening as the final speaker in this second reading on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill, which is, as we’ve heard, a private bill that amends the Thomas Cawthron Trust Act 1924. I’m very conscious that we have heard from many members this evening and I think we’ve traversed many of the paths to be traversed fairly thoroughly, but I do hope that I can add a little of value to this conversation.

But before I start, I would like to just take a moment to thank Rachel Boyack, the member for Nelson, because she is an extremely hard-working member of Parliament, and I don’t think Nelson could do better. She has brought an excellent bill to the House—it’s my personal view, and I’m entitled to it, but I think that all of us here today can be extremely proud of the work that she has done in bringing this to the House.

We’ve heard that Cawthron is New Zealand’s largest independent science organisation, with key areas of research in aquaculture, in seafood safety, algae and bioactives, and freshwater health and ocean health. I am going to expand a little bit on the exciting work that they’ve done, but I too want to share my appreciation of Thomas Cawthron. There’s an old saying, isn’t there, that you can’t take it with you, but Thomas Cawthron set up a $127 million - equivalent fund which he bequeathed for the purpose of setting up this institute, as well as others. My goodness—you can’t take it with you, but you can do such a lot of good with it if you bequeath it in a manner such as he did, which brings such enormous benefits to people so many years later. We’ve heard that the trust itself was established in 1921, so we’re looking at 102 years of benefit, which is brought not just to Nelson in the employing many, many people—and we’ve seen around 300 skilled staff from across the world, from China, Poland, the United States, France, Fiji, many, many other places. So not only to Nelson, not only in local employment, but in bringing such extraordinary research to the fore we can see benefit not just to Aotearoa New Zealand but to the entire country.

It’s no secret that I’m passionate about research. I’m passionate about health-based research in particular, and it absolutely warms my heart to hear of the revenue that the Government put to Cawthron Institute, because science is important—we recognise that. Research is important; quality research even more important.

I’m going to speak a little bit about the work of the institute, but before I do, I just want to highlight a little bit the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, which is so ably chaired by Naisi Chen. It’s also appropriate at this juncture, I believe, at the second reading, to address the submitters, to really thank them, always, for their contributions that they make to ensure that bills such as this, when they come before select committee, actually do end up in a better state than when they came in. We have heard from speakers earlier, but from the Hon Michael Woodhouse in particular, about some of the changes that were made.

But there were 11 submitters, I understand, on the bill, seven individuals and four groups. Three of those submitters were members of the trust board, including Rachel Boyack, and a submission was also received from the trust board itself. Five submitters supported the bill as a whole; one submission supported measures to modernise the bill’s governance and administrative arrangements but didn’t explicitly support the bill. But changes were made. There were some fairly interesting and—forgive me; I’m just going to explore those changes in a little bit more detail.

One of the changes that was made was to provide for remuneration for members of the trust board and board of directors. Some of this is to address inconsistencies in the law brought about by amendments to section 17 of the principal Act. We heard—or, rather, the committee heard; I didn’t have the privilege of sitting on that committee, but they heard from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The Hon Dr Nick Smith recommended amending clause 11 to prohibit the Mayor of Nelson City, and he in himself does hold that role at the moment, the Mayor of Tasman District, and also the member of Parliament for Nelson, Rachel Boyack—it’s amending that clause to ensure that those members of the board are not reimbursed for discharging their functions under the principal Act. Dr Smith said in his submission that he didn’t feel it was appropriate for mayors or members of Parliament, who already receive payment as determined by the Remuneration Authority, to receive any additional payment for a role, as they said, that arises directly as a consequence of their holding that office. The committee agreed, and that change was made with the new section 17(1A).

There are other changes that were made: section 13 of the principal Act provided for a capital conservation account—that that should be repealed. That recommendation was accepted by the committee.

But before I get too deep into the weeds here, I’d like to spend a little bit of time just talking about some of the work that’s been done, because I found it so interesting and I know that the House will, too. One of the things I found particularly interesting was the bubbly boat berths. I am standing not terribly far from a member who is particularly keen on bubbly spas, and the Cawthron Institute—I’m not going to say who—has instituted a bubble blower from beneath a pontoon at Waikawa Marina in the Marlborough Sounds as an experiment to mitigate against—we heard, I think it was, Helen White, who was speaking about biofouling, might have been Ingrid Leary; forgive me. In effect, what this is using is the power of the spa as a positive thing—not that it ever isn’t positive to sit and enjoy the bubbles of a spa, but the bubbles themselves cause a disturbance in the water which hopefully, they say, will prevent damage-causing organisms from attaching to the underneath of marina structures.

We know, as we move through life—not so much from conversations here in the House—that, actually, it’s a genuine issue. Actually, having dirty hulls to boats is a real problem. Anybody who has seen rock snot in our precious rivers will realise that we need to take action, we need to do research to find new and better ways of making sure that our boats are clean, that our marinas are clean. We’ve heard even those massive cruise ships that come into our waters—we heard earlier on in the year that we had to prevent some of them from coming into port because they were dirty. So if a bit of a spa action can help us in that way, then that’s got to be a good thing.

We have bubbly spas bringing benefit from the Cawthron Institute, but we also have more exciting—to me—initiatives with algae-based local anaesthetics. In my role as a midwife before I entered Parliament, I did find myself using local anaesthetics fairly frequently. You’ll understand that this is something that’s incredibly important, and a new partnership between Government and the institute has delivered a potent microalgal ingredient for the world’s first algae-based medication. I was incredibly proud to see that the Government’s Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund partnered with Cawthron 2020 on the project and both invested $950,000. This is something that’s going to be, I hope, of enormous benefit to New Zealand. Incredibly exciting to think that we’ve actually managed to get—I can see by your faces you’re absolutely enthralled by the idea of New Zealand having the first algal anaesthetic on the market, which is completely in line with the Government’s aquaculture structure.

I could go on—I have pages of it—and I know that you want me to, but I am limited for time, so I’m going to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Preamble and clauses 1 to 12A

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill. The question is that the preamble stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I move that all parts be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member seeks leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that the preamble and clauses 1 to 12A stand part.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take a short call in this committee stage just to talk through a few other matters related to particularly changes that were made at the select committee. Can I just begin, at the back of what has been a very thoughtful and useful second reading, with my appreciation to members from across all sides of the House for both supporting the bill, but also for the thoughtful contributions they have made. I know, having spoken to the chair of Cawthron tonight, John Palmer, that there is a great appreciation from the Cawthron Institute to the House for the care and interest that they have taken in this bill.

I did want to make some specific comments around some changes that were made. First of all, though, I want to talk a little about the question of the House considering these types of bills. The committee did grapple with this quite extensively, and received useful advice around other options that could be looked at. One of the ones I particularly wanted to note that they looked at was the suggestion that another mechanism could be created for integrating court orders into a statute, because one of the challenges we’ve had at Cawthron is that we’ve had two High Court orders, and that has actually created confusion at times around the interpretation between the court orders and the principal Act. One of the suggestions to be considered was the potential of an Order in Council on recommendation by the responsible Minister.

Now, I do want to share my view, I don’t think that’s a useful path to go down, because essentially it’s taking the time away from the House and putting it into another arm of Government. The one suggestion I think could be useful in terms of being looked at in the future, that I did want to put on the record, was about in the future considering having a stripped back bill—a stripped back Act that is quite high-level, that doesn’t have a lot of detail in it—and then having other mechanisms through a trust deed, which is a normal process that would happen these days, so that the Act’s less prescriptive, and broader, and that would allow an institute like Cawthron to be able to make changes without having to come through to the Parliament, or to the court.

I did specifically want to note the importance that updating the Act has on those High Court orders. One of the orders introduced the commercial board of directors. The institute has two parts of its governance. It has a trust board, and then it has a commercial board of directors. The High Court order gave powers to the board of directors. What then occurred was that in the 2019 Trusts Act, that amended the Trust Act and the interpretation of the principal Act, which, depending on how you read things, could have accidentally given some of the powers that have been given to the commercial board of directors, back to the trust board. So it created quite a bit of confusion between those two arms of governance. So what has been very important is the updating of the Act through this process so that it’s actually all contained within the Act, and it’s very clear the differentiation between the role of the trust board and the commercial board of directors.

I just wanted to make a point quickly around the spelling of Te Tauihu. This has been something that we have grappled with—just wearing both of my hats for a moment, with my Cawthron hat, and also as the promoter of the bill. The issue has been that the spelling in the Settlement Act for our eight iwi of Te Tauihu is spelled using three words, “Te Tau Ihu”, but there has now been a change in practice locally to use “Te Tauihu”—so two words. Now, it might sound like a small matter, but it is a matter of significant importance to local iwi. I do note that there are some differences of opinion, and the Cawthron Institute has chosen to follow the advice of local iwi. However, I do note that that is of interest given that the settlement agreement for Te Tauihu iwi uses a different spelling. The select committee chose not to make a change.

Just a couple more matters before I’ll finish this call, Mr Chair. I do want to note the part around remuneration. The High Court order—one of the High Court orders took away the option of trust board members being remunerated. The trust board felt that it should be inserted back in as a possibility, because we know that there are some members of the trust board who put in significant amounts of time. We did discuss at a trust board that there was never an intention for the member for Nelson and the two mayors to be remunerated, given that they already are. But I do want to acknowledge the submission of my predecessor, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is now on the trust board again as the Mayor for Nelson, and his submission requesting specifically that those three members are not explicitly excluded from being remunerated.

So the last point I do just want to note—just acknowledge the Business Committee for allowing the removal of the section around the capital conservation account. That was something that did come to the attention of the select committee following this process. So I just want to acknowledge the Business Committee for allowing us to remove that. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. In my very brief call, I want to do two things: firstly associate with the comments of the sponsor of the bill in her intervention then, but also to correct an omission in my second reading speech, and that was to acknowledge the counsel for Cawthron, David McLay, who provided excellent counsel to the select committee during that process, and we benefited from that wisdom, as we did from the passion and knowledge of John Palmer, the chair of the board, and I just wanted to put on record my thanks for that contribution.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 12A agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

It’s a very great pleasure to be here as the member for Christchurch Central to bring this bill before the House. The McLean Institute’s charitable trust is based in the heart of Christchurch, and the institute was set up pursuant to the will of Allan McLean. And here we have it. This is the problem. The will of Allan McLean, which is phrased back in the early 1900s—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh come on, Doctor, you’d be able to work that out.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, it tests, Mr Brownlee, even my legal skills. There are sentences in there that I think are over 600 words long, and I simply can’t hold my breath that long.

So this is a challenge. Because, as often happens when people have great intentions, they frame those intentions in the language of the time. Whilst some might be familiar with that language, I am not. So if we look at the will—and I’ve got a copy of it here if anyone’s interested—it does things like bequeath all wines, liquors, and consumable stores and provisions and things like that, and also gold watches, chains, and sleeve links to, I’m imagining, a daughter, to Emily Phillips. That’s not the sort of drafting we see in common wills. But they’re only little points of interest, which kind of sets this will in the time in which it sits.

Mr McLean had some great objectives, and they were to support indigent women in Christchurch. But back in the early 1900s, the framing and value of those intentions wasn’t exactly what we’d expect. Whilst I think we would all agree that the focus of the trust being to provide long-term housing and daily necessities to indigent women was a good thing, I think the wording itself might be a little problematic.

The real crux of the matter, if we go through the will—and I have, in fact, read it—right through to clause 6, is the main bequest to the institute was a large chunk of land and then some residual property as well. The land was called “Holly Lea”, on the corner of Manchester Street and Colombo Street—many will know it. “As to the Holly Lea property and furniture, [that’s for the benefit] only to gentlewomen or women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances and the children not being over the age of ten years of any such gentlewomen … my special intention being that the Holly Lea property shall be reserved exclusively for the use of gentlewomen or women (including their children as aforesaid) who either by their birth education previous life or manner may be able to live in harmony under the same roof.”

So we can see there’s a fairly antiquated approach to the charitable purpose there. As to the rest of the bequest, which was not so constrained to gentlewomen, that was to be left to people of “the female sex”—interestingly, didn’t use the word “women” there, but—“not being under the age of eighteen years and [their] children…but no person shall be admitted to the Institution but…as are poor and of good character and such as have been resident in the Colony for a period of three years at least prior to the application for admission and who have not been in receipt of a pension under ‘The Old Age Pensions Act 1898’…”. But, of course, one of the challenges here is that the Old Age Pensions Act 1898 is now, essentially, the national super, and everyone of old age receives national super. So it’s a great thing, the national super, but what it means is that the purposes of that will, back from 1906, really don’t work.

So we know that one of the challenges of a bill of this nature is if it can be done another way, it should be done another way. I’ve been in constant communication with the trustees of the trust and, in fact, because they know the law and are well advised, they went to the High Court. So if we want to see that, we can see this decision of the High Court from 30 September 2021, where they went and attempted to amend the trust deed. One of the challenges, of course, is that that will deed—the trust that’s created out of the will—was encapsulated in legislation shortly after Allan McLean died. So the challenge that was posed was that the court was being asked to amend a legislative trust. It’s quite interesting, for those nerds amongst us—Rachel Boyack—you might want to look at this decision because the Cawthron trust is mentioned because it has also been to the court in an attempt to amend its trustee.

So the guts of this decision is that because the 1909 Act and some subsequent Act kind of encapsulated the trust’s powers in legislation, Justice Doogue ultimately concluded that it would be inappropriate for the courts to, essentially, meddle with the legislature—pretty fundamental constitutional principle that perhaps we’d like to see applied a little more often.

But the fact of the matter is that the bill itself takes those rather antiquated terms and has done a number of things—not just in respect of the purposes of the trust, I must say. It also has some very unusual language around who the trustees are, relating to some bodies that no longer exist, and so on. So the appointment of trustees is a lot more flexible. But, really, the fundamental and very laudable purpose of this bill is to take what is a very constraining and antiquated purpose clause and reframe it in this new piece of legislation in a much more broad and encapsulating way, which I think fairly reflects the very good intentions of Allan McLean when he set up this trust. Essentially, the purpose, as set out in clause 5 of the trust deed, which is a schedule to this bill which is now before the House, simply says, “The purpose of the Institute is to provide assistance to and promote the welfare and well-being of disadvantaged women residing or located in the Region (and the children in the care of such women),” and it goes on to talk about what that may mean.

I think it’s very good that they’ve done that. It talks about providing temporary, emergency, or transitional housing, or assisting women with housing needs to find, locate, obtain, and retain secure housing, and providing housing at an affordable cost. Then, a much broader clause in clause 5.2.5: “Providing support to women in distress due to mental health or addiction issues, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, or dislocation;”. So there is a significant shift here. It must be said that from the original framing of “gentlewomen of good standing” who had, essentially, fallen on hard times—a very aristocratic approach, if you would—to saying, “Look, we’re actually now going to direct this not to women of the upper class, to be perfectly honest, who have perhaps struggled and aren’t living in the way to which they’re accustomed, but to just disadvantaged women.” A much more modern and appropriate framing of that.

So here we have it. A good piece of legislation, and I congratulate trustees and their advisers on bringing this through the House process. So I’m very happy to have it here. Can I say that this is an institute of some standing in Christchurch. It’s done a lot of good work in difficult circumstances over a long period of time. Like many trusts, it’s faced the challenges of having to manage real property and provide accommodation and the like in a situation where they may not be expert at that particular skillset. This gives them far broader powers not just to own property and accommodate women but also to now bring in the assets of the trust, turn it, essentially, into a cash asset, and be a lot more flexible and strategic about how they assist women and their children.

So this is a really good bill and it will modernise this trust in a way that will bring it into the 21st century. It’s a great thing for the women of Christchurch and that means it’s a great thing for Christchurch more generally. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): That was a speech delivered in the uniquely persuasive style of Dr Webb which, of course, some of us find intriguing, given the way in which it is often pressed without much consideration for anybody else’s views. While I do appreciate the Allan McLean Institute and the need that they have to change their Act, I think it is important that it does go through a select committee, to ensure that the intentions of the settlor are not unduly disrupted in these modern times.

It’s worth noting, I think, that Allan McLean was quite an interesting character, a very upright man who came to New Zealand via Australia in about 1852. A lot of what he has set up here, I’m sure—despite Dr Webb’s concerns about the structure of the will that he left—would have been formed because of the circumstance his own mother found herself in when his father died, leaving her with five relatively young children. He and his two other brothers did very well: runholders in Australia and then coming to the Waimakariri district initially before heading further south in the Canterbury district to acquire the leasehold on very large tracts of land. It was much later in his life, when he was in his late 70s, that the Government bought out those leases—he’d acquired them from his two brothers at that point—and a very high price was paid for those leases in order that some of that land could be made available to successive farmers in the Canterbury district.

When you think about why he built a huge home—the McLean Mansion that still sits in Manchester Street, that’s currently, I understand, undergoing some restoration—why he built such a massive house to move in at the age of 80 and lived there for only five years, what is pretty clear is that he always had the intention that that big facility would be made available to, as he described it, “a home for women of refinement [and] education in … straitened circumstances”. He left a huge bequest, so I’m told: it was around £300,000. If we take the mathematics of Paul Eagle—and I take a risk in suggesting that—that would make that around about some $200 million in today’s money—a very large amount of money. Over the years, the institute has stayed pretty faithful to the intention that he had; nearly 120 years, in fact.

So this change that’s proposed to this bill, on the face of it, looks absolutely the right thing to do to ensure that that work does continue for quite some time to come. I just want to, for a moment, talk about the building itself—his own home that he built, clearly with the intention in mind that it would become a home for women in the circumstances that he suggested. For a while, it was used as a dental clinic, once the institute moved its premises out into the Fendalton area—and the institute still holds a property on Fendalton Road.

It’s not unusual that the will that Dr Duncan Webb was holding up and expressing some difficulty in understanding was ultimately interpreted in an Act of Parliament. There’s quite a lot of that happened in New Zealand; we have these things up and down the country and it would be interesting to see if there was a quicker way in which to deal with some of the needs of those institutions to change. I can think—also in Christchurch—I have a fairly good knowledge of the Riccarton Bush Trust, for example, which was set up largely at the generosity of the Deans family, but also with some Government purchase money involved. So it is not an unusual circumstance that the House is dealing with—we’ve just dealt with the Cawthron Institute. I’m sure that the reason for the Cawthron Act, some time after the “Allan McLean Act”, was to put into a legal framework—a proper framework—the intentions of the executor of the will.

So we will we will be looking at this bill in the select committee to make sure, essentially, that what is being asked is reasonable, that what is being asked will provide a legislative basis for the work of the institute to continue for many, many decades to come, and that the intentions of Allan McLean are not lost inside the new arrangements. I think it would have been very good for us all had we not had to wait until Monday of this week to get a copy of the bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I want to thank the previous two speakers for drip-feeding a little bit of the very interesting life of Allan McLean to us. I feel it would be remiss to not add some further dimensions, because he really did have an extraordinary early part of his life that we can see from the previous speakers’ contributions, which shaped his thinking and shaped his generosity and his commitment to looking after women who found themselves in unfortunate situations, as indeed his own mother had during his childhood.

So if we go back further, to prior to when he went to Australia, actually, Allan McLean was a good Scottish boy. I know very well something of the generosity of the Scots, living in Dunedin and seeing the philanthropy there and the hard work and generosity, and it doesn’t surprise me that he is of Scottish heritage. They lived on the Hebridean Islands, and that’s on the western side of Scotland—beautiful remote islands. One of the most well-known is probably the Isle of Skye. The islands are known for their whisky—spelt without an “e”, I believe, in Scotland—but they are very remote, very challenging islands.

His father married a woman there and lived on the Isle of Coll. But there were hard times. This was not an easy place to live. At one point, his father was out on a boat, there was a terrible storm, and although his father survived the storm, he later passed away. So young Allan McLean, the young Scottish lad, was left with his mother in these remote islands—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What about the bill?

INGRID LEARY: —trying to survive. You ask about the bill, but I’ll just really—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, the member’s very keen on people getting back to the bill.

INGRID LEARY: Absolutely. Gerry Brownlee is asking me to get back to the bill, and I’m just pointing out why this young man was able to appreciate the importance of having the care that he was given by his mother, because one other interesting fact was that when they were there, it was so difficult. They were cooking and eating seaweed, which was known as carrageen, and it was a kind of moss on the island.

Eventually, they went to Australia, which is where the Hon Gerry Brownlee picked up the story. As we’ve heard tonight, they made their fortune in Australia, came to New Zealand, and we’ve heard the rest about what happened. He became a great businessman and he left a legacy to help people that were in circumstances like that of his own mother.

Now, what’s interesting about the bill is that I really like the fact that the will of Allan McLean is enshrined into the legislation. We’ve heard parts of it read by my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb. If we look at the preamble under recital (4)(a) and (b), it says, “As to the Holly Lea property and furniture only to gentlewomen or women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances and the children not being over the age of ten years”, and so on. I have to admit, I had to look up what the word “straitened” means, and, for the benefit of this House, straitened means impoverished or in circumstances of poverty. Clearly, that kind of language is just very difficult to navigate in this day and age.

So what the bill does is it sets out the intention of young Allan McLean, who later bequeathed that money, but it very clearly broadens the intention so that it is not just for people of the upper classes, Duncan Webb has said, but for access to all. That’s probably a good thing, because it would be quite difficult to pass assessment these days to ensure that there was that kind of judgment around that, if the previous provisions had applied. It also means that the people who receive the benefit of the endowment can stay in the accommodation, either temporary or long term, whereas previously it was only for a much shorter amount of time.

So the other interesting fact about the institute is that, clearly, there were very dedicated people in the story, apart from Allan McLean. There were four staff who, by 2012, had already served 20 years each, working in the institution. That, to me, speaks of the dedication to the kaupapa of the institution but also the fact that they must have enjoyed working there. They must have had a great deal of satisfaction from helping women in need. So there’s very little to say apart from the fact that I commend it to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to support this bill. It makes perfectly good sense to pass this legislation. This trust, unlike charities—well, charities themselves have a lot of autonomy and a lot of flexibility. In this case, they don’t, because it relies on quite antiquated legislation. We do need to modernise its language, as others have spoken about, talking about “gentlewomen” or “women of refinement or education”. The risk with this is that if it’s not updated, then it’s going to actually—the number of people that this can benefit will decrease over time. So it needs to be brought into the 21st century, to ensure that women can access things like temporary emergency housing, accommodation support, and mental health support; to ensure that these programmes continue and access is not restricted; and, as I say, to modernise it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. We’ve already heard a lot of history in the House tonight, and that’s really important. It’s a wonderful way to mark history, to bring evidence and put it in front of the House. We’ve heard about the need—and the agreement across the House about the need—to enable the McLean Institute to move with the times, allowing them to support women and children in need of welfare assistance in a way that accommodates today’s social challenges.

And—usual story—I always look for a teachable moment. This legacy that has come from—we heard from the other side of the House—someone who truly understands that any one of us could fall on hard times and that we must do all that we can to look after each other. We heard about the definition of “straitened circumstances”, which we know that we have plenty in our community today that live in straitened circumstances. It is interesting comparing the wording that we had brought to us that is in the preamble to the bill—we’ve had a couple of members discussing this tonight—and comparing that to clause 5, which modernises the purposes.

I think there’s a really interesting question to ask ourselves as we reflect on how we used to describe each other and how we used to look upon who was worthy of support—the idea that you had to be 18 to be considered an adult in the eyes of the boundaries that were put in and that you didn’t need help if you were over 10, and the idea about what we do with those between 10 and 18. We all know that they are some of our most vulnerable young people that really need looking after. So that gap is a really fascinating insight into the way that society looked upon itself. What do you do at 10? I don’t know, go out and get a job in a coal mine on the West Coast. I don’t know. The idea that you have to have lived in the colony for three years was interesting, and so was the idea that so many of us back then were immigrants. So it makes an interesting observation about who should and shouldn’t be included in this assistance.

We’ve also heard about the old-age pension. Well, I’m quite sure that there are many I know—maybe even a few in the House—that would consider that if you’re on the super, you’re not necessarily old.

So these were some interesting observations about how we take note of our social identity and the fabric of modern society, and we see that reflected in the purposes when we’ve stretched the idea for women and children who are in need—no age limits and no requirements.

In the original preamble, they talk about people who are able to live in harmony under the same roof. Yet in the purpose of the new bill, we talk about those who are in distress due to mental health or addiction issues, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, or dislocation—possibly the polar opposite of how society looked upon those in need and what they needed. Obviously, they needed a roof over their heads, and we’ve heard about the beautiful home that was built in order to provide that roof but also to provide a home, a place where people could feel safe. That’s what we need today: a place where people can feel safe or a place where they can be supported in their straitened circumstances. We see that the people who might need help—and what they need help with—may have changed over time, and we’ve seen that reflected in the change from the preamble to the purpose in clause 5.

What we do know is that the original intent of supporting those in straitened times hasn’t changed. So I think there is a really interesting history lesson. It’s really good, for those of us in this House who are constantly trying to do our best to support the most vulnerable in our community, to be constantly checking whether we are actually considering the people that we need to consider. I think it’s a really interesting lesson. I’m looking forward to seeing this go through the rest of the process. It’s an important piece of work to make sure that they can continue to do this really important work for their community. And it’s because of that that I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take what will be a short call on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. Firstly, I acknowledge the Minister Dr Duncan Webb for bringing this bill to the House on behalf of the McLean Institute. What this does is it enables the institute—which was established in 1907, after the death of Allan McLean—to be able to vary their charitable objects and the powers of the board, to update them for this modern age. If anybody’s interested in the intricacies of the McLean family, Allan McLean himself, or the position in Christchurch, I suggest they listen to some of the other speeches that have covered that quite well. The Greens are happy to see this progress and get sorted.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I’d like to kind of take up from where Angela Roberts left off, because I think it was an interesting point—that this is a bill that is about really trying to honour somebody from another time and honour their intentions, but actually make those relevant now. So it’s going to be an interesting balance that has to happen.

I was looking at the intentions as they were set out by Mr McLean and thinking about his heritage and the fact that he had come from a solo mother in a situation of deep poverty and how courageous it was for her to come out, first to Australia and then to New Zealand, and to actually do that journey, but there were so many women like that, at that time, who did that journey. There’s an interesting book—I think it’s called One World, and it’s by Stephanie Johnson—which follows one of those women, who actually is the author’s grandmother, coming out with her two boys to New Zealand, and the kind of opportunity that that provided to escape that poverty, but also the harsh world that they entered when they came here and they established themselves and sought a new life.

This man has made a fortune and then tried to apply it to honour the people around him who, obviously, he saw and empathised with, and so it’s important we continue to honour that. But if we look at the words of the original intention, we can see that it is very much steeped in its own time. It’s actually incredibly sweet. It says that the money is to be able to allow these women to “live in harmony under the same roof.” It’s quite a utopian vision. Again, that is a sign of the times that he was living in, where there was that kind of optimism about what to do. But, in fact, what he sets up is a structure where women who have absolutely nothing will be able to live there with their children, but only until they’re 10.

Here I go back to my own heritage, where I have a relative who wrote a book called Tooth and Nail. She was my mother’s cousin, and she was one of the girls in the Depression who went out to work in order to earn the money for the matriculation exam so that she could keep going through the education system, and that’s in the period in between. So this sort of opportunity for shelter would not have been available to her because she would have been over 10 and under 18.

We have at least made that progress. We are now in a situation where we have free education. We really need to sort out making sure that everybody has a roof over their head—that does need to become something absolutely fundamental in a society. I think we’re making great strides in that area, because, I think, actually, right around this House, we would now agree that that was a settled principle. Actually, it’s only a decade ago that we didn’t agree that that was a settled principle. It’s only a decade ago, because I remember when we had such a housing crisis in this country and we had people actually living in cars and suddenly sleeping on the street, and no one—

Nicola Grigg: What’s changed?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s all sorted now!

Nicola Grigg: There’s more in cars now.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s gotten worse.

HELEN WHITE: No one from the National Party—who were then the Government—would acknowledge that there was a crisis whatsoever. And there’s no point cackling. It’s absolutely the case at the time, and there has to be a reckoning about that. There has to be a memory of that, because that’s something that actually is reflected here. The objects of this legislation will be to establish warm, dry housing for those women and children, and so this will be in line with that principle and that’s a very important thing, and I think we all agree that the spirit of this man’s dream and vision for New Zealand was that—despite the fact that we may have changed the way we interpret that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has completed.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): This debate is an important debate, and the work that we are doing here is important. I did a little bit of background research to find out a little bit more about Mr McLean and where the family came from and where they’d spent their time before arriving in New Zealand. I learnt that Allan McLean was the son of Alexander McLean on the Isle of Coll, one of the Scottish Western Isles. His father was a farmer and a fisherman, and then he, like many Scots lads at the time, learnt the trade of a cooper.

I had to look up what a cooper was, and I don’t know—there’ll be experts here in the House who can tell us about the trade of a cooper. I suspect Mr Brownlee probably can. A cooper is a person trained to make wooden casks, barrels, vats, buckets, tubs, troughs, and many similar containers from timber staves that were usually heated or steamed to make them pliable.

So we have here a family with a traditional trade. There was then a death in the family. The father died in a boat accident. He died as a result of the injuries he received in that accident and didn’t drown at the time, but he left a widow and five children—namely, John, Allan, Robertson, Alexandrina, and Mary. John was just 18 when he took his father’s place on the farm.

Mary, their mother, realised through the dark years that followed, where there was disease and crops that failed and so forth, that their plight might be much better if they left—basically, they might avoid starvation. They left their beloved homeland in 1840, that family—and it was really under the threat of dying of starvation—and then they came here via Australia. This story is available on the internet for all to see, but you can see the deprived and challenging background that may well have inspired the subsequent generosity.

The assets that were in the institute to carry on Allan McLean’s legacy to support women into long-term housing, along with their children, and to provide the daily necessities for beneficiaries were there for a purpose. When one considers the background, one can understand how the trust came to be set up and how the will that preceded the trust came to be written, and we can also understand how good it would be—and will be, when we as a Parliament pass this bill—to have a situation where the original purpose of that trust is able to be met fully again. We’re told that the board of the institute observed that the charitable purpose of the institute had been eroded over time since the passing of Allan McLean in 1907, and really, because of the circumstances and the way in which society expresses itself, the changes in societal norms and language—all of those things have made it more difficult to give effect to the original charitable objectives that the trust was set up for.

Of course, the Parliament has revisited, we know, this legislation over time—I think in 1957, from memory—and today we have this bill, which aims again to empower and enable women to live independently, as was the original purpose behind the gift that the institute supports. That, we know, involves ensuring that women have warm, dry housing and that women who find themselves with mental health or addiction issues, a disability or trauma, homelessness, poverty, terminal illness, or long-term or permanent disabilities can gather the support that they need through the support of the institute.

So I’m very proud to support this bill in the House. I think this is the kind of thing that the Parliament can do which does support the good works that are already happening in our community and which come out of a long and difficult past, which I think—I hope—I have alluded to in my initial comments. We can see why this trust was set up, and we know—all of us here in this House—people who have fallen on hard times and we’d want to support the purposes of this institute. So I’m very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, like my colleagues, rise in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. It’s very evident from the submissions given to the House tonight that we’ve all had a quick brief history lesson into the founding families of the mighty Canterbury from where I hail. I just want to put on the record that, despite assertions that the Hon Gerry Brownlee might make, I’m not related to the McLean family in question.

We’ve certainly heard a lot about the family, and I think their story speaks volumes about the legacy left by so many of those very early pioneering families and those founding families of Canterbury. It’s a legacy and history of philanthropy; so often we see around the region evidence of people who had foresight and a desire to ensure the protection and preservation of the lives and livelihoods of future generations that would follow them.

It is indeed a pleasure to see this bill before the House, giving us, as legislators, an opportunity to modernise it and bring it forward a century, from whence it was first passed, to modern-day New Zealand—and, indeed, modern-day Canterbury—where the need is still there but in much differing circumstances.

We’ve discussed—well, I think, members of the House have discussed—at length that the original intention of this piece of legislation and, of course, of the institute is to protect those women of refined upbringings and education, but those who’ve fallen on hard times. But now, of course, “modern-day” has changed, pressures have changed, and with that, the institution must change—hence the need to modernise and adapt the legislation that indeed governs the board.

So the bill, just to look at the technicalities of it, updates and varies the terms set out in the trust deed, such as the charitable objectives and the powers of the board. This would be to enable the assets of the institute to continue to be used to provide systems to and promote the wellbeing of disadvantaged women. The bill also simplifies the original trust board of 13 people. We note already that the board has modernised and evolved itself. It’s certainly investing in other institutions and other businesses around the Canterbury district, but all, I think, with the intention of looking after those who need it.

Some other people have mentioned the investment and development of the retirement village called Holly Lea, which takes its name, obviously, from the original Allan McLean homestead that he left as the McLean house. My own grandparents spent their last days in that property, so it does have a place in my heart, which is very much why we would like to see the future success of the institute and of the board. We do look forward to this being passed to the Social Services and Community Committee for further scrutiny and rigour. We offer the board our very best wishes for the future.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise with pleasure this evening to take a call on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. We’ve heard from many members this evening a little bit about the McLean family history, and I’m going to talk a little tiny bit about that myself, because I find people’s motivation really interesting. I think, when we’re looking at the reasons why people do things, and particularly when we’re looking at—we’ve heard about the Cawthron Institute and about the extraordinary bequest that gave rise to that institution and the amazing amount of good that it’s done. A very similar sort of situation here, where Allan McLean bequeathed what would now be an absolutely colossal amount of money—I think we’re looking at $200 million to $300 million in equivalent funds—with some exceptionally good intentions. The wording, of course, as we’ve heard, is not really quite meeting today’s brief.

But looking back at Allan McLean, we’ve heard that he was born in the islands of the Inner Hebrides, on the island of Coll, which is actually where a branch of my family comes from, so that’s quite interesting. His father was a fisherman and he drowned when Allan was at the very impressionable age of 14. I know that the Hebrides are absolutely beautiful. However, you can just imagine, a hundred and umpteen or so years ago, they might have been beautiful but they’d be an extraordinarily difficult place for a solo mother to raise eight children or the five or six—depending on which source you read—that survived, because, of course, infant mortality wasn’t what it is today. Fortunately, we’ve managed to drastically improve those statistics, so we don’t have an expectation of only five of our eight children surviving.

But you can imagine that Allan McLean was probably an extremely, as I said, impressionable 14-year-old. Having that experience of a mother who couldn’t make a living on the land that she inherited, being left in penury after multiple crop failures, and emigrating to Australia with her remaining children, you can imagine that that probably had a really big impression on him. So the McLean Institute arose out of this bequest—for reasons that we’ve probably explored in detail—because Mr McLean wished to provide financial assistance to women and children who were in destitute circumstances, by creating a public institution for their benefit.

But the language used at the time has had the inadvertent effect of limiting potential beneficiaries of the institute’s support. We’ve heard members refer to “gentlewomen” or “women of refinement or education in [reduced or] straitened circumstances, along with their children.” The board of the institute has observed that it’s become almost impossible to give effect to the original charitable purpose over time, meaning it’s now rare for somebody to qualify for that support. I think, from memory, from my research, there are four people who are currently benefiting from this trust, but there won’t be any further beneficiaries until this bill passes through Parliament—assuming it does.

The institute’s key objectives in amending the trust are—as we have potentially heard, but just to just to clarify—to confirm that any woman or child can be assisted by the trust, and to remove any notion or perception of exclusivity and to broaden the purpose of the trust, which, for over 100 years, has been primarily the provision of housing and full-time care in an institution, to instead set a number of charitable purposes intended to empower and support women and children.

The updated purposes are set out in clause 5 of the amended deed, and examples include providing or facilitating emergency housing for women or children, providing support for women experiencing mental health issues, addiction, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, or dislocation, and funding programmes that empower women and that work to counter violence and abuse against women. The trustees of the institute remain committed to the original intentions of Mr McLean, and I think that everybody in the House would agree that they are honourable and worthy intentions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 7 June.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity this evening to speak on the Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill. This is significant; as I’ve read through and looked at this legislation, it’s a challenge for us as we look and approach our commitment to ensuring no new mining as we look at our conservation spaces and places.

I just want to reflect really briefly, because, I think, for myself, as the member for New Plymouth, and with Egmont conservation space on my doorstep, it’s significant to reflect briefly on what’s going on for me in my part of Aoteroa and what is happening. Earlier this year, we had the Taranaki maunga deed of redress ratification that was signed and now has gone out to all eight iwi around Taranaki, to look at what it means in terms of redress of this piece of conservation land, of this significant landmark, of this maunga, of this ancestor that sits in the centre of the region that I am part of, that, for all New Zealanders, no matter what ancestry you are, plays a significant role and connects people deeply to that space and the conservation space that there is. So we have Egmont National Park.

In terms of the back story of that and what minerals are there and what it is, we look back a number of years ago, back to the 19th century, when this piece of land was confiscated and was taken. There are a lot of reasons around why that was taken from Māori in the confiscation of that land with the Taranaki wars. And this piece of land is so, so, so significant to tangata whenua, but it is also so significant to myself and others who reside in this part of Aotearoa. That’s why we need to look at what it means in terms of this Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill. When I look at Taranaki and I look at what we are looking to do there, not only is it a change of name, it is reclaiming the name that never was it, as, once this is agreed to and people sign it, it will be Te Papakura o Taranaki, in terms of returning it to what was theirs.

But we look at this legislation—and it’s to prohibit new exploration, prospecting, and mining activity on conservation land and waters to protect the landscape’s natural features, indigenous plants and wildlife, and scientific, cultural, and recreational values on public conservation land. That is a good drive and purpose for what we should be doing and could look at doing. But also, I am aware that there is some overreach that is here. When I look at Treaty settlements, when I look at what we’re doing in Taranaki and what it means for their eight iwi, I’ve reflected on the South Island and the conservation estates down there and around pounamu and what it means for indigenous gathering and mining of certain cultural taonga and what that looks like and how do we actually protect what it means for Māori in terms of finding the ways and abilities to actually find and connect with what is rightfully theirs, but also the cultural experience that goes along with it.

We are serious, as a Government, around ensuring mining only occurs when and where it’s appropriate. At this point in time, we don’t feel comfortable to support this legislation. We are doing work, and work is being done right through, to ensure that we get the balance right. We believe that the beauty of our conservation estate—it’s one of our ancestors who have created these spaces for us to enjoy—is important and is key. But, at this point, we aren’t in a position to support this legislation. For that reason, I’m unable to support this legislation to the next reading.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill, although we don’t support it. I’d like to firstly actually pay respects to Maureen Pugh, the West Coast MP, who’s going through a pretty tough time at the moment. Our thoughts go out to Maureen, and I know she would love to be here and be speaking on this bill herself. So, all the best, Maureen—we are thinking of you.

A third of New Zealand’s land is in the conservation estate, and 81 percent of the West Coast is in the conservation estate. The West Coast is incredibly mineral rich, and to have a complete ban on mining in it would be quite a significant impost on that economy, but, worse than that, it actually has a huge impact on New Zealand as well. Even on the previous bill, I know one of the members on the other side was talking about transitioning, and, actually, to transition away from fossil fuels we need much more minerals than we currently extract to make that transition. Mr Speaker, I have this very handy book which I can recommend to you. It’s published by the Minerals Council of Australia and it’s called 30 things, and it lists all the minerals and things that you would not expect. I have used electric vehicles before, from this book, and I’ve talked about what’s in mobile phones, but today I’m going to talk about what minerals are used in medicine.

I’m not sure you’d be aware of it—you may well be—but lithium, for example: it’s a very important psychiatric drug. It was actually discovered by what were American Indians; referred to now as “First Nations people”. There was a lake in California in particular that had a high lithium amount, and it was well-known by American Indians that when people weren’t feeling very good, when they were blue or depressed, they would go by that lake and they would feel much better—turned out that there’s quite a lot of lithium content in that lake, and that’s led to the discovery of lithium being used as a psychiatric drug, which is well used today. So lithium is used in medicine.

Titanium, of course—anyone who’s had a hip joint or something like that, knee joint or whatever: that’s titanium. It’s used in reconstructive surgery, or even in plastic surgeries it’s quite often used. Silver—I’m not quite sure what it’s for; I can tell you it’s antibacterial and aids healing. Who knew? Also, platinum for pacemakers and medical apparatus. Copper: kills surface microbes and reduces infections—and electronic devices, of course. Uranium, of course—I always notice with a smile when I drive in from the airport: Wellington’s nuclear-free, so clearly there are no X-ray machines in Wellington. Well, actually, there are, so it’s not nuclear-free. Nuclear medicine’s quite an important part of cancer treatments in this—[Interruption] Yeah. Niobium, which is for medical devices—don’t know what. Gold: cancer treatment. We use gold in cancer treatment—I know it costs a lot of money, but—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is pretty fascinating, Mr Smith, but at some stage—and I’ve probably been pretty generous—could you mention the bill?

STUART SMITH: I know you’re enjoying this—well, yes, I am. This is because all of these minerals come from the ground. They come from the conservation estate. Lithium is on the West Coast. I’ve actually flown over a lithium deposit; we know it’s there. Is it able to be mined? Is it economic? We don’t know. Will we ever know? This bill will not allow us to mine those minerals, if it’s successful.

It’s also aggregate, of course, and trying to get aggregate out to build our roads. A lot of people in this House are very concerned about climate change. Does it make any sense trucking aggregate from the East Coast over down to the West Coast to build our roads? No, it does not.

So this just goes too far. We’ve got adequate regulations to control the environmental impacts of mining—and there are impacts on the environment from mining; we all know that. The fact is we need to mitigate those and ensure that restoration of mining sites is done to a standard that we all expect. So it’s with regret I actually cannot support this bill.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill. And can I say, if people have ever said that watching Parliament is boring, then the previous speaker just proved that wrong. And I was upset, Mr Speaker—you know, we’ve known each other a long time and I don’t get upset with you, but calling on that member to cease, I thought, was—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Eagle, you’re not making a commentary on my ruling I hope.

PAUL EAGLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I’d just get that in.

But look, that’s where the good news stops on this, because the Government has made it clear that we do not support this bill, and for good reason. We have a substantial work programme already in place, and our position is that there are no new mines on conservation land—that was announced back in 2017 from the Speech from the Throne. In saying that, we do remain committed to ensuring that mining only happens where and when appropriate, according to robust regulatory standards. And that’s why we’re undertaking the review, the stewardship land review, and the Crown Minerals Act review. So work is under way. And the point there is to say, and I do feel with members’ bills that sometimes—and can I acknowledge the member for putting up the member’s bill, but the intentions are being covered in our work programme. That’s the point I wanted to make. There is significant work there under way to reclassify 2.5 million hectares of stewardship land—that’s actually 9 percent of our land area and almost 30 percent of DOC’s estate, the Department of Conservation. That will add further protections and preserve conservation and cultural values from the adverse effects of activities on conservation land such as mining.

So that’s, in summary, the big no. If I look at this Government’s commitment—I want to just pick up a couple of points on what I’ve said. We remain committed to ensuring that mining only happens where and when appropriate, and according to those robust regulatory standards.

I want to just acknowledge our Minister of Conservation and the policy work that’s going on at pace. And look, I’ve talked to officials about this programme and said, “These are the things that will need to be undertaken.” One of the examples has been actively engaging with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and that recognises their deed of settlement, and also the Ngāi Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act of 1997. The emphasis there is: look, let’s do as much of this work upfront. I know what it’s like to put member’s bills together. You put a lot of effort and energy in—I’ve had three in my time which have been converted into Government bills. I think if that’s the case, you get a much better and more thorough process to support the mahi being done. So rather than leave it to the select committee, as a member’s bill would do, we get a much more robust process through officials being charged to do it through the Minister’s work program.

Hon Eugenie Sage: But when?

PAUL EAGLE: I hear the word “when”. Look, any final decisions on a Government bill haven’t been taken, but I want to reiterate that the required legislative and policy work is very much under way and progressing according to those commitments made in 2017.

Can I finish, Mr Speaker? I don’t want to go back to the previous speaker about some of the education around—or some of the facts around—what minerals are used for, rather just to emphasise that I hope that the member who’s put this forward can see that, hey, the time frame might not be in this term, but they will appreciate that the mahi that is being done is thorough and we do get a piece of work where it can be supported from all parties across the House. That would be the challenge, I think, to finish off—it’s to say: let’s have a piece of work where all parties can come together and say they commend this bill to the House like I am doing now. Kia ora.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve got a degree of sympathy for the Hon Eugenie Sage, who is the member that has had this bill drawn from the ballot. She is a committed, passionate, and principled environmentalist. I don’t always agree with everything that she says or does or any of her policies, but I admire her passion and her commitment to the cause, and our Parliament, I think, is going to be a lesser place when she leaves at the end of this parliamentary term. She’s done an exceptionally good job as the chair of Parliament’s Environment Committee, particularly her stewardship of the reforms to the Resource Management Act.

So when we came to the Speech from the Throne, those of us that were there back in 2017 in the full flush of the Ardern Government—I’m sure that the member the Hon Eugenie Sage was as surprised as many of us to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the Prime Minister was making a commitment on behalf of her new ambitious Government to cease mining on the conservation estate. Some of us knew that actually that was a commitment that was going to be much harder to achieve than perhaps the then Prime Minister and her new Government had ever imagined. And so it has come to pass.

There are some very big issues around the nearly one-third of the nation’s landmass that is administered and looked after by the Department of Conservation. It’s 8.5 million hectares. It’s a very big piece of territory, of dirt, if you like, and there are different degrees of the conservation estate. Not all of it is pristine. Not all of it is magnificent virgin native bush. Some of it is actually pretty scrubby, if I have to describe it in that regard. So when this Speech from the Throne was made and this bold, ambitious declaration was made, as were so many other bold declarations, we knew on this side of the House, actually, that the Government of that day was going to have enormous difficulty in fulfilling their grand promises. And they, true to form, simply failed to deliver not only on this promise but on so many of the others. In fact, hers was a Government, Jacinda Ardern’s Government was a—sorry, Dame Jacinda Ardern’s Government was a Government that was full of promise but woefully inadequate on delivery. And so there’s some irony tonight—and this is partly why I have some sympathy for the Hon Eugenie Sage—because here tonight it’s actually going to be Labour MPs who vote this bill down.

Now, on my side of the House we’ve been consistent. It’s not National that’s flip-flopped. We’ve always had the view that mineral extraction on the conservation estate should be addressed case by case. We’ve always had that view. It’s the Labour Government members who have changed their view. What I would like to know from the remaining Labour speakers in this debate is: what has changed from the time when Jacinda Ardern made that grand promise in the Speech from the Throne that was read by the Governor-General of the time? What has changed? Where did they go wrong? Why haven’t they been able to fulfil their promise?

Now, I kind of know the answer. It’s kind of a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It’s because it’s a whole lot more difficult than they had at first imagined. And there’s an old saying, about the linkage between a strong, growing, thriving economy that enables good environmental stewardship to take place—because we have the ability to fund the environmental stewardship that is needed. And the old saying goes something like this: “It’s very difficult to be green when you’re in the red.”—and we’re in the red. We’re deeply in the red. We are in recession. And it’s very, very hard to be green when you’re in the red. So our economy and our environment, they are inextricably linked together—always have been, always will be.

In the National Party, we take a practical environmentalist view. We take the view that decisions should be made on the basis of not a simple binary decision that it’s either good or it’s bad. We want to look at the whole range of aspects. We want to consider individual case by case examples relating to the conservation estate and the stewardship land as well. So I’m offering the National Party’s point of view, which has been consistent all the way through—case by case—unlike the Labour Party who have flip-flopped on this.

Debate interrupted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended, and I’ll resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider Government orders of the day. Good evening.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 28 JUNE 2023

(continued on Thursday, 29 June 2023)

Bills

Therapeutic Products Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Therapeutic Products Bill.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I move, That the Therapeutic Products Bill be now read a second time.

The Therapeutic Products Bill intends to replace the current Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 made under the Food Act 2014 to provide for comprehensive and risk-proportionate regulation of therapeutic products. I will focus my remarks today on some of the changes made at select committee, but, I think before that, I will reiterate briefly the absolute importance of these reforms to our medicines regulation.

We need modern medicines regulation that will allow for 21st century treatments that are used in New Zealand today but are poorly served by our current legislation. We need legislation that is flexible for public health emergencies like the pandemic we have just experienced. We need legislation to regulate the use of medical devices that are currently inadequately regulated, and the example of the harm caused by surgical mesh is one area where these changes are needed. Another important imperative is to make sure we have flexible regulation to allow for innovative health products to be tested and used in New Zealand.

But, to focus on the work that that has been proceeded more recently, the bill was introduced on 30 November last year and referred to the Health Committee in December. The committee recently reported back on the bill, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank committee members for their work over the last six months. I’d also like to thank everyone who made a submission, particularly those who shared their personal experiences. More than 16,500 submissions were received, and this shows how important these issues are to New Zealanders. Oral hearings were held in late March, and 210 organisations and 127 individual submitters were heard.

I recognise that many people who submitted on the bill were opposed to it or had concerns about how it would affect them, their whānau, or their businesses. Over 9,000 submissions focused on the inclusion of natural health products (NHPs) and called for their exclusion from the bill or that they be regulated in a risk-proportionate way. I also acknowledge that more than 700 submitters expressed concerns about the bill’s potential effect on rongoā Māori.

When the Health Committee reported back to the House recently, the Government announced that small-scale NHP manufacturers would be excluded from the legislation as well as rongoā. The Government intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to amend the bill during the committee of the whole House debate. A number of NHP producers operate out of their homes and produce only a small quantity of goods. These are often sold locally—for example, at farmers markets. I’m comfortable that the evidence available suggests these products don’t pose a significant risk to public health, so the SOP will introduce changes so that small-scale natural health products will be able to be exempted from a product authorisation or manufacturing licence from the new regulator where their products are made and supplied in person to customers in New Zealand.

There is still a need to regulate natural health products as they are not risk-free. It’s also important people have the information they need to make informed decisions about these products. Regulations can help ensure that products contain safe ingredients with information that is clear on the use and recommended dose, that quality manufacturing processes are in place to provide assurance that products are not contaminated, that health claims are substantiated, and that products made in New Zealand and exported overseas meet international standards.

Natural health products are categorised as a therapeutic product if they are intended to have a therapeutic purpose. They will, however, be regulated as a separate category to medicines and medical devices and reflect that they are generally lower-risk.

Contrary to reports on social media and feedback from submitters on the bill, you will still be able to buy natural health products and you will not need a prescription. Practitioners of natural medicine will still be able to deliver care to their clients. There is also no list of prohibited ingredients in the bill and no proposal to ban common herbs and spices used in cooking. If we did, my mother would never forgive me! The impact of the bill on any particular natural health product or ingredient will be determined by a secondary legislation following consultation with stakeholders and the public.

Turning now to rongoā, under the SOP, Māori will retain determination about what rongoā means to them and who is a rongoā practitioner. It’s important for the Crown to ensure mātauranga rongoā can access the export market if they choose and protect rongoā from those who might abuse it. The Government will establish an advisory committee of rongoā experts and Māori leaders to implement the new provision of the bill.

The committee recommended a number of amendments to the bill that the Government will support. Many submitters expressed concerns about the provisions of the importation of prescription medicines. People were concerned they would not be able to import life-saving medicines that are not available in New Zealand or not affordable. The Government is seeking, in this bill, to protect people from counterfeit or contaminated products. The committee has proposed amendments that achieve this sensible balance. People will be able to order and import prescription medicines for their own use, provided they have a prescription from a New Zealand health practitioner. To address concerns about cost, health practitioners will be explicitly able to consider affordability when prescribing an unauthorised medicine. I know this has been a major issue for a number of people and I welcome the proposed changes.

The committee has also proposed amendments to the advertising provisions in the bill. While it agreed with the need to regulate advertising of therapeutic products, especially products that have not been authorised for use in New Zealand, sensible amendments will clarify that patient fundraising, advocacy, and media activities are not intended to be prevented. Other amendments proposed by the committee will ensure advertising over social media platforms and the internet is appropriately regulated. I also want to provide reassurance that Government has never had any intention to restrict Givealittle pages around unfunded drugs. In addition, new defences have been added to the misrepresentation offence and the offence of unlawful advertising to protect research and media activities, advocacy, and satire.

Supporting and enabling innovation is also very important to me. We need a regulatory regime that enables innovation, supports exporters, and promotes trust and confidence in products made here in Aotearoa. This bill does exactly that. It supports new technologies coming to market, expediting when necessary, such as in a health emergency. It supports innovation more widely, creating pathways that are easily navigated and aligned with international standards. The amendments proposed by the Health Committee will ensure that a regime can respond to advances in health technologies such as software as a medical device or cell or gene therapies.

We have listened to New Zealand exporters, and I’m confident the bill will be implemented in a way that supports those businesses. The bill enables a risk-proportionate approval pathways for export-only products, and it’s my expectation that the new regulator will engage constructively with exporters.

In summary, the bill provides a risk-proportionate approach to regulation. Pre-market controls will provide assurances that products are made to the proper standards, while in-market and post-market controls will enable a timely response if safety issues arise. While the Medicines Act has served us well, by and large, it has not kept pace with international developments and there are gaps in the regulations of some therapeutic products such as medical devices and advanced cell and tissue therapies. Consumer safety is our top priority in this bill. The bill will provide New Zealanders with the assurances they would expect about the safety and quality of therapeutic products. In a time of significant change in the health sector, the bill will also provide flexibility for businesses like pharmacies and for the health workforce. The new regulator will cover a much broader scope of therapeutic products and activities. The new regime will become fully operational by 2026, following the development of secondary legislation and further consultation on that.

This is a historic and comprehensive bill. I would like to acknowledge my colleague Andrew Little, who, as previous health Minister, did the work to introduce this bill. The bill will provide reassurance to consumers about safety and will help deliver the Government’s vision of pae ora, healthy futures, for all New Zealanders. It is a fundamental and significant part of our new health system. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party will be opposing the Therapeutic Products Bill. We have many concerns, and I’ll list four them here in this reading. First of all, we’re concerned that the Therapeutic Products Bill remains a great overreach for natural health products; secondly, there are persistent issues with medical devices; thirdly, there are potentially significant effects on rare disorders; and, fourthly, it is an overreach in the cosmetic industry.

The Minister just said there were 16,500 submissions, and there were many against. Let’s be quite clear: most were against. There were 16,500 submissions—16,000 against. So let’s not trifle with the fact that there were some who had an alternative view—most had an alternative view.

Let’s start with natural health products. We remain of the view that this is a significant overreach, and I want to quote here from the lead representative of natural health products in New Zealand, “The Government has ignored the advice of the natural health products sector and is pushing ahead with an unworkable and bureaucratic product authorisation and assessment scheme that risks damaging the industry, resulting in less innovation, fewer jobs and reduced exports.” When we talk about the natural health products industry, let’s be clear that this is a $2.3 billion contribution to the New Zealand economy. This is not insignificant. They continue, “The new regulator will simply not be able to put 20,000 different natural health products through a bureaucratic authorisation and assessment scheme without significant delays and higher cost to industry. Consultation from the Government has been poor and we do not believe our concerns have been taken seriously.”

There are a number of things that the natural health products sector are asking for. Not only do they feel that the authorisation process is impractical, they’re requesting a notification scheme. They just simply believe it’s impossible for a regulator to market authorise 20,000 natural health products, and they also want to talk about the burden of cost in doing that. They also are concerned that claims that are accepted in other jurisdictions may not be able to be accepted here. They’re concerned with the means to export, the certification process for export, and they’re concerned with accountability and resourcing of the regulator.

There were three main changes from when the Health Committee deliberated through to today. I’ll talk to them now because it does affect natural health products. There were several changes that were made. The first was around rongoā, which was initially included and is now excluded. The second was around online importation. That has been clarified. I think there was a piece of work still to do with that. But natural health product small retailers, as the Minister said, that are direct to consumer have been somewhat cut out of this legislation, although a lot of secondary legislation will provide some clarity to that. So I think there’s still a lot of work and a lot of concern.

I met with some of with some of the medium-sized natural health product companies. There is one in Whangārei that is a manufacturer and has seven franchises, and they tell me they will have to close all franchises if they have to go through a manufacturing approval process and a market authorisation approval process for all of their products. So while some still somewhat-unknown work has been done around small manufacturers, the medium-sized manufacturers will still have a significant consequence.

I want to move on to medical devices. There has been some clarity around software in a medical device and software as a medical device. What is unclear are the provisions in the legislation that say that if there is a performance change, then you have to go back for re-certification. The concern I’ve got for the software industry is if you do code optimisation and improve performance in a software element, is that going to require re-certification? Because it would be a problem. That would stifle innovation and be a significant problem to our software industry. That needs a lot of clarity.

I want to talk to the group of medicines that are currently given free by companies. The example I’ll use is a rare disorder where the special-case requirement is never going to work because it’s too expensive. Even with a GP prescription, you’re never going to import it online; you’re never going to visit and bring it back in your luggage in view of the luggage regulation. This is always going to be too expensive. What we have with compassionate access schemes is we have companies who bring it in, and they give it to certain patients.

So it’s a free, gratuitous giving, as I say, under compassionate access schemes. The issue we’ve got here is that there appears to be no mechanism for prescribers to approach those companies, firstly. There are no provisions in the bill for providers looking to be part of a compassionate access scheme to approach companies and say, “We have someone with a rare disorder—can you help?” Secondly, if they do decide that they’re able to compassionately give these expensive medicines, they will require market authorisation. Why would you do that? You’re doing it for free. Why would you incur the burden of what may be $100,000 to $150,000 for something you are giving for free? Why would you do that? That makes no sense at all. There is a lot of work to be done with rare disorders.

There are other conditions as well. The situation where you have a clinical trial—again, it’s this free giving of medicines—and in a clinical trial you’ll have the medicine that’s under examination that’s qualified by the trial itself, but often you have a standard of care comparator: your placebo, if you like, which is something that’s already pervasive in the environment, already well understood. You give that for free to the clinical trial. Well, here’s the problem: same thing, there’s no ability for prescribers to approach the leads of the clinical trial or for the clinical trial to give those standard-of-care medicines free to participants. They’ll have to have market authorisation, at great cost.

Furthermore, after the clinical trial, if you did get a benefit from the standard-of-care medicine, again there’s no ability for the company to give that to you. The same thing applies for out of stock, and the classic example here at the moment is Estradot. Previously, you’d use a section 29: you’d approach a company, and the company, under section 29, would be able to provide that to you. Under this legislation, that is not available.

Off-label use, which particularly is for children with cancer, where a medicine that is used for one purpose is looking to be used for another purpose—again, section 29 would’ve done that. We see no provisions in this bill for off-label use, so we have significant reservations about that.

I want to talk about the cosmetics industry—$1.25 billion turnover in New Zealand, $400 million export dollars, 24 New Zealand - based manufacturers with Good Manufacturing Practices manufacturing. This is not a significant industry. Their concerns are that they are now caught up in the Therapeutic Products Bill—that anti-dandruff shampoo that might have selenium sulfide in it is now a medicine caught up in this bill, that anti-wrinkle cream with retinol is now a medicine caught up in this bill, toothpaste with fluoride is now a medicine caught up in this bill. None of this makes any sense. Currently, cosmetics are excluded under the Medicines Act and they’re regulated under the Cosmetic Products Group Standard. We think it should continue to be regulated under that standard. This is a terrible overreach to the cosmetics industry.

It’s also going to reach into sunscreens, and we can see that, because the Act is going to repeal the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022, which was due to come into force in no more than three months’ time, about which all of this House, in September last year, said, “This is a great idea. We need to do that. Let’s have the same standards as we have with Australia.”—acknowledging Todd Muller; this was his member’s bill. Here’s what’s going to happen under this bill: it’s going to be repealed, but in the last eight months, sunscreen manufacturers in New Zealand have undergone the manufacturing, the labelling, all the requirements of that Act, and in three months’ time it’s going to be repealed. It was supposed to come into effect, but this bill will now repeal it—it’s done. The sunscreen Act, even before it could come into force, is done—not clear to us that we’ll still have the joint standard with Australia and New Zealand, whether it’s just going to be a Therapeutic Products Bill standard, but that would be a great tragedy for something that this House all agreed with to be repealed even before it can come into force.

The last thing I want to talk to is the complete disrespect this Government has had for the select committee process. When we deliberated, there were three working group reports still to come back, two on rongoā and one on the impact on small business of the natural health product changes in this bill. We were not privy to those deliberations, and it was very awkward for Government officials, when asked “What progress has the working group made?”, to dance and not be able to provide an adequate opinion. The purpose of the select committee was to provide scrutiny, public accountability to all the information available. We did not have all that information, and five days later, the Minister announces Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that take that information into account. They couldn’t wait five days? There was such urgency to ram this through they couldn’t wait five days and let the select committee have the same information that the Minister has had to progress these SOPs in the next stage. That is disrespectful.

It is not the first time this Government has been disrespectful of the Health Committee. If you recall the Pae Ora legislation: completely new chair, completely new select committee. I feel sorry for the disrespected members sitting on the other side of the House. I believe they worked diligently, but this Government and their Minister disrespected them.

This process has been poor. We agree with the natural health products industry: there has not been enough consultation. We will oppose this bill.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Therapeutic Products Bill. I had the opportunity at first reading to make a contribution, and at that time I noted that this was a bill that would replace the Medicines Act 1981 and a set of regulations, the Medicines Regulations 1985—but also that we shouldn’t just replace them because of historical data, but rather because they needed to. I want to acknowledge the work that the Health Committee has undertaken in looking at this bill. It’s a committee that I’m very familiar with: I was chair of the committee when the bill was received by the Health Committee and extended the period for submissions as part of that, so I acknowledge the chair, Dr McLellan, and her colleagues for working through this bill.

Much has been said already of the over 16,000 submissions that were received and that were considered by the select committee. As part of that process of scrutiny and turning a bill into something that is more user-friendly, the select committee has returned something to the House that seeks to do exactly that—particularly listening to the concerns around the personal importation of prescription medication and making some changes there. The need to ensure that the protection from counterfeit or contaminated products still is an underlying feature of that.

Regulations around social media platforms, and the advertising that might follow in relation to therapeutic products is another example, and then of course noting that it was not an intention of the Government to place any restrictions around things like Givealittle pages and the like. We’ve heard from the Minister, in her contribution, that there is an intention to progress a Supplementary Order Paper that will address a number of issues through the committee of the whole House, and I’m sure the House will look forward to that. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t expecting to rise so quickly. I thought the chair of the Health Committee would have had a lot more to say about the select committee process, but I could imagine why he would want to sit down as quickly as possible, because, in fact, what the Minister of Health has done today is throw the Government Health Committee members under the bus. They spent hours of Health Committee time debating this bill and passing amendments, but the first thing the Minister did was to come out and say that the amendments were wrong. So now she’s going to introduce Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to the House to pass to correct her own caucus members’ faults in the amendments. If I was a Government backbencher today, I would refuse to get up and speak on this bill purely because the Minister has thrown them under the bus.

How embarrassing that your Minister would come out within days of the amendments to this bill being passed to say that they got it wrong, and this bill is nothing but another example of the coalition of chaos. It’s another back-down bill. Could you imagine that days after the commentary comes back to the House, the Minister is already desperately putting up SOPs in defence and waving the white flag because the Government knows they have got this wrong? We saw it last week with the three waters bill—I mean, imagine bringing in a bill that amends two other bills already before the House. Now, we’re at the second reading, where the purpose of a second reading is to debate what happened in the select committee, and the Minister is already pointing to the committee of the whole House what SOPs she will put up because she knows that Labour has got this bill wrong.

I want to acknowledge Dr Shane Reti for clearly articulating the issues in this bill, and, in fact, we didn’t need to be here because it clearly came out in the submission process. There was already a bill in place under the last National Government that this Government could have adopted, and that would have done a far better job. So it really concerns me that here we are, after 16,500 submissions—16,000 of those were opposed to the bill—and hours of select committee time taken up at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, the Government MPs think they’re doing right by their Minister by passing the amendments and passing the bill into the second reading, and the first thing she does is wave the white flag and say, “Look, we’ve got this wrong and we’ll have to introduce SOPs.”

Now, look at the overreach in this bill about natural health products. You heard from my learned colleague Dr Shane Reti about the value of natural health products to our economy: $2.3 billion—$2.3 billion to our local economy. Remember a time when the Prime Minister used to talk about returning to bread and butter issues for New Zealand because of the cost of living crisis that we’re encountering, and yet this Government—ideological, “Wellington knows best”, “Labour knows best”—is prepared to put a $2.3 billion industry at risk. It makes hundreds of millions of dollars in export earnings, it employs hundreds of hard-working Kiwis around the country, and because of the regulatory overreach that they are trying to bring in today, it will put that at risk at a time of a cost of living crisis, when we need to address and make sure our economy is doing well. In an export-led economy, which is New Zealand, this is what Labour is up to today. So much for bread and butter! It always defaults back to ideology.

We’ve heard from the submitters, especially Natural Health Products, the peak body in the natural health space. It has talked about the regulatory overreach as being delayed and bureaucratic. How many times have we heard that term every time this Government touches something? Look at the response to mental health: delayed and bureaucratic. Look at the response around the local government reform of water: delayed and bureaucratic. The Resource Management Act (RMA)—oh yes, the RMA. What a shambles—the coalition of chaos. So here we are, we’ve got another bill that’s an overreach and is delayed and bureaucratic.

Now, I want to turn my contribution today to one very brave New Zealander, Theresa Zame. Now, Theresa Zame, to me, epitomises the belief that one person can make a difference, and, boy, has Theresa Zame made a difference. Theresa’s story is that she has stage four lung cancer. She wasn’t able to access medicines in New Zealand, so she used a compassionate import scheme to access Tagrix from Bangladesh on a script from New Zealand. That cost her $1,000 a month. The equivalent in New Zealand would have been $10,000 because she didn’t qualify for publicly funded medicines, which she couldn’t afford, and, in Theresa’s own words, Tagrix has made a “huge impact” on her health and given months back to her life expectation.

Under this bill originally, that would have been stopped, and not only would that have been stopped but Theresa would have been criminalised.

Sarah Pallett: That’s why we changed it.

MATT DOOCEY: Now, the Government member Sarah Pallett calls out, “That’s why we changed it.” No, you changed it because Theresa Zame brought a petition with 6,500 signatures. She led a hīkoi with Malcolm Mulholland from Patient Voice Aotearoa that turned up on this forecourt to protest against your bill. National was there, the Greens were there, ACT was there, and Te Paati Māori was there. Was Labour there? No, they weren’t there because they knew they were wrong, and here they are now gloating: “Oh, it’s because of us those changes were made.” If it was because of you, that would have not been in the bill in the first place, so don’t you take that one.

That was Theresa Zame, a brave mother. She calls herself just a lady from “Gizzy”. I say that she’s strong and she’s bold, and she led that campaign. One person can make a difference, and Theresa Zame made that difference. The reason that bill arrives back today with the ability for people like Theresa Zame to now go on and continue to get lifesaving drugs is because they put up the fight, and good on them.

This is another reason that this bill comes back into the House as a back-down bill, because they have got it wrong. They didn’t listen at the start. They were forced to listen when dying people—

Sarah Pallett: Rubbish—rubbish.

MATT DOOCEY: —turned up on the forecourt—“Rubbish.”, Sarah Pallett says, the MP from Ilam. Malcolm Mulholland, one of the most respected patient voice advocates in New Zealand, said that under this bill, people would die, and he is right. That’s why this Government was forced into a back-down, and already the Minister, days after it comes out of the Health Committee, throws MPs like Sarah Pallett under the bus and says, “The bill is not right. We’re going to have to make further changes in SOPs.” This is unheard of. This is a shambles. The wheels are falling off this Government.

But all of us—120 of us in the House—should never forget that we make decisions that impact people individually in their lives, and that’s what we’re doing today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a very impassioned speech from the previous member there. What he absolutely fails to recognise through that contribution is the fact that exactly what has happened is exactly what select committees are for. The Opposition, when they were in Government, also took the liberty of introducing bills into this House. It goes through a select committee process and changes are made, and through those changes you have, of course, people coming to the steps of Parliament, waving their flags and saying “we disagree with that”. We have people enter this process through the select committees, they submit, and these days they can submit in from their bedroom in the far reaches of Aotearoa just to have their points heard.

That’s exactly what the Health Committee have gone and done. I want to say thank you to our Minister for actually acknowledging those people that came through, that wanted changes to happen, and she’s gone and introduced the pathway forward—the way that we’re going to help their concerns be accommodated and in the future movement of this bill. She’s talked about a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s going to be introduced into the House specifically around rongoā Māori.

I’ve heard for the last few months quite a lot of opposition from our Māori communities around the place of rongoā Māori in here, and I want to say thank you to the committee for hearing those concerns. I want to say thank you to the Minister for looking to introduce an SOP in this respect, an SOP that will allow Māori to determine what rongoā means, and exactly who is a rongoā practitioner. It’s important that the Government make sure that rongoā practitioners can also export if they choose to as well. These are all really important changes. It shows that the Government is listening. It shows that our Minister is listening. It shows that our select committee is doing exactly what select committees are supposed to do. They’re actually supposed to inform the legislation to make it the best piece of legislation that we can put through. This is for the benefit of New Zealanders.

Thank you to the Minister for listening to that concern, specifically around rongoā Māori. I want to note the submissions of Rereata Makiha, of Waikato-Tainui, those organisations that came forward and said this needs to change. It is going to change. I commend it to the House.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m actually flabbergasted—because this is such an important bill—that our colleagues across the House are taking such a short call.

Now, if you were sitting in the Health Committee that I was and listened to all the people that had given their stories about how this bill is going to affect their lives—and we had over 16,000, as we said, submissions and we listened to, I think, close to 300 or 200 and something in that time, and it was a huge range of submitters. Now, ACT is actually going to oppose this. The reason why we’re going to oppose it is that this bill that is 256 pages still has more questions than answers. Now, how can we help New Zealanders to have better medicines and better treatment when medical companies can’t even understand how this going to affect New Zealanders?

Now, also, we’re going to be creating regulatory reform secondary legislation, and we need regulators to be able to assist with our medicines and natural health products. Now, what red tape and what cost is that going to put on these companies that create and bring in these products, and where are these regulators coming from? We already have a staffing problem. Again, are they going to be qualified? Are they actually going to understand what they are going to be regulating? Now, this is why I said this lovely bill has still got far too many questions than answers.

Now, we’re all for the Medicines Act 1981 and for the 1985 regulations for the dietary foods to be updated, because they are outdated. Anyone who has worked in medicine knows that these things need to be updated. But how do we do it? You needed to listen to the concerns.

Even in the pages pack, when you read from our doctors and natural health medicines people who have written about it, like one stakeholder—Patient Voice Aotearoa—about the Therapeutic Products Bill. Now, he states in an article that happened on 22 June 2023, after this was reported back, that New Zealand patients access 2.3 million medicine packages under this section—this is section 29 of the Medicines Act—it’s an unknown. This is a concern because this is a huge section, which is people with cancer and rare disorders that get particular medicines imported for them that isn’t already on our sheet. Now, this is a huge concern.

I know we managed to get some changes, but there are still so many unanswered questions. There are still too many questions. You talk to the medical councils, you talk to a lot of people—like the burden that may cause companies to simply fly out of the New Zealand market because of reducing the medicines, because of the unanswered questions that we have in this bill. They say, “Wait till the next piece comes out. Wait till the secondary legislation comes out, we will have more answers.” But all that we see is that it’s just going to hold up our medicines. We believe that if a medicine has been approved in the US, Australia, and it’s been over there for many years, been working well, we should be looking at approving them here—

Sarah Pallett: We are.

TONI SEVERIN: —fast—but we’re not doing it fast enough. This is the problem: we’re holding up medicines here in New Zealand.

Then in the medical text thing, the concerns—a series of concerns about regular overreach and lack of alignment with international best practices. Now, that was sent to us just two days ago. These are the people who understand what’s going on in this bill. These are the people that are supplying our doctors and nurses and hospitals with the technology that we need. They are still saying, just two days ago, that they still have serious concerns of overreach and burdens. What else is going to be happening, slowed down to give good practices?

We’re in a cost of living crisis. It’s already bad enough for many of our patients to get hands on medicines, let alone having to add more regulation and red tape.

Yes, in select committee, we did talk about rongoā, we kept asking questions, “When are we going to hear back?” We said, “Oh, wait for the Crown to come back to us.” So now we’ve finally heard that it’s going to be a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Well, that’s fine, but it would have been nice for us to have had the same information as the Government, because I feel that the majority of us in the select committee would have been very happy for that SOP to be actually added in the bill; at least we would have had the say during that process.

Now, the thing is that we here in ACT go, “The new regulator, is it following these questions that must be asked: what is the problem this bill seeks to solve and will this bill solve the problems?” Well, we don’t think it’s going to solve those problems; we think that all it’s going to do is make it even harder.

And then what are the costs of this scheme proposed and do the potential benefits outweigh them? Well, we don’t know. We get told “Wait till the second legislation, then we’ll know.” But already, how many regulators will we need? There are three parts to this therapeutics bill. It’s medicines. It’s medical devices. It also brings in dental. It brings in surgery. So even those who are waiting for transplants, it’s all encapsulated in this bill. And then we have the natural health medicines. So it’s three huge industries within our medical profession being dragged into one and we still have more questions than answers.

Now, who will bear the costs and will they be fairly shared? Now, that is the biggest question for the majority within the industries that help us. That’s not just natural health medicine but that was also the medical companies that come in and do trials. It was also the medicines that get brought in, as Dr Shane Reti said, for free—companies that bring it in for free and pass those medicines on, especially within special cases that are rare or cancers that are very rare. So we just see that all this bill is going to do is tie up our medicines.

And, also, like software, everything changes so rapidly. So how fast can these regulators keep up with changes?

So we say: let’s go back to the drawing board. We even heard from the medical profession that submitted on the original bill, which was before my time, and they said that it was better than this bill. It had its problems, but it was better. So why did they have to draft a whole new bill? Why couldn’t we take what was good in the previous bill and improve it? Why keep reinventing the wheel and making things tougher on New Zealanders? We have just been flabbergasted. We had the Government yelling at us that it’s all—

Hon Member: What a load of hoo-ha.

TONI SEVERIN: —exactly, but it’s not. We’re talking for patients. Those who work in the medical field know that more regulations and more red tape is just going to hold up bringing new medicines and bringing new technologies to New Zealand.

We even had the Dental Association during one of the submissions say that under the bill, everybody who had to have a new filling would have to be registered, because it’s an individual piece. So is that being changed? Or if someone had to have something slightly modified for themselves, that would have to be registered.

There’s still, as I said, a 256-page bill and there are still more questions in it than answers and it is not fair on New Zealand. We’ve just gone through one huge health reform and now we’re trying to throw this on top of it. How about we get all the ducks in a row and make sure we’re looking after everybody, especially the patients of New Zealand; they are the ones who are going to be let down. Businesses of New Zealand that export overseas, they are going to be let down. We’re all for changes, because things change quickly, but let’s stop putting more burden on New Zealand citizens and raising costs by putting more red tape and bureaucracy on our bills. This is what this bill does. We have to form a regulator, and who are they going to be; what expertise? Those are the questions that we would like to be answered. How many are going to have to be employed? We oppose this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): So if we take a step back and think about what is it that we are all trying to achieve and what this bill is trying to achieve, I think the intent of what we’re trying to get behind is to have things like acceptable safety quality and efficacy or performance of medical devices and active pharmaceutical ingredients across a lifetime and acceptable safety and quality of natural health products across the life cycle—I think these are goals that we can all rally behind.

I want to acknowledge everyone who contributed in the select committee process and who has campaigned on the ground to put the lived experiences in front of politicians, the challenges that they have faced, but also to propose constructive changes to the legislation so that these goals are met. Because I think it’s critical that we do have a regulatory framework of medical products and devices, and it is fair to say that the feedback about small players not wanting to get unnecessarily caught up in the regulations is incredibly fair. We also want to make sure that patients are not disadvantaged by these regulations. To just make a sweeping statement that any form of regulation is inherently harmful is just simply not true.

We have examples of where there are necessary and actually urgent regulations that we need to put in for devices that have proven time and time again to be incredibly harmful. Surgical mesh is a massive example of this, of why this bill actually will help enable finally having a regulatory framework—and the Green Party feels we can move towards banning the use of surgical mesh—and that is one that has proved to be incredibly difficult to regulate. We haven’t made significant progress, despite years of campaigning by many people who have shown the harms that such a device can create. So with this bill, I do hope that we can move towards finally banning things like surgical mesh.

But there are still outstanding concerns, and while I welcome the Minister’s move to introduce Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), particularly to address the concerns around—well, the SOPs that would then set processes to then address concerns on a case by case basis, we really welcome that. And actually part of that has only been, in my view, addressed thanks to the grassroots campaigning by so many. What we want to see as part of this SOP is that the body that will then deal with complaints around the use of rongoā is fully made up of Māori. That is the feedback of the Greens that we want to send to the Minister—that that this body actually reflects the people who should be empowered to then deal with these concerns and who have the knowledge to deal with these concerns.

Then the other one is around enabling secondary legislation to exempt small-scale natural health products from the regime. I think, with this one, while there is always a tension about how prescriptive we want to be in primary legislation and the risk that that could create in terms of futureproofing things, there’s also the reality around the fact that the Ministry of Health is not currently adequately resourced to actually be able to field the nuances that are required to make the secondary legislation work. And it’s interesting hearing the previous speaker from the ACT Party, Toni Severin, who talked about the staffing concerns in the Ministry of Health, because to me it’s one of those great examples of where often the right talks about the so-called bloated Public Service, but this is a great example of actually the importance that the Public Service plays in keeping us all safe. And, actually, I do think we should be having those conversations about how can we adequately resource the Public Service to make sure that the secondary legislation works as intended.

We have seen in the medicinal cannabis space that the risks from not properly resourcing the ministry to make good decisions based on community feedback creates problems. And the reality here is that when we create frameworks, there are imbalances in power between the big corporates and the small players in the market. I think we all talked about the concerns that we have around small players getting unnecessarily caught up by the secondary legislation. One way to address this is to adequately resource the Ministry of Health so that it can do its job, and ensuring that the feedback and the voices of the small players and of patients are adequately taken into account and are not lost in what can often be really heavy-handed lobbying from big, big players. So that is one of the key things that we will want to continue exploring and holding the Government to account.

The other thing that remains unresolved so far is the direct-to-consumer advertising for pharmaceutical medicines. The Green Party’s position is that we should just ban it. The feedback is overwhelming and it is heartening to see other MPs having make public comments about this as well. This is also a way of evening the field and ensuring that we put the safety of our communities as paramount as part of any framework that covers natural health products and medicines.

There are also issues that we have and unresolved questions that were raised actually by Shane Reti around the use of cosmetics. Particularly for us, it’s the use of sunscreens and how these products will get caught up in the new legislation—whether in this case we could be risking creating unnecessary barriers, but then also acknowledging that if we’re going to create a comprehensive framework for all of these kinds of products, we have to be careful of just making sort of discrete carve-outs—avoid making discrete carve-outs unless absolutely necessary. So that’s something that we will continue exploring in the next phases of the bill. We also take the constructive comments from the National Party around the use of software products. That is a really valid concern that I think we still need to unpack in the later stages of the bill.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee, who did put an incredible amount of hours into listening to the feedback of said matters. Other speakers have talked about how this bill has generated a huge amount of public discourse. I think, in some ways, while I know the National Party was talking about the Labour Party flip-flopping, what I want to frame it as is actually Government responding to overwhelming feedback. Some of it remains unresolved, but what it shows is the power of the grassroots. It shows the power that the public actually has in guiding the direction of Government legislation. This is how the Green Party has worked on several pieces of legislation historically where I think we forget that actually people have the power to pressure Government into moving into the right direction.

There is so much more that needs to be addressed and I think the public will continue to hold our feet to the fire when it comes to making sure that the secondary legislation works as the Government intends it to work, and the Green Party will continue putting scrutiny and accountability—to make sure that we don’t create a framework that disadvantages patients and small players.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll just begin my contribution by commending the Minister on her work in this important area. Therapeutic products are not risk free and they do require regulation, so it is important that we’re bringing this legislation to the House. Much has been said about the Health Committee and their work on this bill, so I do want to commend them and their chair for really robust work on the number of submissions.

But there is another select committee that has been working on this bill as well, and that is, of course, the Regulations Review Committee, and I just want to acknowledge my Regulations Review Committee colleagues in the room, and also Toni Severin, who referred to regulation a fair amount in her speech. The Regulations Review Committee really does contribute to the robust and rigorous debate of bills in the House, and we specifically look at regulation-making powers. As we’ve heard today, it is very important that constraints are put around regulation-making powers and that secondary legislation is deemed secondary, or where it should be, so that it can be brought back to the House if necessary.

So I just wanted to touch very briefly on some of the recommendations that the Regulations Review Committee communicated to the Health Committee as they were going through this process. We spoke about exemptions and the need to specify criteria around them, the clarity of various terms, the importance of ministerial involvement and emergency arrangement notices, and we also discussed where the regulator could rightfully set conditions without going through the normal rules process and where they shouldn’t. We discussed and made recommendations around the setting of fees and levies, in particular the period that those fees and levies could be attached to. And we also discussed whether regulator notices should be classified as secondary legislation, which the House will know is extremely important because where it is classified as secondary legislation, it can then be brought back to the House and indeed determined to be disallowable by the House if need be. And, of course, secondary legislation can also be found to be ultra vires if it’s going outside the terms of primary legislation.

So I mentioned all this just to ensure those who are watching that there is a really robust process that these bills, and this bill in particular, have gone through, and would really invite members of the public to look to the Regulations Review Committee and the role we play in ensuring we bring robust, risk-sure legislation through to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Nicola Grigg—five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Yes, Madam Speaker, I rise just to take that short call on the Therapeutic Products Bill, and, like my colleagues, I too oppose this bill. The National Party did support this bill at the first reading, and I suppose, you know, we still have a belief in the process of democracy, and we wanted to see it referred to the select committee to go through that thorough, rigorous assessment, and, more importantly, to invite the public of New Zealand to have its say. I think the public of New Zealand has been pretty adamant in its opposition to this bill. Other people have quoted the numbers, and I thought it was extraordinary: 16,586 submissions, with 16,057 in opposition. I think that is a very loud, clear message to the Government that it has not got this thing right. That’s 97 percent of submissions in opposition to it.

Yet again, and my colleague Matt Doocey referred to it, this select committee process has just been a farce, and we’ve seen it multiple times with multiple pieces of legislation that have come before this House where the public has been very strident in its views and it has just been ignored. We’ve seen so many times when the Labour Party’s majority on a select committee has just rammed bills through with absolutely no consideration to what the people of New Zealand are saying.

Look, it’s not just members of the public. I understand there’s been submissions from peak bodies, from organisations like Malcolm Mulholland’s Patient Voice Aotearoa, from Natural Health Products New Zealand, and from the New Zealand Chiropractors’ Association. I did giggle when I saw this, and I can’t quite believe we’re on the same side of the ledger here, but even Jane Kelsey is on the same side as the National Party. So, you know, I think that does speak volumes as to how far away from the right side of history the Government is on this.

But I think, more importantly, there’s some really fundamental principles at stake here. And look, I don’t sit on that select committee, but I am an electorate MP, and I have heard loud and clear from the people of Selwyn that they hate this thing. They absolutely hate it. And it is mostly because they’re so angry and so appalled at the idea of having freedom of choice taken away from them.

The National Party understands the principles and the needs for regulation around safety and all that kind of thing; we do. But this is an extraordinary overreach from the Government. And it really does come down to an issue of natural justice. It is not fair. We don’t believe that the proposed regulator is either going to have the time, resource, or indeed the inclination to make sure timely factory approval or market authorisation is given, particularly to the cottage industries that have emerged, especially in and around the natural health products area. And again, I have these cottage industries around Selwyn all the time, particularly in deer velvet and mānuka honey production, and often these are young couples, often these are farming people, they are looking for a substitute income, they are looking to—you know, they deeply believe in their product and in the efficacy of their product and what it can do to enable the health of other New Zealanders. And they want to be able to share those products and take them to market. But under this proposal, this regulator is going to make it so hard for them to be able to do that and even harder for them to be able to have, you know, a viable business, so to speak.

We heard a very defensive speech from the Minister, I think, who really is doubling down on this piece of legislation that New Zealanders just abhor and oppose. Again, to have this House informed of the process that really has gone on, which, you know, the Government members of the select committee worked in conjunction with the Opposition members on and came up with a proposal that, you know, the Minister is now overriding and is apparently going to introduce Supplementary Order Papers—we are yet to see whether or not they do transpire in the committee of the whole House. But it is just, yet again, an issue of fairness; it’s yet again an issue of a Government that said it was going to be the most honest, transparent, open Government in the history of the world. And we just keep seeing, time and time and time again, legislation that New Zealanders oppose, that we Opposition parties oppose, and it just keeps being rammed through without any thought for the consequence to the sentiment of New Zealanders and to, indeed, our views on democracy. So with that, I do oppose this bill, and we will continue to do so.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. On behalf of my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, it is a pleasure to speak to the second reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill on behalf of Te Paati Māori. She has put on the record, in the first reading and through the Health Committee, that if Māori rights, under Te Tiriti, were being acknowledged and reflected in this process, then engagement with the tangata whenua would have occurred before the bill was introduced to Parliament. And this would be reflected by Treaty-based protections in the bill. Instead, we have the dire situation in which our people have had to fight tooth and nail for the protection of Rongoā and Rongoā practitioners when this should never have had to be a fight. Rongoā Māori is a Treaty-protected taonga. The Government has acknowledged that this bill was the result of a 10-year work programme, and yet they totally failed to work with tangata whenua on Rongoā regulations until after the bill’s introduction. This is completely unacceptable.

The opposition of tangata whenua to the Crown regulating Rongoā has been unmistakeable, it has been loud, and it has been clear. Submission after submission to the select committee communicated this. Rongoa practitioners around the country have been generous in their time and commitment to ensuring this bill is changed. I note the submission of Tohe Ashby, heamana mō Ngā Rongoā o Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu, who laid out the whakapapa of the rights and protections which must be upheld: from He Whakaputanga, to Te Tiriti, to the Wai 262 claim, and the kōrero and findings of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry. I also acknowledge the hīkoi that arrived to the steps of Parliament in recent weeks, voicing opposition by our people. But, despite all that, the bill before the House still includes Rongoā.

We acknowledge the announcement of the Minister of Health that it is now proposed that in most cases Government will not regulate Rongoā in the new regulatory system and that they will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to make this change at the committee of the whole House stage. We appreciate her statement, on his behalf, that we are serious about protecting Rongoā and Rongoā practitioners.

Proposed changes to the bill will also ensure Rongoā activities and services operating from marae continue as usual. On that basis, we will be conditionally supporting the bill at second reading.

However, we do question why these changes weren’t made during the select committee process—an opportunity for parties to work together and make the necessary amendments before the bill was brought back to the House. We will be keeping a close eye on the provision of the SOP that has been signalled by the Minister. We will scrutinise that in detail to ensure that it sufficiently protects Rongoā and the rights and interests of tangata whenua. We hope that the Minister will work with Rongoā experts, and parties across the House, to ensure that he gets the wording right. The Crown has no right to bring Rongoā into Pākehā law, putting Rongoā practitioners at risk of civil and criminal penalties. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It’s my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill, which, as has already been mentioned in previous contributions, plans to exempt many small-scale natural health product manufacturers and rongoā practitioners from regulation under the bill as has been announced by the Minister of Health. This is due to feedback received by the Health Committee from submitters. There was a wide range of feedback, and these changes were an acknowledgment that the bill as originally drafted went a little bit too far. Particular concerns were raised around the regulatory regime for natural health products as they weren’t proportionate to the risk that was presented. And the last thing we want to do is put on additional costs that may drive those small producers out of business.

We all know those small producers in our communities. There are many in the electorate that I live in, for example, in the Waimakariri, where they’ve set up many of their local farmers markets in Kaiapoi, Rangiora, Ōhoka, and out at Oxford. They have a whole lot of herbs and spices and things like that that won’t fall under this bill. So that’s fantastic.

The bill is intended to support product safety. We took a common-sense approach, and I think we’ve struck the right balance with this regulation being proportionate to the risk. So we’ve taken a common-sense approach to this bill, and it’s striking the right balance, and, as a result, I commend it to the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Well, there’s a familiar ring about this bill—it reminds me of the Therapeutics Products and Medicines Bill 2006, which was the last time that this Government, a Labour Government, wanted to ram through big pharma regulation to impose it on our small businesses in New Zealand. Small businesses have actually set up a very successful exporting market, not only in cosmetics—and as we heard from Dr Shane Reti, $400 million worth of exports of cosmetics from New Zealand—but also on our therapeutics goods providers. We’ve heard from Te Paati Māori about the effect on traditional Māori health, and to have the Minister come and tell us today “Don’t worry, it’ll all get fixed some time”—when she does another Supplementary Order Paper—that’s simply not good enough. There was no need for this bill to come to Parliament in the first place, and when we have a situation where the New Zealand National Party, the Greens, Te Paati Māori, and the ACT Party are all on the same side, the Labour Party should be rethinking what they’re doing.

I thought it was a very defensive Minister this morning trying to justify this piece of legislation; very defensive, and the Minister told the House that there had been some people who had been against the bill. We then heard from our colleague, Nicola Grigg, the MP for Selwyn, that actually it was over 16,000 submissions against the bill, and it seems as though there were a few who were for it—and I wonder who they were; they’re not the people who either produce, sell, or consume the therapeutic natural products that people want to be able to consume.

If I look at the innovation side in health—I am obviously involved in quite a lot of that around the technology, innovation, and science areas, and I know that software is now being used in health to provide a better service for New Zealanders, and it’s the sort of work that is currently being exported. We can, at the moment, do that sort of work in New Zealand: trial it; do it—but no, this Government wants to put a whole big set of regulations onto it, and so much of this innovation comes from the smaller people—the people who are the PhD students at the universities, the people in our Crown research institutes, and the people who are actually thinking about solutions. This bill makes it harder for them to be able to get the evidence that they need to be able to then export their innovation to places like the United States, for instance—and instead, this is actually about protecting vested interests. The Minister and the Labour Party have stood up and said “Look, it’s really all about protecting New Zealanders”. Well, when someone’s got 16,000 New Zealanders who submit against being protected in that way, well, maybe they don’t want that sort of protection. And the fact is, it’s not about protecting New Zealanders: that may be the intent of the start of the bill, but it’s become this enormous great overreach.

I come back again: when you’ve got the Green Party, Te Paati Māori, the ACT Party, and the New Zealand National Party all against this legislation, it’s time for this Government to have yet another rethink, as they were forced to do in 2006. I was, at that stage, the health spokesperson for the National Party, so I’m very aware of what happened. The people who were most upset that that bill didn’t get passed were the big pharmaceuticals and the Australian Government, because they wanted to have our regulation exactly the same. And why is that? Because it is vested interest. The bill was then being driven through by Hon Annette King, who is currently the Government’s appointee to the High Commission in Australia—it is no reason for us to repeat the problems of the past. And even then, in those days, there was not the software development that is currently being undertaken. I have seen software literally changing people’s lives in healthcare: whether it’s in access to medical treatment, or whether it’s actually providing—through the use of software and artificial intelligence and data—the ability for New Zealanders who could not otherwise access it to get specialist assessment. This is amazing work that is going on, and a lot of it is coming out of Auckland in particular, and the reason is because of the drive that is there around medical technology. In fact, there is, at the moment in Newmarket, a whole new sector being set up around medical health and medical tech. We have enormous potential in this country to be a massive exporter of high-worth science that actually helps to change the world for the better, and that innovation is coming, again, from the little people; the small people—not the great big multinationals.

This bill is not needed. To hear from Dr Shane Reti about how fluoride in toothpaste will now be regulated—tell me: how many instances of overuse of fluoride in toothpastes have we had? Sunscreens are now going to be called medicines. We’ve got retinol used by some of us in our skincare, and I must say very successfully, I think—people tell me! I’m so modest, you know I am. Retinol is suddenly going to be a medicine. This is ridiculous: New Zealanders can’t even get appointments with GPs, and, suddenly, it’s going to be a medicine. New Zealanders can’t even get treatment in emergency departments, and, suddenly, it’s going to be a medicine. The whole thing is bonkers. This Government needs to actually think about—in their last few months of being in Government—the harm that they’re doing to a fledgling industry and our therapeutics producers and those who consume them because that Government thinks that they want to protect us.

Perhaps we could take some personal responsibility; I know it is a vile concept for the other side, but just occasionally, I think of some of these businesses that I’ve visited. The Ārepa people, for instance, they produce a blackcurrant drink with other things in them—it is all scientifically proven that it does actually affect people in a good way around brain health. These are the sorts of things—and they are exporting. What’s going to happen to them? I mean, I don’t know what’s going to happen to them under this, but the fact is, is that they shouldn’t be having to worry about that. It is absolutely nonsense, overreach; typical behaviour from a Government that thinks that 16,000 New Zealanders could be just ignored.

I was surprised that the former chair of the Health Committee did not want to take a longer call on this. In fact, I’ve noticed that the people who don’t want to talk about it are in fact the Labour Party. Yet, I see other parties here happy to talk about it. Why? Because this is, yet again, another anti-innovation, big multinational industry - friendly piece of legislation and, again, Government thinking it knows best. Actually, as I say, when you look at the philosophical divides in Parliament, the fact that all this side that is not Labour is against it should tell you everything. And it’s actually quite patronising to hear the Minister stand up this morning and say that the Māori therapeutics “that’ll all be fine; don’t worry about that, that’ll be fine”. Yeah, well, what about everyone else? What about those who bring in supplements from overseas or those who bring in, for instance, their own medicines that they can’t get here because they’re not on the regulated list of Pharmac; those people who have rare diseases that pharmaceuticals actually want to ask them if they can let them trial their products. What about them? Well, we’re being told that they can’t get that.

Dr Shane Reti, who is a very mild-mannered and measured person, an extremely intelligent, hard-working and experienced not only medical practitioner, but in many other ways, researcher—when he says that this is a really dopey bill, he’s right; it’s a really dopey bill. We’re trying to fix something that the Government thinks is going to come. It’s almost 20 years since they last tried to do it, and it’s in the next 20 years that we should see anything like it. It’s absolutely ridiculous; we stand against this bill.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Therapeutic Products Bill at the second reading. I would like to commend the Health Committee who have worked through what is, as you can see, a substantial piece of work that has been many years in the making. As we’ve heard there have been many, many submissions to the select committee in this process. Variable submissions, as you will often see when you have a great deal of submissions—as we’ve seen with other pieces of legislation passed through—with very significant and real concerns raised by experts and also by people who were affected, who were very specific, and I’m going to explore those and see how we have addressed those in the amendments in a moment.

Unfortunately, though, it’s also true to say that the committee was bombarded with many submissions—in addition to many submissions that were valid and came from an expert point of view—that I would describe as being weaponised by misinformation and disinformation. That’s not to say that there were not serious concerns, and that amendments didn’t have to be made. We should know by now in the House that the purpose of the select committee is to ensure that the best possible legislation is presented at the second reading, and that when we actually move any piece of legislation through the House, the concerns that are raised at select committee have been addressed, because that’s literally the purpose of a select committee. It’s a little frustrating for me to hear that process being misrepresented in the House.

I want to explore a couple of really serious concerns that were raised by submitters and by constituents, to me. One was the importation of medicines for personal use—a very serious issue. Clause 105 in the bill, as it was brought to us in its first stage, was indeed going to restrict access. So that has been amended to remove the prohibition on importing prescription medicines as part of the delivery conditions, providing that if it’s a prescription medicine, it would need to be prescribed by a New Zealand health practitioner prescriber for that medicine, and for the intention of being used by a patient in New Zealand. Which I think will reassure many people who expressed very serious concerns on lifesaving medication that they may not be able to import. That is covered, thank goodness, by the hard work of the committee.

The Government members were also committed from the very beginning to ensure that rongoā Māori was not going to be captured by this legislation, and we will see a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) being presented to ensure that Māori will determine what rongoā is, and who is a rongoā practitioner, and protect it from those who might abuse it. But to protect rongoā is incredibly important, and we recognised that from the get-go, as indeed we did, the need to exempt small-scale natural health product manufacturers who will not need, under the SOP to be introduced, to get a product authorisation or manufacturing licence from the new regulator. For that reason, I have confidence in this bill and the Supplementary Order Papers to come, and I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 71

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Emergency Management Bill

First Reading

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management: I present a legislative statement on the Emergency Management Bill.

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

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I move, That the Emergency Management Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

I wish to start by acknowledging the work done by the parliamentary colleagues who also recognised the need to strengthen our emergency management system. In particular, they are the Hon Kiritapu Allan, who led the initial development of this bill, and former civil defence Ministers the Hon Peeni Henare and the Hon Kris Faafoi, and, in his absence—as I am delivering the speech on his behalf—the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

The development of the Emergency Management Bill continues the work of predecessors to implement the Government’s response to the Ministerial Review: Better Responses to Natural Disasters and Other Emergencies in New Zealand. This review was set up by the Hon Gerry Brownlee in 2017 to advise on the most appropriate operational and legislative mechanisms to support effective responses to natural disasters and other emergencies, and I acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee for establishing a cross-party group in 2017. Emergencies are above politics. We need a system that will work for all New Zealanders, regardless of who is in Government.

The frequency, complexity, and consequences of recent emergencies like Cyclone Gabrielle have highlighted the importance of updating the legislation to improve how we manage risks, respond to and recover from emergencies, and empower and support community resilience. The Emergency Management Bill will repeal and replace the now two-decade-old Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. The strength of our emergency management system is that it is locally led. The bill reinforces that approach and makes some practical improvements to ensure the system is best placed for the future. It is not designed as a fundamental transformation of the emergency management system.

Terminology: I am going to take this opportunity today to outline some of the key changes the bill introduces. First, the bill replaces the term “civil defence” in the current Act with “emergency management”. Current civil defence emergency management groups will become emergency management committees. This is consistent with international practice and better reflects the broad and integrated nature of the emergency management sector.

Roles and responsibilities: second, there is a lack of clarity about the respective roles and responsibilities of civil defence emergency management groups, and local authorities have impacted the effectiveness of the emergency management system. To improve role clarity, for example, the bill specifies the distinct and separate functions of local authorities and emergency management committees.

There is also some uncertainty about the scope of the roles and responsibilities of agencies that play a role in leading or supporting emergency management activities. Managing the consequences of emergencies does not always sit neatly with the lead agency and may require other agencies to provide support—for example, providing welfare services or temporary accommodation for people who have had to leave their home.

The bill includes a new power for regulations to be made relating to the roles and responsibilities of lead and support agencies. This power is subject to specified safeguards, including a requirement to consult with relevant Ministers and Public Service agencies’ chief executives.

Enhancing Māori participation: next, this bill recognises the important role Māori play in our emergency management system and enhances Māori participation at all levels—national, regional, and local—and across strategic planning and operational activity. Māori, including iwi, whānau, hapū, and marae, already play an important role in Aotearoa New Zealand’s emergency management system, but it is not expressly referenced in the 2002 Act. Māori have significant knowledge and expertise as well as resources that are activated early in times of emergency. Time and time again, we have seen Māori respond swiftly to emergencies and carry out vital work in supporting the welfare of everyone in their communities. For example, during the Auckland floods in January this year, Manurewa Marae provided kai packs and set up a phone line for people in the community to ring if they needed support, and again, during Cyclone Gabrielle, we saw iwi, hapū, and marae mobilise to help with evacuations and support impacted whānau.

Given the role that Māori play in response, it makes sense to ensure that they have a guaranteed presence on the committees that plan for such responses. The bill introduces a requirement to include Māori members on both the emergency management committees and emergency management co-ordinating executives formally co-ordinating executive groups. It is important that Māori members are appointed via systems that are developed locally. To achieve this, the bill enables regulations to prescribe locally appropriate appointment mechanisms for members which will be developed with Māori and local government. The bill also requires emergency management committees to collaborate with Māori and iwi in the development of local emergency management plans.

At the national level, the bill establishes a new National Māori Emergency Management Advisory Group to provide advice to the Director of Emergency Management on Māori interests and knowledge relevant to emergency management. The bill also recognises the role of Māori in emergency management by including Māori in the national emergency management plans.

The bill enhances the resilience and accountability of critical infrastructure. As you will all know, Cyclone Gabrielle caused significant damage to critical infrastructure, including transport networks and telecommunications. Cyclone Gabrielle and other recent severe weather events have highlighted just how vulnerable these systems are. The ability of infrastructure systems to function during adverse conditions and quickly recover to acceptable levels of service after an event is fundamental to the wellbeing of communities.

The Emergency Management Bill introduces several changes to the increase of resilience in New Zealand’s infrastructure and infrastructure services before, during, and after emergencies. These include clarifying the roles and responsibilities of critical infrastructure entities in emergency management, a requirement for critical infrastructure entities to develop or contribute to the development of sector-specific plans for responding to and recovering from emergencies, a requirement for critical infrastructure entities to establish and publicly state the levels of service they plan on being able to provide during and after an emergency, and a requirement for critical infrastructure entities to report annually to the Director of Emergency Management and their regulatory agencies on how they are planning on meeting their obligations under the bill. I acknowledge there has been some concern about the potential cost impacts of these changes on critical infrastructure entities, and I welcome the select committee considering this further.

Enabling equitable outcomes: we know that emergencies can amplify existing inequalities and disproportionately impact some population groups, including rural communities, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, seniors, and disabled people. To ensure that their needs are met in emergency response and recovery, the bill requires emergency management committees to engage with representatives of these communities during the development of their emergency management committee plan.

Emergency management rules: finally, the bill updates the legal framework on emergency management. This includes empowering the Director of Emergency Management to make rules for the emergency management system and for the inclusion of the new infringement scheme to achieve compliance with the law and reduce harm caused by minor offending.

Select committee process and recommendations: the bill takes into account many lessons identified from numerous emergencies that New Zealand has experienced, and I encourage the select committee to consider whether further amendments could be made to the bill to adopt improvements in response to more recent emergencies.

New Zealanders are and will continue to be at risk from a broad range of hazards and threats. It’s critical that we work together to ensure the legislation that underpins the emergency management system is inclusive, modern, and enduring. I encourage people and organisations to make submissions on the bill at the select committee. Hearing a wide range of views and experiences and being open to ideas and change is essential for ensuring that the legislation that underpins our emergency management system is inclusive and will deliver better outcomes for all people before, during, and after emergencies. The goal of the Emergency Management Bill is to set the emergency management system up to be responsive and to deliver for all people in Aotearoa New Zealand, and I commend it to the House.

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

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Minister Willow-Jean Prime for her remarks. I think it’s important that these discussions in the space of emergency management, as we’re calling it these days, continue across the House and, of course, across New Zealand. Of course, I’d be remiss not to acknowledge those who as recently as February of this year, and, actually, even more recently in the Tairāwhiti region—places like Gisborne—have been very hard hit this year. So even though the emphasis of this bill is rightly looking forward at ways that these procedures and policies should be implemented in the future, of course, we have a very recent and in some cases tragic example of what can happen when natural disaster strikes, and so it’s appropriate that we all take this very seriously indeed.

I regret to point out to the House that while the aims of the bill are worthy—and, indeed, even some of the detail, too—what is missing from this bill is very serious in terms of some omissions of lessons that should have been learnt from early 2023 and that are playing out very much on the ground in areas like Hawke’s Bay. It’s not limited to that, but that region was hit particularly hard, and I know from having visited residents of Eskdale and Pakowhai as recently as this week that they would not be comfortable, I think, for this bill to be debated in the House without some of the serious, significant shortfalls of that response and recovery—so far—without those issues being raised, so I will do that.

In doing so, I should point out that National doesn’t regard this bill as being sufficiently complete or comprehensive enough to be worthy of support at its first reading, but we do commit to constructive engagement through the legislative process. No doubt at select committee we and, more importantly, members of the New Zealand public will have the opportunity to make submissions about how they feel this bill may or may not be fit for purpose. To avoid going through the details, I acknowledge the Minister has set out in her ministerial statement a number of the key elements of the bill, and to the extent that these are worthy of support—for example, emphasising a locally-led recovery—of course we support those, but with caveats, and I’ll come to those shortly.

To focus, though, perhaps as helpfully as possible in my time available, I do wish to emphasise the areas in which it seems to me—unless I’m missing something obvious—that there are some major gaps. The first is immunity from prosecution. There have been examples that have been raised with me in the Hawke’s Bay region of actions that were taken at the time in good faith by people acting in, frankly, heroic fashion to assist to save the lives of their fellow Kiwis in an hour of need, and to learn now that they face the prospect of legal action that would take a business-as-usual approach to matters of compliance with various norms, and without the acknowledgment that the scenario is very much one that was not normal, it is disappointing. I won’t tread in dangerous territory to comment on a matter that’s currently before the New Zealand courts, but suffice to say the lessons of White Island should be heeded in terms of emergency responses undertaken, again, in good faith versus business-as-usual health and safety at work practices—enough said.

Although, on a related note, in terms of looking back at emergency responses and the way that people acted in that very immediate way, it’s been disappointing, again, to discover that now there is an unseemly haggling between central government and local government in terms of who is going to pay the costs of some of those actions. I understand that helicopter fuel is an element of that in terms of sign-offs being given and actions being taken in good faith, and, actually, to my understanding, very helpfully indeed. I think if the lesson to be learnt from that is that people will put themselves in financial or legal risk by doing the right thing by their fellow Kiwis, including at the organisational level for local government, and therefore they’d be acting against their own interests and therefore disincentivised in the future, that would be very disappointing and indeed dangerous. I don’t think that the current bill in its current form addresses that. If I’m wrong, then I’ll very happily withdraw and apologise, but it seems to me that that’s a major gap that this bill should address.

Second, I think—if I can put this as kindly as I’m able—the focus of the bill is bureaucratic as opposed to practical in tone. Clarifying roles and responsibilities across the system is helpful in itself, but to be largely silent on the issue of allowing resources in the form of funding to be spent in short order on the ground to enable a good response seems to me an obvious gap. While, obviously, this kind of legislation wouldn’t anticipate specific appropriations—there are separate Budget and other public finance mechanisms for that—I think that’s something that should be spelt out very clearly. We do need to understand in what ways it will be that local community groups—including iwi, but not limited to iwi—can spend money to the betterment of their people in a way that reflects the actual need on the ground at short notice, be it blankets, food, and so forth, without the need for discomfort of a financial or other nature later.

Third, there doesn’t seem to be much of a role for the private sector other than the community and NGO and iwi Māori kind of way. While it is absolutely appropriate and, we would say in the National Party, it is indeed the best thing to focus on those community organisations as part of a broader ethos of locally-led response, I think to miss a trick in terms of the ability for investment to be provided from outside Government or the community sector—which tends not to be particularly well resourced moneywise—is I think, again, a missed opportunity.

Finally, I do want to just pick up on this notion of a locally-led response. We like that philosophically in the National Party, and, actually, to give credit where it’s due, if we give the full range of the phrase as expressed in select committee, for example, by Minister Grant Robertson, “locally-led but centrally supported”. That’s worthy, as I say, at a philosophical level, but the reality is that lessons that should have been learnt that are taking place right now in terms of the mismanagement of various aspects of the current crisis response/recovery—those lessons need to be heeded.

So to talk about a locally-led response, but to have a situation where in the Hawke’s Bay some $8.8 million is in danger of being transferred back to Wellington because the mechanisms weren’t sufficiently well set-up or operated to get that money out to the people in desperate need there—that’s a major miss. So too is the idea that local government in its current form and in areas with large geographical needs—big areas, but small ratepayer bases—have the resources to advise on all the things that are needed. That’s really difficult, and that’s not an easy one, because, again, philosophically we like the idea of localism and, generally speaking, our flavour of arguing these matters in asset management is very much geared towards supporting local. But the reality is that when systems are set up without sufficient clarity or without the central support that’s been touted, then that’s the inevitable result.

So too if we think about the debris waste removal fund. It’s quite a generous amount of money, arguably, provided by local government for that—or, at least, announced and actually allocated—but the reality is a very small fraction of that’s actually gone out the door. Again, if we don’t do anything in this opportunity that we have before us now to enable that to be unlocked, then that would be disappointing and a miss.

I do also just want to touch briefly on the aspect whereby the bill seeks to recognise and enhance Māori participation. We think that’s positive in itself, and it’s absolutely right that the minister acknowledges—as many people have done—the role of marae and other Māori-based organisations in opening their doors and helping to respond to local need. I think we wouldn’t be doing justice, however, to other groups in the community if we didn’t also recognise those who open doors of RSAs, churches, sports clubs, community halls, and so forth, and, indeed, individuals in their homes, and I appreciate that’s harder to contemplate in a legislative sense. But our view is that we should be supporting all local mechanisms and community groups, and to set out one, even acknowledging the Treaty of Waitangi aspect and basis for that—I think we’ll do ourselves a disservice if we don’t have a broad enough view that actually looks to take on the community knowledge and resources of all types of local groups.

So for all these reasons, we want to support the bill, but we’d need to see some considerable additional work, as I’ve outlined in this speech. So, at this stage, National does not support this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a call on the first reading of the Emergency Management Bill. Can I acknowledge Minister Kieran McAnulty for the work that he has done to get the bill to this point and have it introduced to the House. I’m looking forward to the select committee process, where we can consider, I am going to anticipate, a significant number of submissions so that we can improve the bill and bring it back to the House to improve our emergency management system in New Zealand.

In my electorate of Nelson, we have what I’d call a well-oiled machine in our local emergency management response That is due to people having worked together over a number of incidents, including Cyclones Gita and Fehi, the Pigeon Valley fires, COVID-19, and, most recently, the August floods in the Nelson region. Can I acknowledge in particular two outstanding individuals, Roger Ball and Alec Lavertis, who have led our local responses to many of these events.

I want to acknowledge that our team has learnt through many examples exactly what a locally led and centrally supported response looks like. Part of that has included iwi liaison officers, and our local civil defence response has been one of the models that is being used in the implementation now through this legislation of how we properly partner with iwi Māori. I want to acknowledge Shane Graham, Barney Thomas, Dexter Traill, Aroha Gilling, and, most recently, Rebecca Mason for the work that they have done leading the iwi work within the Nelson-Tasman civil defence system. I note that iwi leaders have conducted mechanisms like Coordinated Incident Management System training to ensure that they are well resourced to support the response that we have in our region.

I’m very much looking forward to this bill coming through the select committee so that we can also look at the exact matters that Mr Penk raised around the response to events of this year and look to any further inclusions we can make in this bill. I commend it to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this is an important piece of legislation that is being proposed here, and I think especially in the context of what we’ve seen over the recent weather events of the last six months in particular, that has led to a significant impact for many communities around the country. When we consider how we might evolve our response and how we might better deliver outcomes for those communities, it is appropriate that indeed we should be reviewing the legislation from time to time, but then have more granular reviewing, of course, after those instances, those individual responses, to ensure that we take any lessons learnt and implement them as effectively as possible to enhance future responses and to minimise the impact for those that are suffering through some particular emergency event, as it may be.

Now, the focus of that review, of course, should be around how we can ensure we are delivering the best outcome for all New Zealanders, and I think that’s the critical thing here. To Mr Penk’s point, we’re not supporting this piece of legislation, because we do have concerns that the focus is not where it should be. Having a disproportionate focus on one part of our society rather than all New Zealanders, indeed, I believe will lead to poorer outcomes from an emergency management response perspective and, therefore, poorer outcomes for those impacted communities, which ultimately should not be the intent of the legislation—and I don’t believe it is. We need to ensure that we can evolve, as I said, partly because this legislation now is 20 years old, but, actually, as we look through that, the way in which we respond to events, the technology available, and the things that become important or need to be prioritised can change over that time as well.

So, of course, in that context it is appropriate that we do consider it, and there are many aspects within the proposed legislation that we are quite comfortable with, particularly some of the technical aspects that are really just modernising that stuff. It all broadly makes sense. We don’t have a particular issue with that.

The key concern, though, as I touched on and I will expand on more, is that we are seeing a focus particularly around the needs of one part of our society and not all, and for me, that’s a real concern. When I think about the diversity of communities in my electorate in the Waikato, we have some incredible diversity. We have a whole range of different ethnicities represented there.

We have a whole range of different priorities or different backgrounds, different groupings, within that in terms of urban or rural, younger, older—any number of different mechanisms by which our communities across the country are made up. We need to consider the needs of all of these different groups and how best to respond to deliver the right outcomes for them, because, ultimately, any piece of emergency management legislation should be there to provide the maximum benefit for all New Zealanders, to minimise the impact for them in terms of the consequences they may face as they are preparing for or, indeed, are in an emergency event, and to ensure that we have the best mechanisms available to deliver the fastest, most appropriate response.

I think one of the concerns we have here as well is that we’re adding more bureaucracy in—or what’s being proposed in this bill by the Government is looking to add more bureaucracy in—and creating separate groups in terms of the new functions for the National Māori Emergency Management Advisory Group, the requirement to include Māori members on emergency committees, and, indeed, requiring those emergency management committees to collaborate with Māori. With all these things, any existing committee would be considering the needs of their broader community, and, indeed, I’m confident it’s the case in the Waikato that our civil defence emergency management committees are currently set up considering the needs of all New Zealanders—as they absolutely should be—rather than having a specific focus on one ethnicity over others and potentially then having a different set of outcomes for different people within the communities.

When I talk to our civil defence groups at the moment, they are very well grounded in their communities. They understand the needs, they are engaging with those different parts of our society in our local communities to ensure that a good understanding is held of those needs, and, indeed, incorporating people with skill sets, where necessary, to enable those groupings to ensure the best outcome is delivered in the most timely manner. I think this is going too far in terms of legislating to create that particular requirement when, indeed, most communities are already considering it, and there’s nothing stopping them from being encouraged to do so to ensure that they are more broadly representing their communities if they’re not, although I doubt that there would be any that are in that position.

But, ultimately, we need to get to the point where we are working alongside and understanding all of those needs, and I’ve talked to that a few times because, actually, it is quite important. It’s not just the needs of Māori within our communities; it’s the needs of all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity, and, indeed, all the different groupings. Mr Penk touched on some of the community groups, the RSAs, the churches, and the community halls that are involved in some of these responses. There’s also a whole range of other groups like the Rural Support Trust, Federated Farmers, Taskforce Kiwi, Student Volunteer Army—all these groupings that have a role to play in any emergency management response, and we need to ensure that we are creating a piece of legislation that best enables our emergency responders and our planners to deliver the best outcome. There will always be an impact for our communities when we see these sorts of events, but preparing for that, minimising that impact, and ensuring we are delivering consistent outcomes across the board surely has to be the focus, rather than coming in with what appears to be more bureaucracy, and, I believe, it will risk slowing down the response process rather than enhancing it.

Finally, I just want to touch on the reimbursement aspect as well, because that’s another area in this piece of legislation that outlines a more detailed process for reimbursement of Māori, but no one else. Also, when we look at that in the context of, again, some of the comments Mr Penk made about the impact in the East Coast region currently and some of the frustration that’s coming through around the inability to have money flowing through the system when it is available for these emergencies responses, costs have been incurred in good faith by community members individually and by groups that have all chipped in, stepped up, stood up to help out.

Ultimately, that’s what really matters. We want to ensure that people continue to do that, and if we’re not able to streamline and have an efficient process to reimburse those costs, then there is a risk that we’d create a situation where people may think twice about helping out, and I think a great example is the helicopter fuel. It’s an expensive cost but it played a vital function, especially as most people will remember seeing video footage of the rooftop rescue that took place with one helicopter balancing a skid on the roof of a house which was nearly fully under water and rescuing some people off the roof. Those sorts of things are fantastic to see when people are prepared to step up and have the skills and assess the ability to deliver outcomes, and they should indeed be compensated for that in a timely manner.

Those are the sorts of practical things that we really need to focus on when we are enhancing our emergency management legislation to ensure that we can better deliver outcomes, we can reflect on what’s happened in the past, and, ultimately, bring that forward to help minimise that impact and reduce the risk, obviously, from a preparatory phase in terms or preparing or reducing the likelihood of an impact, but then when an impact occurs, ensure we’re there to provide support and, indeed, then, after the fact, making sure that appropriate recognition and reimbursement occurs.

So we’re not supporting it at this first reading. We do look forward, however, to hearing submissions throughout the next phase—the select committee phase—and following this through in the hope that we can get some practical changes, because, ultimately, this is an area where we need to work together. We are prepared to do that, but this bill as it stands is not the right solution. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll begin my contribution just by recognising the tireless work of the Minister in terms of the emergency management response from a central level this year in what has been a really horrific year for many people.

I would just say in response to Tim van de Molen, the last speaker, that in terms of reimbursement and the recognition of Māori, the fact is that often it is marae who open their doors to all New Zealanders when we’ve seen these emergency situations play out. However, I do take the point from Mr Penk that we do need to look at the network on the ground and ensure that local entities are being supported.

Upper Harbour is a north-west Auckland electorate, and it’s one of the places in New Zealand that was severely affected by the weather events of this year. From Massey to Tōtara Vale and out a bit further to Muriwai, there are people who have been horrifically affected. They’ve welcomed the Government’s response in terms of the indications of central support, but in addition to looking backwards and needing that support, they also want reassurance that we’re planning for the risks of the future. So I do believe that this will be a very welcome bill for many, and I agree with colleagues in their anticipation of many submissions in this space.

This is really a bill about modernising our approach to emergency response in a changing world, and while we’re doing that, we still have an underlying principle which remains the same, which is that it will be a locally led response, regionally coordinated, and centrally supported. I do think that that ought to remain at the heart of any emergency response. I do look forward to reviewing the submissions that come in on this bill, which I’m sure will include constituents from north-west Auckland, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to discuss this bill at first reading: the Emergency Management Bill. This is obviously a very important and salient topic for New Zealanders, and my thoughts certainly go out to those who were affected by recent events and are still being affected.

This bill has been touted as not a fundamental transformation of the emergency management system, and it’s pretty understandable why and I couldn’t agree more. As a bit of background, this bill has been in the works for some time now and is ostensibly a result of the 2017 ministerial review that was launched under the previous Government. Between the actual drafting and the first reading this morning, we’ve obviously gone through multiple emergencies in the meantime which have significantly challenged the operational side of emergency management and stress-tested the coordination between agencies. The outcomes there have been very interesting to look at and have generated many lessons for future responses, independent of this piece of legislation.

So I’m curious as to how many of the lessons from the cyclone Cyclone Gabrielle, in particular, are in this bill, given the timing of its arrival in this House, because operationally the response has been a bit of a mess. This bill prescribes a considerable amount of detail and procedure with a view to “managing the emergency management system across … risk reduction, readiness, response, and recovery”. So it claims to do some pretty grand things, while at the same time claiming to not be particularly transformational of the emergency management system.

It was interesting—and other members have spoken about localism—to note in the Minister’s statement that “The strength of our emergency management system is that it is locally led.” I say that it’s interesting because we’ve just had recently two pieces of legislation passed in this Parliament under urgency where this Government gave themselves enormous powers with an emphasis on centralisation and, of course, a response led from the Beehive’s bunker. So either the best approach is locally led or centrally led, and it can’t really have it on either of those extremes. Further, on the ground they have to decide if those efforts should be led by civil defence teams or other groups, or perhaps it’s iwi-led, and if there’s a lack of clarity here, then the same problems with communication and coordination will continue.

If I can refer to an article by Radio New Zealand, where they stated that “Legislation [that] was tabled in Parliament [is] to try to head off a repeat of the crippling effects of another Cyclone Gabrielle.”, and I would just ask how do we know. The official response to that cyclone was “Henry VIII” bills, and if this bill isn’t intended to be transformative, given we’re lagging behind in international standards in this space, how is this bill supposed to avoid those effects? It is useful to note that according to the legislative statement, this bill contains lessons learnt from the likes of the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s interesting, because if there were useful lessons from the pandemic, then were those lessons not learnt prior to Cyclone Gabrielle?

So if we turn to some of the key points of the legislation, there is a clarification that committees are responsible for regional coordination and governance, and local authority members for leading and delivering local emergency management to their communities and participating in the committee. There’s that emphasis on localism, again, which I re-emphasise is arguably not consistent with the approaches taken this year.

Then we turn to a fairly significant part of the bill, which is that it “recognises and enhances Māori participation in the emergency management system”, and that sounds very good. Obviously, iwi-owned organisations already do play a significant role in emergency response, with the nature of that role depending on the regions affected. Following Cyclone Gabrielle, in particular—especially over there in Tairāwhiti—many iwi-led organisations were doing much of the heavy lifting in terms of getting resources to people in need, and they continue to do so, even without this legislation in place. Of course, as Chris Penk pointed out, so did a whole range of other charities, and under this bill I think it’s useful to ask, looking into the future, who will manage some of those resources in future. Will the mayoral funds, for instance, or will the Red Cross be allowed to continue the work that it does and the money it collects and the allocation, although I understand now that with a lot of the money that the Government has put forward, there have been challenges getting that through to the communities.

This bill is not just about engagement, though. It fundamentally establishes the National Emergency Management Advisory (NEMA) group to advise the Director of Emergency Management—OK. It mandates that Māori members be appointed to the emergency management committees and emergency management coordinating executives and it requires emergency management committees to collaborate with Māori on the development of the committees’ plans. So therein lies a bit of a problem for us with this bill, because what it lacks in transformation and actual usefulness and coordination, it tries to make up for by somehow being a co-governance bill, and it is almost as if there was a starting point of “Let’s do something more around co-governance. Well, we’ve got this emergency management stuff that’s been under way for a while, let’s take that on to the end of it.” So whatever good things are in this bill, they have been overshadowed by ideology and the motivation for doing it—which is disappointing—in addition to the timing.

So I’m really just asking fundamental questions, I think, for the select committee: what measurable outcomes are they trying to achieve with this, and how will it be different to the level of collaboration that already exists today in the engagement and in the services provided in marae opening their doors—all of this stuff that’s already happening. Why is this legislation actually necessary?

Moving on, there’s also the unsubstantiated and unclear raid on the private sector: “requiring critical infrastructure entities to … share information with the National Emergency Management Agency, [other] agencies, and … Committees for [their own] planning:”. It will require them to “establish and publish” their plans. It will require “annual reporting to the Director” as ongoing compliance, and, as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) says, while this was unlikely to provide meaningful information, companies sort of did this anyway.

Companies from electricity to comms companies and port companies opposed this, saying that it was more red tape and costs. So it was unclear why they were doing that, and, really, the deal is where’s the focus on resilience, building resilience, and improving wastewater, hospitals, and roading? What are the expectations for Waka Kotahi, what’s happening with Wellington Hospital—the list goes on.

So where’s that resilience aspect? It’s just a whole lot of compliance and bureaucracy, fundamentally, and during Cyclone Gabrielle, the Government did not even make it clear that they should reconnect first emergency services, hospitals, something else—telcos. Telecommunications were obviously not prioritised and there were lots of lots of issues there. They were doing their part, they did their part very well, and it seems like they’re just getting hit with compliance.

The committee will be required to engage with communities disproportionately impacted by emergencies—on the face of it, that seems fine. It’s a bit unclear and non-specific. Notwithstanding that, it sounds pragmatic, but that’s what an efficient and effective system does, based on people’s needs, anyway. It shouldn’t need to be put into the legislation; it should be expected, and I would say that if officials have been ignoring the worst-affected people in recent events, they should probably be sacked.

I’ll just turn quickly to some of MBIE’s concerns. They’ve stated that “Planning Emergency Levels of Service … are unlikely to achieve stated objectives—the … regime is unlikely to provide meaningful information to communities, …the costs of [these] reforms are unclear”, and those are very concerning comments. They note that “there is very little detail on what role/functions of lead agencies [of] NEMA and CDEM”—and, I mean, this is extraordinary. With the amount of content in this bill, that sort of feedback is quite worrying.

It is not clear what immediate action is being taken among the raft of agencies to fill the gaps. No agency has responsibility for the critical infrastructure system, and a number of critical sectors are not subject to regulation around their resilience at all. So the raid on the private sector isn’t even especially focused and it’s not very well-thought-out.

So the whole system is a game of catch-up for New Zealand by international standards, with other developed countries more advanced on their disaster-proofing their services in the face of the growing threats and the increasing threats here in New Zealand. In light of what’s going on in other countries, we just have to ask: how does this bill actually help? It just seems like it’s rearranging the deckchairs. Really, the Government needs to solve resilience, get rid of the ideology, let the private sector help, don’t close the runways, enable funding to actually reach communities, and don’t pretend looting and crime isn’t happening, because that’s extremely unhelpful and it’s gaslighting locals. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I’m pleased to take a call on the Emergency Management Bill—which the Green Party is supporting—having come from a part of a very good seminar by The Aotearoa Circle and a presentation by Dr Rob Murdoch of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) this morning, highlighting the increasing risk of severe weather events, and also noting the comments of Dr Nicholas Stern way back in 2006, who said that “the benefits of strong and early action on climate change far outweigh the [economic] costs of not acting.” We know that we’re getting more severe weather events as a result of a changing climate. That is having a huge impact on people, communities, and the economy, and I acknowledge those personal impacts that a lot of people have felt to their homes, property, and their communities this year.

This bill, in seeking to modernise the emergency management system, draws on the work that was done by the technical advisory group set up by the Hon Gerry Brownlee back in 2017, and then the Government’s response to that. It is about making that system better placed to respond to these severe weather events and other emergencies like pandemics. There is a change in the language. I think from now on, rather than civil defence, it will be known as emergency management.

Speakers from National and ACT have both been critical of the provisions that provide for greater recognition of Māori participation in the emergency management system. The Green Party sees that as strengthening that system because of the huge role that marae have played in emergencies, in hosting so many people. In Tairāwhiti at the moment, the marae there are still accommodating people who have lost their homes because of weather events. So it is just ensuring that it happens everywhere, not just in those communities which have already done this, such as Tairāwhiti.

Similarly, there are requirements in the bill that each emergency management committee must identify and engage with communities within its area that may be disproportionately affected by emergencies. In the past, civil defence hasn’t always thought carefully about people with disabilities and what services needed to be provided to support them in quite challenging events where mobility may be limited for some, and then what happens when there is flooding? I think too, that it’s useful to make the roles and responsibilities across the whole system at that national, regional, and local level clearer, and to have an explicit rule-making power for the Director of Emergency Management.

But what I would like to comment on most is the requirement in the bill that requires critical infrastructure entities to establish and publish their planned emergency-level response, because we saw in Cyclone Gabrielle, one of the most destructive storms to ever hit Aotearoa, that we had at the height of the crisis more than 660 cellphone towers which were offline. That led to huge stress for communities. People were unable to contact loved ones in the region and find out if they were alive or if they were OK, power was cut to more than 250,000 people, and entire regions were cut off from telecommunications for extended periods. People had to wait days to hear news of their families, and even the fire and emergency services were cut off from their own control rooms because of that lack of power.

Where you get essential services disrupted, that does increase the impact on human health and welfare, and on mental health. So the requirement in this bill, and the setting out in places like clause 54 of the duties of critical infrastructure entities, is I think a very welcome improvement.

ACT has been critical of it for raiding the private sector, but we have seen—and you will be well aware, Madam Assistant Speaker Williams—that in Christchurch after the earthquakes, it was because Orion had had a proactive strategy of investing in seismic resilience and ensuring that its substations, which were often small brick buildings, were strengthened over a period of years that it did enable Orion to restore electricity services much more quickly after those big quakes than it would have been able to if they hadn’t had that proactive, foresighted response. Being a bit of a geek, I looked up a 2011 report that the Kestrel Group did in reviewing the resilience lessons of Orion’s 2010 and 2011 earthquake experience, and that report said that a driver for those improvements and that investment in resilience had been to avoid major outages. Orion coined the term “MOCHED”—major outage causing huge economic disruption. That term and that culture was embedded within the organisation, so their investment strategy, their work, was around that, and it led to Orion being one of the most reliable electricity suppliers in Aotearoa.

It’s that same focus on resilience that this bill is set to embed in the emergency management system by requiring people like the telcos to have much more of a plan to publish what their emergency level of service will be and to report on how they meet the obligations in the bill, because it seemed that the big telcos, in response to Cyclone Gabrielle, said, “Well, it wasn’t really our fault. It was because there was a power outage.” So rather than thinking, “OK, we’re going to get power outages in a major storm. How do we provide against that? Do we have diesel generators?”—which we wouldn’t necessarily want at every cell phone tower. But how do we cover for that?

So I think this bill is quite important in the responsibilities that it is going to put on those big infrastructure providers, the lifeline utilities, in just ensuring that their resilience planning is really up to scale with the size and impact of what we are facing in the current climate emergency, with the increased likelihood of more severe storm events. With droughts come a much higher fire risk. We saw the huge impacts of that both in Nelson and the Port Hills fire in Christchurch. With increased storm events, there are more risks of flash floods—as we’ve seen in Tāmaki-makau-rau—and rivers flooding, and how the emergency services actually respond to that.

So I think it is modernising the emergency management network, but one of the critical parts is the requirements that it will have on infrastructure providers and getting them to really invest in future thinking, and perhaps following the example of Orion, which had looked at seismic resilience, having recognised that that was a key issue for it in Canterbury, even though at the time earthquakes were not common in that region. We do need to plan ahead, and the Green Party is pleased to support this bill.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand here and take a call on the Emergency Management Bill at its first reading, and I want to thank all the Ministers that have been involved in bringing it here today. I stand by the statement: “The strength of our emergency management system is that it is locally led.” The bill will set the emergency management system to be more responsive and it will lay the foundation for regulations appropriate for the hazards this country is exposed to. It makes some practical improvements to ensure the system is best placed so that our next generations feel safe and they have a future, and a future for those yet to come. It will help to minimise those risks and help them to manage them in the future.

The bill does recognise the lessons from the recent major emergency experiences. We want communities to be better prepared to respond and recover from these emergency situations. I know for a fact that there are communities already doing their bit to be better prepared—for example, locally, my local kaunihere, kaumātua o Whanganui. They are already asking the questions around how they can strengthen their communities, how can they strengthen themselves, and how can they put together their own little emergency management plans during these times. For them, they are concerned about their friends and their whānau that live alone. Who is going to take care of them? Who is going to go and look for them? Who is going to be there to awhi and to manaaki them?

Notwithstanding, of course, that iwi and Māori communities have the ability to execute, they have the ability to manoeuvre, and they have the ability to expedite help and support to whānau, hapū, and the communities around them. They are passionate about always including the wider communities around their marae. I’ve seen their ability to regroup as a region. I’ve seen how they can bring leaders together and people on the ground within minutes and within hours consecutively. This is not unique to one community either, nor is it unique to one marae or hapū; this can happen across the motu—this can happen across Aotearoa.

For me, it does make sense to ensure that any considerations be taken into careful and serious thought when it comes to developing the bill, and I want to acknowledge too that the bill talks about enhancing the ability for Māori and iwi to participate. So I acknowledge that their contribution to emergency situations is spoken of within this bill. This will be done, of course, by clarifying who is doing what, and the roles and the responsibilities. This bill is geared towards inclusive, community-led responses to natural disasters and health events, as well as towards continuing to work with the iwi and with Māori, given the vital role they play in the emergency management.

This will not remove existing local and regional responses and recovery roles, nor change the emergency powers available under the state of emergency. But what it will do is it will repeal and replace the current two-decade-old Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Simon O’Connor—five minutes.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. Look, I’m happy to address this first reading of the Emergency Management Bill. As the Parliament has heard, the National Party does not support this bill. We fundamentally don’t think this is the right bill or the right set of proposed new rules to actually sort the situation.

In some ways, it’s echoed already by officials within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—or, as we know it, MBIE—who, as I understand it, were recommending that, actually, we should be doing a much wider, broader, or, if you will, wholesome set of changes into emergency management, and the best way to illustrate that is this bill looks, I would argue, far more on the bureaucratic and administrative side of things.

I think the Minister for Emergency Management himself has said that this is around management changes, and that’s fine. We know from events that happen around the country that there’s always a chance for improvement. But this bill is quite narrow in what it is trying to do, particularly around, as I say, management—if you want to call that bureaucracy, administration, or whatever. It’s not, unfortunately, looking at the more resilient side of things, and a few speakers in the House have talked about this. With the recent weather events that we’ve had around the country and the likes of cellphone towers and wider telecommunication systems, there was the lack of resilience, the lack of priority of which of those should be brought online first. It is not clear, and this bill does not—it does not—address those issues.

On this side of the House, we definitely see the need after every major storm, cyclonic, or whatever event to relook at our management systems. It makes absolute sense. The legislation that we’re looking to change was drafted in 2002, and a lot has changed since then, so I think it’s really important to stress that we on this side of the House do see the need for change and the need to improve; we just don’t think that this bill does much at all. It’s particularly focused on the management side alone, and, as I say, officials themselves have indicated they’d prefer a much wider bill.

I think, importantly, as well—well, for me personally, it just feels like we’re sort of shuffling the paper a little bit when I read through what the bill is trying to do. I’m not completely confident it’s going to make much difference on the ground. I know there’s been a lot of focus about how we engage more with Māori. Personally, I think that’s a good thing, actually. I think it’s good that the bill is addressing that we see iwi and hapū step up and others have, rightly, mentioned the place of marae, and that’s fantastic. But I don’t know why it needs to stop there, because when I think of various disasters and adverse weather events around the community, it’s not just marae that step up; it’s our local churches, halls, our Rotary groups, sports groups. I think at times—and this also can go through media—there’s sort of the impression that only one group of New Zealanders steps up, and I just think that’s wrong. I think we all step up as best we can, and we work very, very cooperatively together.

Granted, I wanted to make clear that what happened in Auckland—certainly in my electorate—was minor compared to other parts of the country, but the civil defence stood up, people from the local marae and our Pasifika community stood up, St Vincent de Paul stood up, various sports groups stood up—whole lots of New Zealanders stood up and worked together, and what struck me was that they did it remarkably well without actually much overall coordination. I think there’s just a natural sense in Kiwis of what to do.

That doesn’t take away from the need to have a management system, but my core point here is that while the bill spends a lot of time addressing our Treaty obligations and working with local iwi—which, again, makes a lot of sense—I don’t know why it needs to exclude other groups. I also don’t understand why it needs to exclude the private sector, who play an incredibly important role in this space—I mean, most of the telecommunications systems, if not all, are private, for example. A lot of the transport systems, be it from helicopters to diggers and trucks—again, these are private entities. I’m sort of surprised that the bill appears to be silent in that space.

Look, it’s not that the bill is wrong—and I want to say that really clearly. It just doesn’t really, I think, address the wider needs.

But I might just finish where I should’ve started, which is of course acknowledging all those over the last few months—it doesn’t matter if it’s the adverse weather events, Cyclone Gabrielle in particular, and other disasters which we’ve seen over the last few years. I want to acknowledge all the people who are affected there. I think certainly on this side of the House we do want to see a management system which learns from what they’ve been through, but, sadly, on this side of the House, we don’t think that this particular bill is going to contribute as we would hope it would.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I’m pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Emergency Management Bill. Can I just make some observation around the role of Parliament and the so-called thing that we talk about—the importance of democracy—and having fit for purpose legislation.

The reality on the ground, particularly as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, is we’ve experienced probably more adverse weather events than any other parts of the country. I only have to go back to multiple local states of emergency across the Tairāwhiti, going way back even before the time I came into this Parliament, with the mighty Bola incident. Fast forward into the time I came in this House and we had multiple events up in Tairāwhiti: the Tolaga Bay floods that went right down into Wairoa, we had the Napier floods in 2019, we then had Hale, Gabrielle, and, of course, just this weekend we had more flooding in Te Tairāwhiti, particularly out at Te Karaka, at State Highway 35 and State Highway 2.

For most of those events, I’ve been on the ground, so I’ve been able to see firsthand where the shortcomings are when it comes to managing our emergency response. I don’t want to take away from all those first responders across all those events and how they’ve rallied together, but my opening point is we must have legislation in this House that is fit for purpose. I am concerned that this management bill, which is what we’re talking about, hasn’t learnt from the lessons of the very recent events. They have not learnt.

Yesterday, I asked in this House multiple questions to the Minister around, yet again, a key player in that response in my electorate being the response that came from iwi, marae, and hapū across the electorate. I’m seeing, yet again, very much a throwback to the 1980s—and I’m probably showing my age, having worked in the Public Service back in the 1980s—which is that Māori’s only ambition under this bill is to be the advisory group. So I know that we are going to have another adverse weather event into Tairāwhiti or Hawke’s Bay or any other part of my electorate, and will the people on the ground from maraes—the hapū, the iwi—pick this up and go, “Thank goodness we’ve got this Emergency Management Bill.”? Will they do that? No, they won’t, because their first principle is about manaaki and about tiakitanga.

I want to talk to my colleagues on both sides, to the right of me and to the left of me, about this exclusiveness about just Māori or just iwi, because just Māori and just iwi includes everybody. So I want them to rest assured that when we talk about the role and rights of iwi and Māori in legislation, that includes and embodies everybody, and I saw that firsthand in my visits out to Rissington, to Glengarry, and to Pakowhai, where all were working together. So I just want to allay the fears on both sides of me that this is just exclusively about iwi Māori.

But back to the bill, because I think iwi Māori need to be better recognised in a bill that goes beyond the advisory, and, like the Minister asked to me yesterday, have I read the bill? Yes, I have read the bill. I have read the bill, and there’s a lot of wording in there that I could reference—but I don’t have enough time—where it talks about “should do” and “may do”, and it should be a “must”.

Yes, we have an advisory committee. Yes, we invite them at the local level and some councils are doing it, and, just yesterday, Bayden Barber, the chair of Ngāti Kahungunu, was invited to the collective councils in terms of localised emergency management. But, like he said, he did not have a vote.

So here we go yet again: Māori are being asked to be advisers, but will the advice be listened to? That was the point of questions I was asking to the Minister yesterday. It was: when do the tangata whenua absolutely have a say and a lead on the emergency response, because they are going to do it, regardless of what this bill says. What I’d like to see is that the bill is informed by the reality of what is happening on the ground as to what is the best management structure, because when everything falls down—like we saw with Gabrielle, when the infrastructure all went out—how are we communicating? That’s where those relationships will come into play.

So, for the benefit of people in this House who are asking where Te Paati Māori and Meka are standing on it, we’re going to support this bill to first reading. But we reserve our position until we hear back from those, yet again, who will be asked to come to this House to submit on something they’ve always had a view on, which is having a stand-alone Māori national emergency system—that’s what we’ll be standing for. Kia ora koutou.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Emergency Management Bill. Having come from the Defence Force, I’ve been involved with a lot of emergency responses at all levels of the response, and I can see that this is essential. This bill will absolutely enhance the response that we will be able to provide our communities.

I think that the Opposition have fundamentally misunderstood what the bill is actually trying to achieve. This bill will enable us to deliver the right effect at the right time within the right settings.

The Opposition also mentioned that there were a lot of volunteer groups providing support within the community, but the important thing is to be able to provide that coordination and enable them to do their job. There’s no use in having two volunteer groups delivering the same effect in the same location if there are multiple areas across that area that need support. Providing leadership from the centre will enable us to do that, and that’s what this bill does.

This bill is not a transformation of the system we already have in place. It wants to make improvements that will strengthen the existing system and make sure that it is adapted to the challenges that we will face in the future.

The bill also clarifies the roles of both the lead and support agency, and there can be a sense of confusion, particularly in those embryonic beginnings of an emergency response. There’s nothing worse than trying to figure out who’s in charge, and there’s a lot of dead air and a lot of delayed response as a result of that.

So, in sum, emergency systems can be quite chaotic, and it’s important that all actors within the response clearly know what their roles and responsibilities are. This bill does that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be able to rise and speak on the Emergency Management Bill at the first reading. This bill will replace the two-decades-old Civil Defence Management Emergency Management Act from 2002, and it is good that we are looking to upgrade this piece of legislation, or replace it, as we are in this case.

I just want to take a moment to recognise everyone who’s been impacted across New Zealand by the terrible weather events that we have suffered this year—in particular, the Auckland floods that occurred in January, and floods that also hit my home city of Tauranga and took out several houses down a bank in Todd Muller’s electorate of Bay of Plenty—and also everyone else that was impacted. There was some terrible flooding events and slips and loss of life. Then, of course, we move to Cyclone Gabrielle in February and the catastrophic impacts that that had across Tairāwhiti, across Hawke’s Bay, and across other areas of the country, but in particular those two regions. The devastation that occurred there was astronomical to see in person. The levels of silt that had built up were simply something that you that you wouldn’t have expected was possible, but it was really significant and completely wiped out areas there.

So we do need to make sure that we do have a robust legislative framework in place to make sure that we are equipped and ready. Being prepared is really essential, but then we also have the mechanisms in place to manage any roll-out of assistance that will inevitably come forward.

The key changes in this are to clarify the roles and responsibilities, which is always a critical step in anything that one does. The bill is requiring civil defence and emergency management plans to identify and engage with community groups that are disproportionately impacted—obviously, very important too—and it recognises the important role that Māori play, and they absolutely do.

I recall that when Cyclone Gabrielle hit, I heard that there was an effort going on at the Tauranga Aero Club. I was driving with my wife and I said, “Let’s go and have a look in there”, and what we saw was simply an incredible demonstration of community efforts to help out those in need. There was a whole hangar. People from the community were pouring in, one after the other, dropping off the critical goods that were needed, and there must have been up to 10 planes on the tarmac being filled with goods and then being sent off to a lot of remote communities that had been cut off by roads which had been destroyed. A lot of them on the ground there were managed by marae, and the reports from the pilots coming back was that the people in the marae—the Māori there—were doing an absolutely incredible job, looking after the needs of the local communities where Government officials and authorities were unable to get to providing all of the necessities from food, water, and sanitation products to everything that is required in the everyday course of one’s life. So I’m just acknowledging the superb role that the Māori played on the marae there, and also what groups such as the Aero Club did in that space.

I also want acknowledge the comments, when we come back to the legislation here as it stands in the first reading, from the member from Te Paati Māori who said that the Government, in her opinion, has not learnt from the events of this year. There have been quite a few comments that have come along that this bill does not really deal with the preparedness and the response, and is quite bureaucratic in nature. It does introduce new bureaucratic requirements. The Government has gone beyond the recommendations of the technical advisory group, and while it does enhance Māori participation—which is fantastic—I will also reiterate the comments that have been made about other groups who stand up and do an incredible job.

I think it’s important to recognise all of those, and there is a funding mechanism that is built in to this to deliver reimbursements of costs. I think we should probably go a little bit further and not just pin that to one group and say that those involved—and we’ve heard the example about helicopter fuel. We heard it when I was down in the Hawke’s Bay. There were some stories—and it was raised again today—about people on private choppers coming in and rescuing people off their roofs. Helicopter fuel is expensive, and it would seem a bit unfair if we didn’t also have the opportunity to reimburse people who have gone out of their way, taken significant risks and costs on board, and, in the process, saved people’s lives.

Now, I want to come to a few comments that were made. The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE), in particular, has been quite critical of the process here. The officials there consider that vital changes weren’t considered and that there were flaws in this. They’re opposed to certain parts of it and they want to see removed or dealt with, and what wasn’t immediately clear—there was no one agency being held responsible for critical infrastructure systems. We have been unable to set national risk tolerances and standards, and that should have been built into it. A number of critical sectors are not subject to regulation, and there are many critical services—obviously you have your transport, and you have your ambulance services which is being brought in here, which is good. But in the modern technological age that we live in, we didn’t see cloud services involved, we didn’t see data-storage centres, and we didn’t see supply chains addressed.

They did also note that New Zealand is a bit behind some of our contemporaries who have got more developed systems, so there was the opportunity there to go and learn what other countries were doing in their emergency management response plans and to then incorporate that as much as possible into, obviously, a uniquely New Zealand setting. They saw that telcos were not prioritised as critical infrastructure during the recent events, and that’s quite astounding, given that that is what a huge part of our life does revolve around. People are on their phones, and obviously there’s the emotional trepidation and angst that everyone would face—and did face—as communities were cut off, people were evacuated, and there were just reports coming in and out of catastrophic situations and people being unable to account for loved ones.

We do also note MBIE’s deep concerns about the two-wave approach. They wanted to launch one big wave of reform, instead of the two parts that this is doing. They said that there are significant risks in the proposals in the paper that they may not lead to all the outcomes the National Emergency Management Agency is seeking, and some of the proposals could lead to compliance costs without any real general benefit to New Zealanders.

What we don’t want to be doing is burdening people in red tape and costs unnecessarily. The focus should always be on what the outcomes and benefits will be and on driving those as hard as possible. So as we move forward, I’d also note that the electricity, telecommunications, and port companies are also opposed to this, and they did reiterate the point I have just made around red tape and costs.

Officials have also advised the Government that they need new powers to gather information on risks and vulnerabilities—I mean, this is just the first reading, so we will move to a select committee stage, and there will be the opportunity there for the Government to take on board the submissions, which will inevitably come in from a range of key stakeholders. It’s really important that those are listened to and that we get this right, because we will have further emergencies and disasters in New Zealand.

We need to learn from what has happened. We have had a terrible start to this year, and we need to make sure that when the next event happens, we are best placed as possible. I would like to think that we can get to a stage where we have widespread, bipartisan support, because disasters don’t choose when they come. They don’t care whether it’s National or whether it’s Labour in power, so we need to make sure that we are all on the same page on this and we can get to a place that ultimately looks after those communities that are impacted when natural disasters and emergencies hit. So we oppose this bill at the first reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Meitaki maata for the opportunity to take just a short call on the Emergency Management Bill this morning, which improves and modernises the civil defence and emergency management law but, more importantly, it retains that responses are locally led, regionally coordinated, and centrally supported.

In the Ōtaki electorate, we’ve also had experiences with the severe weather events lately. Last year, we had a hurricane that ripped through Levin, and a couple of months ago, we had a hurricane that hit Paraparaumu. The quickness of the civil defence and emergency management teams, which were locally led, were able to get together, and get out to their communities—they know how to message out to their communities. They know how to quickly get those messages of support out, and they’re also supported by Government with funds that went to the mayoral fund.

That is the key for me in this bill—to continue to make sure that we know that locals know how to locally lead, and, as a Government, we come and support. That is what this bill does. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Emergency Management Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The question is, That the Emergency Management Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Charities Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I present a legislative statement on the Charities Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Charities Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to be taking the Charities Amendment Bill through its final stage in this House. I am confident that passing this bill will help Aotearoa’s charities to thrive while maintaining public accountability and transparency. The third reading of this bill is timely. It was just last week we celebrated Te Wiki Tūao ā-Motu—National Volunteer Week. The work that volunteers do in charities and other organisations requires significant time and effort, and passing this bill is a great way to honour and value the collective energy and mana of volunteers across Aotearoa New Zealand.

We saw again this year the real strength of communities coming together. Weather events like the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle have put people’s lives at risk, flooded homes, destroyed businesses, and closed schools. Many charities continue to be at the forefront of the response and the recovery. Charities have always been there when we needed them the most. They provide services that keep people safe, help them recover and heal, allow them to live with dignity, strengthen their mana, and support them to thrive. It is time for us to help them by removing barriers and facilitating their work.

I come from the charitable sector prior to Parliament, and I’ve heard directly from many charities that this bill will make a difference, and that’s why I’m proud to lead a bill that will help charities to assist our country. This bill makes practical improvements to the Act to make sure that legislative settings are still fit for purpose after almost two decades. The operating environment for our charitable sector has undergone significant change since the Act came into force. The disestablishment of the Charities Commission, the introduction of new reporting requirements, and changes to other legislation that charities need to comply with have prompted the need for another look at this Act.

I’d like to touch once more on the impact that the bill makes. The bill will make it easier for charities to comply with their financial reporting obligations by empowering the chief executive to exempt small charities from the onerous reporting standards. For small charities, this will reduce their compliance burden and allow them to dedicate more of their time to delivering their day-to-day mahi.

Currently, charities must file an appeal to the High Court if they wish to appeal a decision of the regulator. This appeal route can be inaccessible to many charities, given the costs, the complexities, and the time associated with taking appeals to the courts. The bill expands the jurisdiction of the Taxation Review Authority to hear first appeals under the Act. When hearing charities’ appeals, the authority will be known as the Taxation and Charities Review Authority. This change will improve charities’ access to justice by making it less costly and less complex to appeal decisions.

The wider legislative and operating environment for charities has also changed over the years. The charitable sector and the wider public rely on the regulator to make transparent, clear decisions based on best practice. The bill takes clear steps to reflect this. Because of the bill, charities will have more opportunity to have a say about decisions that affect them and give them more time to engage in the decision-making process.

We know that charities can vary in legal structure and, as a result, be subject to other obligations under other legislation. I’m pleased that the bill clarifies what it means to be an officer and what the role of an officer is. The impact of this will be far reaching and, I believe, removes the doubt about what an officer’s role is under the Charities Act. The bill also makes several changes to compliance and enforcement tools so that they are fit for purpose. Overall, the amendments that the bill makes are going to make the Charities Act a more accessible and transparent regulatory framework. At the same time, changes to the bill will help make it easier for the more than 28,000 charities that are registered under the Charities Act and help them to thrive.

As Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, I have been proud to lead this bill through all of its stages and I’d like to acknowledge everyone who has contributed along the way to its success. I will start by acknowledging my predecessors who started the work to modernise the Charities Act: firstly, the Hon Peeni Henare in 2018, and then you, Madam Speaker, the Hon Poto Williams in 2019 and 2020. Thank you for building solid foundations for this mahi to happen.

I would also like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee and its chair, Angie Warren-Clark, for the constructive consideration of the bill. I appreciate the time the committee took to understand this bill and the views of submitters, and I thank those who attended meetings, made submissions to the committee, and engaged with officials. Your suggestions have helped improve this bill.

Last, but definitely not the least, I’d like to thank the charities sector. The charities sector in Aotearoa New Zealand has strong public support due to their extraordinary contribution to communities across the country, from education to religious services, from health to social services, among many other sectors. Furthermore, our charities are great ambassadors of Aotearoa’s values of kindness, justice, and equality. More than 3,000 registered charities have reported overseas activities, most of them across the South Pacific, strengthening our links with tangata moana. More than 208,000 volunteers contribute approximately 1.7 million hours per week, and more than 98,000 people work full-time in the charitable sector.

I’d like to express my most heartfelt gratitude and thanks to all these people doing so much for others—people that very generously give their time and their energy and their passion to make a difference in our communities. Our country thrives and is enriched by their goodwill and open-handed commitment in every community. To all of them, I say ka nui te mihi—thank you very much indeed. The Charities Amendment Bill will benefit, therefore, not just charities but rather our entire society and our nation as a whole. I’d like to acknowledge that with a whakataukī that speaks to the importance of nourishing our communities with care: manaaki whenua, manaaki tangata, haere whakamua—care for the land, care for the people, and together we will progress. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Usually, at the third reading of a bill, it’s quite nice to stand in this House and offer some words of support for organisations that do enormous good work in our society and in our communities, and those are, of course, represented by the charitable sector. Regrettably, on this occasion at the third reading of this legislation, my National Party colleagues and I can’t support this legislation, because the Minister who has just resumed her seat takes a leaf out of former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern’s playbook, which is warm, soothing words that actually make no tangible, real difference other than minor tweaking. If there is a hallmark of this Government’s administration it is that fine, smooth, warm words are no corollary for actually delivering what they said they would promise to deliver and what they actually haven’t delivered.

So it’s important for people listening to this debate to, I think, understand a little of the history of it. Back in 2017, the Labour Party campaigned on what they called a first-principles review of the Charities Act, and that’s indeed what we thought they were going to do. As the Minister who’s just resumed her seat has pointed out, there has been a revolving door, a succession, of Ministers responsible for this portfolio, and each one of them hasn’t really been able to progress it in any sensible, reasonable way. The best they got, actually, was nothing close to a first-principles review. What they got, actually, was a review conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs, which was, effectively, a review of its self, its business unit, the charity services—hardly independent and hardly going to what, I think, most New Zealanders would understand as a first-principles review.

Now, in a previous life, I had the privilege and the honour of being the chief executive of a charitable organisation, a children’s charity, a very good one: the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I was, for a period of time before coming to this House, literally a professional wish-granter. That was quite a good thing to do. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It did good work. As I say, it’s a very good charity. An organisation like Make-A-Wish represents all that is good and decent about the charitable sector and what they do. I understand the rules, the regulations, the red tape, the administrative requirements that are imposed upon charities, because they need to be accountable, they need to be transparent, and they need to be able to justify the money that they receive, the support they receive, to their donors, to their volunteers, and to the recipients of the good work that they do. Those things are important.

Notwithstanding the very good work of the vast majority of charities, there are some that occasionally get it a bit wrong. So we need to have a framework that is open and that is transparent—those are words, also, that the Labour Government used to use; they don’t use those words any more. But those are ideals and objectives that I think every member in this House would think should apply to the charitable sector.

But what this piece of legislation does is little more than minor tweaks—little more than minor tweaks, and that’s a shame. That’s a real shame because there are some changes that are required and some updating of the original principal Act, and I think we’d all recognise that. But to come to this House now, at this bill’s third reading, and stand in the Chamber, and say, as the Minister who’s just resumed her seat did, that this is somehow going to be transformative, that this is going to be a piece of legislation that is going to do what the Labour Party said they were going to do back in 2017—well, that’s just not an accurate reflection of what this piece of legislation before the House, that we’re voting on for a third reading this time, does. It’s a very narrow piece of work.

Now, again, just thinking about the historic perspectives of charities and charitable purposes that do a community and societal good, charitable purposes are steeped in the history and annals of our democracy, really. They go back to medieval times, long before there was a welfare State, long before there were the kind of supports that are in place by Governments and taxpayers for people who might find life difficult and who are struggling. So if you go back to the original common law history of charitable purpose, it’s quite well defined. But over the years, that definition has been interpreted in a way that involves better accountability, better transparency, and justified openness of the charities that do the work and collect the money and do the good. Does this bill actually assist them in any sensible way? The answer to that has to be: no.

The bill states, as its objectives, that they want to enable simpler financial reporting for small charities. Well, that’s good, but is it transformational? No. Improving access to justice for charities and the appeals process. Well, that’s laudable, does the bill achieve that? The answer: really, no. Enhancing regulator decision-making requirements to further promote transparency and fairness. Again, warm, soothing words typical of this current Labour Government but actually failing to deliver. Clarifying the role of officers and supporting governance of charities and improving regulatory compliance and enforcement tools. Again, warm, soothing words not matched by the black-letter law that is this piece of amending legislation.

So we on this side of the House are actually very disappointed because it has been years—it’s been six long years, actually, of a promise having been made and then, progressively through that period of six years, more promises being made—“Yes, we’re working on it. Yes, we’re doing something.”, what have you—the revolving door of Ministers, each one having to come to terms and pick up the piece of work that was left by his or her predecessor, and then we get presented with this. In the dying days—in the dying days—of this Labour administration, we get this. Well, what a let-down that is to the sector. What a let-down it is to those people who in 2017 thought that the Labour Party would come good on its promise to have a first-principles review of the Charities Act. They honestly believed that that’s what they were going to get. That’s what they thought they were going to get, and that’s not what has been delivered.

But, on this side of the House, we’re used to non-delivery from this Government. We’re used to the warm, soothing words that don’t match the reality. So, on this side of the House, we find that we can’t support the legislation, not because charities don’t do good work, not because charities aren’t worthy of the support of this Chamber but because the words and the deeds don’t match—the words and the deeds don’t match.

Across my electorate, for instance, in the Coromandel, I often get to attend, as most constituency MPs do, events organised by charitable organisations. If I think about some of the charitable organisations that literally provide the foundation fabric of the communities in the Coromandel—the volunteer fire brigades, the coast guards, the surf life savers, the community groups, citizens advice bureaus, any number of them—they are literally the foundation stones and the fabric of our communities. It’s not just in the Coromandel that occurs; it’s nationwide.

So here we have a piece of legislation that had, at its inception, so much promise, so much hope for a better outcome. And what have we got? A damp squib—an absolute damp squib that, at its very best, does a couple of minor tweaks; a couple of minor tweaks that will achieve very little for a sector that actually does so much good, that needs a reform of the principal Act but it needs to be a proper, decent, and full one. It needs to be, as the Labour Party promised back in 2017, a first-principles review. That’s not what has occurred. It isn’t what is on the tin. This piece of legislation will be a disappointment to a sector that wanted so much from it, that felt that they could have been heard, could have added so much to it, and haven’t been heard. What a disgrace and what an embarrassment for the current Minister to stand in this House and try and wax lyrical about a piece of legislation—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The member’s time has expired.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Actually, it is a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I just heard 10 minutes of wet and whiny complaints and not one single promise of what would be done better or how they would do better; just point the finger and that was it. But that’s not what I’m here for today.

First and foremost, I beg your indulgence: I want to just acknowledge a volunteer in the charity sector who I had the opportunity to attend an event for. Mr Alan Pine, who is a Knight of the Order of St John, received his 65-year service gilt on the weekend, and I want to acknowledge on behalf of this House his extraordinary service for a charity that has been in place since the 19th century.

I now resume back to the bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister who has progressed this bill to conclusion, Priyanca Radhakrishnan. She does know the charitable sector very well and can attest to the changes that have been made and, in fact, what a difference this will make: 28,000 charities, and about 14,000 of those charities are affected by this change. I want to acknowledge the 95 submissions and the 28 oral submitters, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Regulations Review Committee, and the Social Services and Community Committee, who by and large worked very collegially.

This bill amends the Charities Act by requiring charitable entities to regularly review their governance procedures, gives the Charities Registration Board the ability to disqualify individuals rather than whole charities, reduces financial reporting and compliance rules for those charities in tier 4, and moves appeals from the High Court, which was extremely expensive, into the Taxation Review Authority—all things that are very useful and valuable.

I would just like to acknowledge that there are 28,000 charities and we are very lucky to have such a charitable sense in this community, something we’ve not seen from the National Party today. Nevertheless, I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I’m here speaking this morning on the Charities Amendment Bill. It’s a bill that I haven’t taken any part in the Social Services and Community Committee for, but it’s a pleasure to speaking on this bill with my colleague Maureen Pugh in mind, who does in fact sit on that select committee.

It’s timely that we’re here talking about the Charities Amendment Bill from the perspective of our charities and volunteers. And it was only last weekend where I was in a small town, in the heart of Taranaki - King Country, celebrating volunteers evening, and it’s just fantastic. I always say that if all volunteers stop work at midnight on any given night, nothing would happen in this country. And so I know there’s a few people that think that everything that happens comes out of Wellington, but, certainly, when you get into our small communities, it’s very obvious that that certainly isn’t the case. And a lot of those organisations are run by these very charities that we’re talking about.

So it’s a shame the bill doesn’t do what it says on the tin, because the object of the bill is to make practical changes to support charities to continue their vital contribution to community wellbeing while ensuring that contribution is sufficiently transparent to interested parties and the public. What it actually said or set out to do was simpler financial reporting. We can understand that from a charities perspective. People who volunteer and work within and for charities love to do the hands-on work that they do, the caring for people, and all of the other roles they undertake. And often it’s the paperwork that is set out in a difficult way in terms of regulation and red tape. Anything we can do to make it simpler, as a Parliament, we should do so. So it talks about simpler financial reporting to reduce the compliance burden, but it actually hasn’t done enough work, in the context of this bill, to actually show that that’s what’s going to happen.

We can all understand improving access to justice and promoting transparency and fairness. Actually, the simpler you keep something, the more the easier it is for these organisations to put transparency and fairness in front of people. We have a lot of people who take on the accounting processes for these organisations—they’re not accountants; they’re people that love what they do, and they take on a role as a treasurer and all of a sudden they find themselves deep within books, trying to understand things and learn new things. Within these charities, there’s often a turnover of people in those roles as people get worn out and pass on and the next person takes over. So no one’s against promoting transparency and fairness, but in the simplest way possible would be helpful.

So the intent was to clarify the role of officers supporting the governance of charities, and improving the regulatory tools. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do what it says on the tin, which is why the National Party isn’t supporting it at the third reading. The difficulty that we have with this is that the Labour Government included a first-principles review of this Act in their 2017 manifesto. But, instead, the Ministers relied on the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to undertake a review of itself and of its business unit, the Charities Services. Now, it would have been prudent, in the interests of transparency, that this was an independent review rather than an internal review. And no one might be suggesting that there was anything untoward here, other than it is very hard for people within an organisation to often spot the things that they are not doing as well as they could have been. Often, when you do these things, if you don’t have a complete independent look and the body itself is involved in the review, you don’t always get a completely, I guess, thorough result where people can see things that need changes that don’t often get seen from within.

So the charities add about $4 billion worth of value to our country. What they do is they keep communities connected. We see it all the time. We’ve talked this morning, in one of the other pieces of legislation that we talked about, about cyclones and disasters and civil defence. It never comes more the fore than it does at those times, when we have all of these groups out, doing everything they can to support their communities in a time of need—right from our volunteer fire service members, to a whole range of other groups in the community that help out. There’s actually 28,000 charities registered in New Zealand. So, if we look in all of our communities, I’m always amazed at how many of these people are the glue and the fabric of our society.

So given that the Labour Party policy was to carry out a proper first-principles independent review, the bill does not deliver on that. It tweaks a few items, which could make some aspects of compliance simpler, but it doesn’t address the key concerns. It seems that the Government did not listen to the sector, who are not at all happy with their bill, and think that it’ll make their lives more difficult when they’re just trying to help their communities. I’m sure that that wasn’t the intent that the Government set out to do, but, unfortunately, that is the result that’s come from pushing this bill into the place that it’s been put—it’s not delivering what it set out to do. So none of the proposed amendments address the existing structure. The review has led to these changes and, as I said, was undertaken by DIA reviewing itself, and that actually undermines some of the trust and confidence in the aspect that there’s a bit of doubt as to whether it’s picked up on all of the things that it could have and should have picked up on.

Interestingly enough, the original Act was introduced in 2005 by the then Labour Government. However, at the committee stage in 2004, the bill was almost completely rewritten and then rushed through under urgency in a single day without proper consultation on the rewrite. How do we keep hearing this? This is 2004-2005, so we’re talking almost two decades ago, and we’re finding that nothing is really changing in terms of rushing legislation, rushing things through the House, and rushing things under urgency. Here we are, this morning, sitting in here, in an extended sitting, because Parliament is due to rise in another six sitting weeks’ time and the Government is concerned it’s running out of time, so we’re here, in extended sitting, putting through bills that the Government has indeed run out of time for. So the National Party was very concerned about the process then, back two decades ago, and now it’s concerned about the process again.

So we support our charities. We back them every step of the way with the work they’re doing. We don’t believe this bill is at all helpful in terms of completing all of the things it needed to complete to help our charities. For that reason, we can’t support it today. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Notwithstanding the partisan carping from the Opposition benches, not particularly the member who just spoke before, but I thought the National Party member Scott Simpson was particularly dyspeptic in his contribution in the House this morning, quite out of keeping—quite out of keeping—with the subject matter at hand, which is a very sensible, very practical, set of measures to modernise and continue the task of ensuring that the regulatory framework for charities, who do so much good in this country, is fit for purpose. As the Minister outlined this morning, there’s a number of very practical changes here which will provide the regulator the kind of flexibility to ensure that the regulatory burden that falls on even some of the smallest charities, of which there are many in New Zealand today, is appropriate and won’t unnecessarily distract them from the important work that they do.

So the bill improves the process for charities to object to the decisions that affect them. It enhances the transparency by requiring the regulator to publish decisions and consult with the sector on the guidance that it provides. It gives the regulator, the chief executive of the department, the power to exempt small charities from the compliance burden. It clarifies who should be captured as officers of a charity and what their role is. And it gives the regulator a number of tools for compliance and enforcement. So I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Charities Amendment Bill. I’m sure it’s no surprise that ACT is not going to be supporting this at third reading. First, I’ll just point out that obviously we’re all in agreement here that charities are an extremely important aspect of New Zealand society—highly valued. I myself have been involved in charities over the years, and still am to this day.

But the problem is this bill, like many others—I’d call it a trend, but it’s kind of an obvious transformation of taking something and interfering with it like crazy and adding more bureaucracy and compliance. And there’s sort of this notion that this House exists to just make lives of New Zealanders more difficult every single day. You know, the role of this House, as it should be, is to liberalise life for New Zealanders, and this bill does not do that.

It is a very disappointing bill, and if I refer back to the Labour Party’s 2017 manifesto, where they talked about undertaking a first-principles post-implementation review, that obviously hasn’t happened. And, you know, usually it’s a good thing that things in Labour’s manifesto don’t happen. But in this case, you know, the charity sector deserves more. This is not a law that gets discussed very often and looked at by a select committee. And speaking of the select committee, as I mentioned in a previous reading—

Glen Bennett: Great committee.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Yep, good on you. In terms of the submissions, I mean, it didn’t give me a great deal of confidence and there was certainly a lot of people concerned, charities concerned, with this bill, and the Department of Internal Affairs’ response and involvement, and really just the interaction with the charities sector, is probably not good enough.

I just don’t buy it: a lot of the compliance and regulations, the reasons for having these things for extra financial burdens and reporting that has to be done, I don’t buy it—there’s an ulterior motive in this. Just looking at another part of this legislation, you know, things like this bill disqualifies persons from being officers if they have been convicted of financing terrorism. You know, you kind of expect that a charity probably wouldn’t appoint someone, an officer, in that sort of situation anyway. Nevertheless, I hope that includes members of the Mongrel Mob, for instance, and their charitable work that gets funded by the Government.

So, as I said, ACT will not be supporting this bill at third reading and I do not commend it to the House. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The community, voluntary, and tangata whenua sector otherwise known as the charities sector, is incredibly diverse: from universities to toy libraries, marae committees to large iwi charitable trusts, coast guards, sports clubs, community gardens, to large national service organisations. And in 2021, New Zealanders gave more than $4 billion to the country’s 28,000 registered charities. And the overall income brought in by these organisations is far higher than that: more than $21 billion a year, which is comparable to the value of the country’s dairy exports—interesting, in terms of the Government’s willingness to listen to this sector in comparison to their willingness to listen to the dairy sector.

This sector employs about 145,000 people. It’s massive. And, more than that, 200,000 of us are volunteers within these organisations. The Green Party has really long-held relationships and huge respect for this sector and we want a future where community wellbeing and local ecosystems are enhanced by a strong independent tangata whenua, community, and voluntary sector. So as part of our vision for achieving that, we’ve had the policy of limiting the focus of charities’ oversight to registration and associated tax issues and to resource sector-led initiatives for education and capacity building within the sector. That policy has come out of our relationship with people working across the sector and what they’ve said they need. And it’s not this bill.

We know that the sector, while contributing massively to our society and economy, is woefully underfunded and historically undervalued by Government. Governments have, I think, a tendency to treat the sector as either just a nice little thing that it pats on the head at times, patronisingly, or that it treats the sector as a cheaper version of Government, a way to get things done on the cheap, where Government then comes in and monitors and tries to control that delivery. That, as you can imagine, undermines the actual brilliance of the sector, which is its ability to respond to community needs, which they are closest to, to actually harness the relationships in the community to achieve change that has been identified by that community. Government’s approach has absolutely undermined that and it also undermines the democracy that’s inherent in those organisations, and that approach is inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

There have been concerns about governance across some parts of the sector. That is true. And while research has called for Government to investigate providing sufficient remuneration for provider governance boards and risk committees so providers might have access to specialist expertise to support an increasingly complex environment and risk management, I note that that is a very different approach to this one, which is a compliance tick-box approach.

I also want to acknowledge that the community has identified governance as a challenge at times and has initiated their own programmes to be building capability in a strength-based way. I just wanted to, too, acknowledge that—like, being at a launch of a research report around the barriers for banking for this sector last night—they’ve had to fundraise and go to J. R. McKenzie Trust and the Todd Foundation to get funding to do that research, because actually Government hasn’t supported them to be able to do the research to advocate for their own needs and, instead, has been spending time on bills like this about increasing compliance rather than letting them lead the work.

We supported this bill on first reading as we took the Government’s talking points—that this bill would reduce compliance costs and increase appeal rights for the sector—on face value. But then we read and heard the submissions that told us that we’d got that wrong, that the Government was not portraying or delivering on what the community was asking for. And the majority of the sector opposed this bill. If the majority of the dairy sector was opposing legislation in this House, we would be having a very different conversation to the one that we are having today. And I think that that is a signal of disrespect in itself.

The big picture of the sector’s opposition is that this bill speaks to the Government not understanding the needs of the sector and prioritising all the wrong things. Speaking to people with real expertise on this topic last night, they were frankly struggling—they were telling me that they just couldn’t understand why the Government was refusing to listen to them and their knowledge, and just going ahead. They did not hear in any of the Government’s responses to the specific issues an actual explanation of the motivation behind it or the explanation about why the community’s concerns weren’t valid, and that they were up for that conversation but it had never happened.

The sector desperately wants a Government that will support it, support it to keep making the incredibly important impact for our whenua and our whānau, and hapori, and there’s so many ways that they do it. They really want the support to be able to do more and are clear that the way the system is operating now is holding them back and that this bill will just embed that problem and, in fact, make it worse.

In more detail, their opposition to this bill hinges on several points. One, while reportedly reducing compliance costs, this bill actually adds another level of compliance by requiring organisations to review their governance procedures every three years. While it can absolutely be argued that current law requires those responsible for governing charities have a fiduciary duty to know the rules and act in accordance with them, that should actually be enough of a prompt—that we don’t need to duplicate that in terms of this piece of legislation. This bill will now require organisations to start reporting on that work, and that brings up the natural questions of how it will be measured whether they’ve done that. Will it just be a tick box and what is the value of that, and if it’s going to be more than that, then actually how is that sense of partnership and not more Government kind of judgment and scrutiny of a sector that just actually wants to be enabled rather than monitored? And what will be the consequences for agencies where they don’t do that?

We’ve also heard that it’s missing the fact that so many organisations have gone through a lot of scrutiny in terms of their governance procedures in the last few years, through COVID, because they’ve had to adapt through these times and that really the sector as a whole is moving towards Te Ao Māori models of working and very strength-based. Again, this sits in opposition to that by being a kind of a compliance regime, which is very different and undermines the culture of those organisations.

The second concern is the definition of officer in this bill cuts across many organisations’ well-considered governance and management split rules and settled practice. Government’s management split has long been an area that the sector has been trying to provide education on, trying to resolve some longstanding problems, and this actually just muddies all of that work that they’ve been doing. The Department of Internal Affairs acknowledge that expanding the definition of officer will reduce sector independence. They acknowledge that, but argue that charities still get to choose who they want. Again, it’s not consistent, and it’s not consistent with a lot of the rhetoric we’ve previously heard. Also, this absolutely entrenches a practice that is not in legislation of Charities Services being able to conduct charitable purpose reviews. That’s at the heart of why the sector has been calling for that first-principles, because that has not been working to be able to support their independence and their work. And in fact, we in this legislation are embedding that. It’s deeply problematic and there are more problems with this. But at the heart of it, the Government should be listening and enabling our community, not monitoring it.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak on the third reading of this bill, and I’d like to begin by just saying thank you to all of those working in the charitable sector for the work that they do. People rely on charities for so many things in their lives—I’m just thinking about the food banks, environmental groups, and even the performing arts—and so what this bill does is it makes sure that charities can get on and do the work that they do while still being publicly accountable.

The changes that it makes create some of the streamlining. The first thing they do is acknowledge that many charities—the very small ones—are run by volunteers, and so it’s important that all of their time isn’t taken up with paperwork. So what the bill does is it enables simpler financial reporting for very small charities. It also makes access to justice easier for those charities that wish to appeal decisions of the Charities Registration Board, because what it does is it creates a charities review authority that can hear those first appeals, rather than them having to do the expensive process of getting their appeals heard in the High Court in the first instance. So this is a really important bill, and I’m happy to commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call Chris Penk—five minutes.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So to the Charities Amendment Bill, and members on this side of the House—and I emphasise this side of the House deliberately—have expressed some real misgivings about the process that’s been undertaken and certainly the result that we’ve ended up with. I say “this side of the House” deliberately, because actually it’s not just the National Party; it is also other parties who are not Government parties, fully and proper. When National, ACT, and the Green Party are all united in backing the sector against the clear wishes of the single party governing majority, then alarm bells should be ringing not only in the Beehive but also throughout the sector, as indeed they already are, along the lines that this result is certainly not that which was intended or indeed advertised by the Labour Government in putting forward the bill and certainly going back to the Labour Party policy of 2017. I understand that its manifesto policy had been to carry out a first-principles review of the Charities Act, and while this would hardly be the first example of Labour Party manifesto policy in 2017 not being reflected by reality in the subsequent six years, it is nevertheless an important one and an important one for the sector.

Hon Scott Simpson: I can’t think of a single one that they did implement.

CHRIS PENK: My colleague and friend Mr Simpson says that he can’t name any that have been implemented. He wouldn’t be far wrong, but I’m not going to use the rest of my three minutes trying to think of any. I don’t see any reason why this should be a question time.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: You can sit down now if you like.

CHRIS PENK: It’s like a reverse question time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Or you could just come back to this particular bill. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK: OK, good guidance. Thank you, Madam Speaker. If you think about the first-principles review that should have taken place and should have resulted in much more certainty and clarity for the sector, and if I were to approach this from the angle of being the shadow Attorney-General and being interested in the relationship between the courts and Parliament and civil society, I would note the lack of clarity that exists around charitable purpose, the concept of public benefit and who gets to decide that, and the exemption regarding political purpose whereby environmental aims as determined by some and not others get to be applied. And it seems that we have a deeply anomalous, uncertain, and unreasonable outcome to this notion that we would need to know how we can support those who support other New Zealanders and actually others around the world as well.

When we think about the idea of public benefit, there should be some mechanism for determining that other than in a very vague sense, without clear criteria, a Government agency, and certainly the courts should not be stepping into the shoes of legislators or civil society to determine what, according to a majority of the bench in any given case decides is or isn’t within the public benefit. That way lies a form of tyranny, and I know that’s a slightly ugly word to use. But taking the definition of those decision makers who are unable to be accountable or held accountable for their actions or those to be reviewable in any meaningful way, that is the result of what we have seen in the last few years in high-profile cases across more than one entity—which we don’t need to re-litigate in this House, and I don’t intend to do so—and it would indicate that the considerable uncertainty is doing a disservice to various charitable or not technically charitable entities in the country and those whom they would serve.

So if we think about why it’s important that the sector is listened to and supported, again, unusually, I will acknowledge and agree with the comment made by a Green Party parliamentary colleague, which is that taking at face value the idea that compliance costs of a financial and time nature would be reduced is something we could have and should have all supported, except that the reality has been somewhat different. The reason it’s important to try and reduce such costs and to enable greater help is, of course—and in all of our electorates we would understand the work that was done in a cyclone recovery context, as a topical example. We certainly acknowledge all those who have worked so hard on a volunteer and charitable basis for that. In the justice system we’ve got JPs, community law centres, judicial JPs, community magistrates and so on. They deserve support. This bill does not provide it to them. We oppose this bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I commend the Charities Amendment Bill to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. As a member of the awesome Social Services and Community Committee and having worked in the charity sector and also as a volunteer for over two decades in the Ōtaki electorate, I know the bog-down of paperwork that happens in terms of reporting, and this bill stops that. We on this side of the House, the Labour Government, understand this, and we want to support those charities to get on and do with the job they love to do with their passion that is supporting New Zealanders.

This is a good bill, and that’s what that does. It supports charities, it supports New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): There’s nothing for a good shot of adrenalin like being told that you’re speaking 20 seconds before you stand up to speak. Yes, we are here for the third reading of the Charities Amendment Bill—and thank you, Scott Simpson, we are opposing this bill, as my other colleagues have submitted to the House. It was really interesting to note Chris Penk’s position that it’s not just the National Party that is opposing this bill; it is indeed parties physically on this side of the House. We’ve decided to oppose it because we just don’t believe that it is going to improve the current system. It is really disappointing that it will be the charities of New Zealand themselves, who, as everybody has observed, really do God’s work in this country, and we believe that they are being let down in this instance. Barbara Kuriger made the very pertinent comment too that without charities, without volunteers, in New Zealand, this country really would grind to a halt.

So, with that, that was probably the most conflicted and difficult 60-odd seconds of my life, so I too will be opposing this bill and I will sit down.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): I’m really proud to have the last word, literally, on the third reading of this, the Charities Amendment Bill. It does some great things for those who volunteer and put all their time into making Aotearoa New Zealand what it is today. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Charities Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill

Third Reading

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present a legislative statement on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) 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 PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to present this bill for its third reading. This is a bill that represents a significant step in our work to address temporary migrant worker exploitation in New Zealand. I want to thank everyone who submitted on the bill during the select committee process, and the Education and Workforce Committee for their consideration of the bill that has strengthened it.

Protecting our migrant workers from exploitation is a priority for our Government. It’s only right that we treat people who come to our shores fairly and with dignity. The problem, though, is that not everyone does. The Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill strengthens our immigration and employment systems by introducing a fit for purpose offence and penalty regime to protect migrant workers in New Zealand.

Worker exploitation harms us all. Temporary migrant workers make an important contribution to Aotearoa New Zealand. The temporary migrant worker population is diverse and includes workers with a range of visa statuses, skill levels, and personal situations. At its peak in March 2020, prior to the COVID pandemic, there were an estimated 235,000 temporary migrant workers in New Zealand. As immigration continues to ramp up and we have more workers coming to New Zealand to help on the ground with our economy, it’s important that we put in place the right measures to protect them from exploitation. All too often, many of them have found themselves subject to exploitation.

Many years ago, prior to entering Parliament, I remember supporting a young man who had come to New Zealand to work. He’d been working for his employer for about 2½ years by the time I met with him. He came to me for help because he wasn’t fluent in English. He told me he worked six days a week for his employer and lived on site. When he had a day off on Sunday, he was locked in his room so that he couldn’t go to church and he couldn’t form a support network. He showed me photos. His room was just slightly bigger than a single bed, with no ventilation. He was paid in lump sums; $1,000 here and there, and then nothing for months. When I added up and averaged out what he earned, from memory, it was about $4 an hour. His employer said it would get better. It never did. I don’t know what happened to him in the end, but when I met with him, he had severe mental and physical health issues and was distraught because he could see no future for himself and no hope to bring his young wife and his child to New Zealand. This is what our Government is working to stop.

The bill delivers important commitments made following the temporary migrant worker exploitation review and builds on the success of initiatives that are already in place, like new, dedicated reporting tools to make it easier to report migrant worker exploitation, as well as the migrant exploitation protection work visa, which supports migrants to leave exploitative situations quickly and remain in New Zealand lawfully. The changes were accompanied by $50 million in funding from 2020 to 2024 to ensure that agencies are resourced to respond to reports of exploitation and to take action. These initiatives have seen a significant uptake since their launch and they are supporting migrants to report and leave exploitative workplace situations. Alongside this is a successful education campaign to educate workers of their rights and employers of their obligations.

This bill creates a more graduated penalty regime that will allow immigration officers to address low level non-compliant employer behaviour that is linked to migrant exploitation. Currently, immigration officers don’t have effective mechanisms, outside of criminal prosecution, to address such low-level non-compliant behaviour. Criminal prosecution is a time consuming, expensive, and inefficient response for lower level offences, and this undermines the effectiveness of immigration and employment law, which places migrant workers at risk of more serious exploitation.

Introducing infringement offences will ensure low-level offending, like refusing to provide employment documentation, can be dealt with before it becomes more serious. The bill establishes a document production power to allow immigration officers to verify employers are complying with their obligations to supported migrant workers. Once the bill commences, immigration officers will be able to request employment documents from employers about migrant workers whose visas they have supported. The document production power means they can be proactive checks to verify employers are complying with their obligations. We know migrant worker exploitation is under-reported, with many migrant workers reluctant to report. We need to be proactive.

Employers are already required by law to hold the wage, time, and remuneration documents that could be requested under this new power. These records would allow immigration officers to assess, for example, whether a migrant worker’s being paid the salary stated in the employer-supported visa application. This power can only be used in limited and clearly defined situations. Immigration officers must be designated and authorised to use the power, and be issued a warrant of designation by the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

Care has also been taken to ensure the powers focus specifically on the compliance of employers of supported migrant workers so that any other migrants and overstayers are not inadvertently caught up in the exercise of the document production power. The bill will also allow MBIE to publish certain information about employers who’ve committed immigration offences. Currently, employers who breach their obligations under the Employment Relations Act are published on a stand-down list. This bill will allow immigration offending to also be made public and ensure that the names of employers who breach their obligations under the Immigration Act are readily available to us all.

The publication of immigration offending is a crucial tool to allow both prospective and current migrant workers to know if an employer is compliant with New Zealand’s immigration law. The bill will require employers to respond to a request for information from either labour inspectors or immigration officers within 10 working days. Currently, there is no specified time frame for employers to comply with requests for information from the labour inspectorate or from immigration officers, and that can cause delays to investigations when employers stall or fail to provide documents in a reasonable time frame. While some delays may not be preventable, less scrupulous employers can take advantage of the fact that there is no time limit—to create records retrospectively or to meet their legal obligations. Employers who fail to meet the deadline could be liable for an infringement fee and have information about this offence made public, affecting their ability to hire migrants in the future.

This bill will also amend the Companies Act to allow the courts to disqualify people who are convicted of migrant exploitation or people trafficking from managing or directing a company. This change will prevent people who have used company structures to exploit people from being able to do so again in the future. It is only appropriate that we do not allow people who commit these offences to continue managing companies and employing potentially vulnerable people.

No one stand-alone action will address migrant exploitation entirely, but with a suite of measures, including education, awareness raising, the provision of reporting tools for migrant workers, and these new powers and offences, we can prevent exploitation from occurring. We can protect those migrant workers, who are subjected to exploitation, by providing the tools that enable them to leave those exploitative situations. And we can take enforcement action to deal with employers who do not comply with their legal obligations.

This bill contributes to the goal of protecting migrant workers from exploitation. It is a bill that I think we should all be proud of and I commend it to the House.

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

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, for a second time today, we have heard warm, soothing words from the Minister who’s just resumed her seat that don’t actually address the issue at hand. It’s so disappointing because for people who are watching at home or may be listening, we’re discussing the third reading, the final parliamentary legislative stage of the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. Now, the name suggests action. It suggests that repairs and process and activity is going to occur. And what we find when we read the detail of the legislation is that, actually, again, it is just a minor tweaking, tinkering piece of legislation that actually does very little and, arguably, potentially will make matters worse for the vast majority of good employers who actually do want to comply with the law, comply with the rules around migrant employees, and do the right thing. There’s no mistake that, actually, New Zealand, of course, does have a problem with migrant exploitation, and migrant exploitation has absolutely no place at all within the New Zealand employment arena.

But, that said, rules and regulations have to be clear. They have to be understandable, they have to be effective, and they have to actually do what they are intended to do. So this piece of legislation just tinkers around the edge and it doesn’t really address the primary issue. It has the potential to go after some very low level offending. Potentially, some of that low level offending will be absolutely unintentional. It will not be because of an intended attempt to be in breach of the law or the rules around migrant employment, but it will be because the employer actually acting in good faith doesn’t understand what the rules and the legislation actually already says.

So, what are the main provisions of this piece of legislation? Well, they cause concern, and I’ll come to that a little bit further on in my address. But the main provisions are about empowering immigration desk officers—now, this is important; desk officers—to request employment documents to ensure companies who hire migrants are complying with the law. So this is not a front-line official representing the Government in the State, with all its powers and authority, physically visiting an employer or a place of work. This is about somebody sitting in a cubicle in a Government department office, probably in Wellington or somewhere else, literally randomly doing a desktop investigation and analysis and then demanding—demanding—of an employer for no necessarily good cause, but no reasonable cause. And I’ll come to that, too, in a minute—potentially a fishing exercise. Now, as I say, that has the potential to catch some fish, but they’re not going to be the main perpetrators. They’re not going to be the organisations, the people, or the businesses that are really involved in major and serious migrant exploitation.

So it creates, this legislation, a new range of infringement offences. And, at the committee of the whole House, I can remember raising some questions with the Minister and with her officials about the effectiveness and the validity and the efficacy of an infringement regime. Most of those questions remained utterly unanswered in a way that provided any meaningful insight into the effectiveness of this legislation.

So one of the major concerns we have on this side of the House with this piece of legislation is about the ability for the immigration desk investigating officer to—there’s no requirement for them to have reasonable cause before they start asking for information and requesting documents from employers. Now, there’s a very basic principle, I guess, now that underpins so much of our law—that there must be reasonable cause. For those that have studied law or legal practitioners, they will understand the concept of reasonable cause, and, without that reasonable cause, there is an enormous potential for administrative abuse of the rules and the regulations, because there’s no mechanism in this piece of legislation that explains how the desk officer is going to decide who gets a request for documentation and who doesn’t. It’s going to be very random. It’s going to be a fishing exercise. There won’t necessarily be anything other than, I don’t know, just an “I just didn’t like the name of that company.” or “I got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.” or something like that. There’s no basis upon which the investigation will be based.

Now, that’s fundamentally, I think, a poor piece of process. It runs contrary to the very foundations of our legal system, and I think it’s dangerous. But what’s worse is that once a desktop investigation has been initiated by somebody sitting in an office cubicle, probably somewhere in Wellington or Auckland, there’s no right of appeal or ability for the employer to actually go back and say, “Well, why have you done that?” You know, “What’s the story?” Again, basic principles of our legal system are not being adhered to in this piece of legislation. On the face of it, it seems relatively sensible, but when you delve into the details, there are some very big issues here that relate to the role of the State, the role of public servants, and the role of what they can and can’t do. Yes, we have a problem with migrant exploitation—nobody denies that—but shouldn’t we be, as a Parliament and as a legislature, a little bit more nimble than simply going after organisations that may have made an honest mistake? I want to know, where are the people who are very massively exploiting migrants? And there are a number of them.

What was interesting was that in 2020, Kantar did some research for this very Government, and that review showed that, in fact, most employers want to do the right thing. I think that you probably didn’t need any research to find that out, but the research confirmed that, because most employers are good employers—most employers do want to do the right thing. But the research found that not only do they want to do the right thing, but they struggle to simply understand immigration law, which has been the subject of multiple changes, multiple different interpretations over a number of years. Now, that’s occurred under Governments of whichever stripe, but the fact is that in the area of immigration and employment of migrants, the law has been very much a moving feast over a long period of time. And it’s little wonder that some employers, notwithstanding that they want to do the right thing, may make an honest mistake and may get it wrong.

So should they be then penalised by a random process of a desktop investigation and an infringement regime that provides no need for reasonable cause and then no appeal rights? I think this is fundamentally wrong and it leads me and my National Party colleagues to have cause to oppose this legislation, not because we don’t think that migrant exploitation is something that should not be pursued vigorously in our legislation and our regulations—of course it should be—but this piece of legislation just tinkers around the edge, and it’s become a hallmark of the current Labour Government that they talk a big game; provide warm, soothing words; but actually do very little. Again, it’s another example of non-delivery, not matching the expectation that the piece of legislation, the name on the tin, has; it just doesn’t do the job.

But worse than that, not only does it not do the job but it creates some real questions about fundamental basics of our legal system, the ability to have reasonable cause before an investigation is opened, and then a lack of appeal rights. These are issues that caused me and my colleagues a high level of concern, and that’s why we are opposing this piece of legislation at its third reading.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. The Hon Scott Simpson said that migrant exploitation is widespread. It exists, but when it comes to solutions, rather than opposing the solution that we’re providing, he’s not proposing any solutions. So you can’t say that we do have a problem and then, at the same time, reject the proposed solution. You can’t have it both ways.

Temporary migrant workers make an important contribution to New Zealand. It’s a critical workforce that contributes a lot to our country. At its peak in March 2020, prior to the onset of COVID-19, there were an estimated 235,000 temporary migrant workers in New Zealand. It’s a workforce that is diverse and includes workers with a range of visa conditions, skill levels, and personal situations. It is also a workforce that’s vulnerable and exposed to exploitation unless robust and fit for purpose legislation is in place to protect them.

Currently, we all know that we have gaps in our enforcement regimes that exist to ensure employers of migrant workers are complying with their obligations. That’s why we believe that the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill implements the remaining changes from the Temporary Migrant Worker Exploitation Review. Once it’s passed, this legislation will amend the Immigration Act, the Employment Relations Act, and the Companies Act to introduce a fit for purpose offence and penalty regime to deter employers of temporary migrant workers from non-compliance with their obligations under Immigration’s employment law.

So we know that migrant exploitation is widespread and it’s ugly. It’s out there and I would like to commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House, because we believe that this is going to be a solution and we believe that this is going to stop this widespread practice in our country. I commend it to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Looking at the clock, I think I’ll just take a very short call to give everyone time to have a decent amount of lunch. But I just want to reflect on the comments that my learned colleague Scott Simpson has said from our side of the House. There is absolutely no doubt that everyone in this House is opposed to the very idea of migrant exploitation, or exploitation of any sort. The Minister is correct: migrants are often the most vulnerable employees, and they actually come under tremendous pressure, but as the Hon Scott Simpson has actually laid out, this particular bill does not actually address the bigger issue.

I guess the biggest concern I have is that this bill removes the requirement of the desk-based officer to have reasonable grounds to do the search on any given employer and without any basis or proof that they’re actually doing any wrong. Sometimes, those things can be quite difficult to prove, right? When employees are actually being mistreated or are being abused, they can actually complain, make a complaint. If other people actually in the industry notice that, you know, they’re doing something, I mean, they can always report, and that could be the basis for an investigation, but that is not what is actually happening here. This random desk officer with no cause to question the employer is able to take on the action, which potentially looks at the issues like, if the employer employs a migrant they are not authorised to employ, how would they know with no basis? That is one of the things that I’m really concerned about.

One of the things that we talked about in earlier stages of the bill: we were talking about things like when changes happen to the hours and times that the employees are actually working. I remember working when my parents owned the business—it was a family business, and sometimes those hours shift because of things that are not of our control. For example, when a container is delivered at a different time and the workers are employed from particular hour to particular hour, start and end time can actually shift depending on when that container is actually delivered, to empty it.

We believe that this is, as my colleague has said, a fishing expedition by the Government, and we do not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. (Thursday)