Tuesday, 18 July 2023

TUESDAY, 18 JULY 2023

TUESDAY, 18 JULY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Daniel Bond requesting that the House make available in the next general election the option of a vote of no confidence in any of the registered political parties

petition of Aaron Hendry on behalf of Manaaki Rangatahi requesting that the House urge the Government to urgently develop a strategy and allocate funding to end youth homelessness.

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

CLERK:

2021-22 annual report of Crown Regional Holdings Limited

2022-23 annual report of the Māori Purposes Fund Board

Government response to the referral of the petition of Juliana Carvalho

Beautiful Children, Inquiry into the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit, report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, December 2022

statements of corporate intent for:

Airways Corporation

AsureQuality Limited

Commerce Commission

Electricity Corporation of New Zealand

Environmental Science and Research Limited

Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited

Kiwi Group Capital Limited

KiwiRail Holdings Limited

Kordia Group Limited

Landcare Research New Zealand Limited

Landcorp Farming Limited

MetService New Zealand Limited

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited

New Zealand Forest Research Institute Limited

New Zealand Post Limited

New Zealand Railways Corporation

Plant and Food Research Limited

Public Trust

Quotable Value Limited

Transpower New Zealand Limited

2023-24 statements of performance expectations for:

City Rail Link Limited

Classification Office

Commerce Commission

Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited

Crown Regional Holdings Limited

Education Payroll Limited

Kiwi Group Capital Limited

Network for Learning Limited

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

Public Trust

Real Estate Authority

Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Limited

Reserve Bank of New Zealand

Taumata Arowai, and

WorkSafe New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests, entitled Registrar’s Inquiry into Hon Michael Wood’s compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Privilege

Registrar’s Inquiry into Hon Michael Wood’s compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders—Question of Privilege

SPEAKER: The registrar has determined that the matter under inquiry involves a question of privilege. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.

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

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

SPEAKER: Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Environment Committee on the Ministry of Environment’s long-term insights briefing 2023

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:

Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill

reports of the Controller and Auditor-General: 2021-31 long-term plans and consultation documents

reports of the Ombudsman: Ready or not? A report on the public sector, the OIA, and the pandemic; OIA compliance and practice in Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission

report of the Health Committee on the petition of Sally Walker

report of the Justice Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:

briefing on Māori climate adaptation

briefing on Te Mātāwai, and on the

Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Sunday Blessings

petition of Kate Day

report of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Lands

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Consumer Information Standards (Origin of Food) Regulations 2021

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the inquiry into the future of inter-regional passenger rail in New Zealand.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Environment, Māori Affairs, Regulations Review, and Transport and Infrastructure Committees and the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General and the Ombudsman are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2), introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the policies announced this week to break the cycle of offending, back the police to fight crime, and increase the accountability of offenders. These changes include a new aggravating factor to crack down on adults who commission or reward young people to commit crime, an aggravating factor to better hold to account people who post their crimes online, changes to the Family Court that will allow the Family Court to require young offenders to participate in community service programmes, the building of two new youth justice facilities for up to 30 high-needs youth, and changes to improve family group conferences—among other changes. This Government is very much focused on the three pillars of prevention, protection, and responsibility.

David Seymour: Does he, then, stand by his statement that “Using a child to commit a crime is cowardly, exploitative, and destroys lives, so the consequences must be serious”; and, if so, does the Government have any policy to make using a child to commit a crime a new offence in itself?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated yesterday, what we’re doing is adding an aggravating factor to an existing offence that already exists. That, effectively, allows for the pass-through of that offence to the person who commissioned the crime. For example, if an adult used a young person to commit an aggravated burglary, which has a maximum sentence of 14 years, the adult who commissioned that could be liable to that sentence themselves.

David Seymour: What does he say to someone like Bhavana Patel of Jyotis Dairy in the Mt Roskill electorate, who was bashed with a hammer while trying to make an honest living, when the Prime Minister of the country doesn’t even know the difference between a crime in the Crimes Act and an aggravating factor in the Sentencing Act? What does he say to her?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I say to her that I’d never use a tragic incident like that, which is utterly unacceptable, for political purposes.

David Seymour: Can he understand why victims like Mrs Patel, who I spoke to just last week, might be angry that someone who’s overseen a 122 percent increase in serious assaults causing injury, over five years, decides to introduce tougher penalties only 88 days from an election but still can’t get the most basic details right; who is cynical about crime and politics now?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say that the victims of those crimes have a right to feel angry about them. They have a right to feel aggrieved about them. And the Government is absolutely committed to addressing those issues. I would also point out that the increase in violent crimes that the member has referred to includes an increase in the reporting of family violence, something that the members on this side of the House have encouraged, and in fact we have introduced new offences in that area, which have also contributed to that increase in the overall reporting of violent crime.

David Seymour: Has he read the recently released Treasury advice about the school lunch programme, saying “have found no impact on attendance, and ākonga Māori, who make up around 48 percent of students receiving the programme, have not benefited on most metrics, such as school functioning (e.g., paying attention in class), health, and mental wellbeing (with mental wellbeing worse off for those in the programme).”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m aware of the Treasury report. I’m also aware of countless reports from school teachers and principals who disagree with it.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his answer to my question on 9 May: “Well, I’ll give the member one policy initiative: there are 220,000 children who go to school every day and receive a free and healthy lunch because of the policies introduced by this Government.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

David Seymour: Does he recall that that answer was to the question “can he give a measurable example of any Government service that is 34 percent better today than it was five years ago?”; and, if he can remember that, why did he use an example that Treasury shows has not resulted in measurable improvements and, in some cases, made the outcomes worse?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because that programme is 100 percent better than it was five years ago, when it didn’t even exist.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement “It’s not right for households to be tightening their belts if the Government isn’t also being seen to be doing the same” and can he think seriously that the average household is sitting there saying, “Yes, I’m spending 30 percent more money but getting no measurable improvement in outcomes” and that it’s OK to make churlish and snide answers like the one he just gave?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if I wanted lessons in “churlish and snide”, I’d only need to look at the member for an example on that. But the member’s use of the figures that he does fails to account for where that money has gone, which includes pay increases for our nurses, our doctors, our teachers; more police on the beat; an increase in the population; more older people requiring more healthcare—the list could go on—more people eligible for New Zealand superannuation. I know the member wants to cut all of those things.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister just give us one example of an improved outcome—a result for New Zealanders—that has come from his Government spending 34 percent more money, adjusted for inflation, in the time it’s been in office?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thousands of people are getting better access to healthcare under this Government. There are kids going to school, now, who are getting access to learning support, who didn’t get access to learning support under the previous Government. The Government has significantly increased our investment in infrastructure so that we can do things like repair potholes, which were run down under the last Government.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that evaluations of Ka Ora, Ka Ako to date have found strong outcomes for improving nutrient intake, particularly for those 7.3 percent of ākonga with less access to sufficient food at home, and does he agree that improved nutrient intake is a better measure for a lunch programme than improved school attendance?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe it’s a good measure. It’s not the only measure; there are a number of measures. But I’ve spoken to school teachers, for example, who have indicated that kids’ concentration is better in the afternoon because they have had a lunch to eat during the day. I’ve spoken to school principals who have said that some of the kids who were difficult to get to go to school previously have been attending school more regularly as a result of the free and healthy lunches programme. And, yes, the nutritional intake is better, because we’ve put a lot of time and energy into looking at the sorts of foods that are being served in schools, to make sure that we’re improving the health outcomes for those kids, as well as the educational outcomes.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government partnering with businesses to support the uptake of low emissions technology?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Through the Low Emission Transport Fund, the Government is partnering with 19 businesses to support the uptake and roll-out of innovative low-emissions marine and off-road technology. While the Government is making significant progress in supporting the transition of the light vehicle fleet, emissions in the marine and off-road sector are harder to abate. Our partnerships with businesses will help to de-risk these projects, speed up the uptake, and provide opportunities to demonstrate new low-emissions technology.

Naisi Chen: How is the Government partnering with the marine businesses to decarbonise their fleets?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Each year, our maritime and off-road sectors together use an estimate 1.6 billion litres of petrol and diesel, which equates to around 13 percent of New Zealand’s total energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. To accelerate the decarbonisation of the marine sector, we’re partnering with the likes of CentrePort to roll out shore-based power to Wellington ferries, and Next Generation Boats Ltd to deploy electric boats—including for tourism—as part of our plan to support the marine sector to decarbonise.

Naisi Chen: How is the Government supporting the uptake of low-emissions off-road technology?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Technology to support the transition for our off-road and heavy vehicles sector is rapidly evolving, and the Government is partnering with businesses to help de-risk the roll-out of these vehicles here in New Zealand. We’ve partnered with TDX Ltd to support the demonstration of the three electric wheel loaders, including one pre-production Volvo 20-tonne electric wheel loader, and we’re working with Brian Perry Civil Ltd to roll out an electric excavator and wheel loader to support the creation of a zero emissions construction crew.

Naisi Chen: How else is the Government partnering with businesses to decarbonise transport?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Recently, the Prime Minister announced a broad range of measures that go beyond transport—to partner with New Zealand Steel to install an electric arc furnace which will remove 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year; that’s the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road. This is New Zealand’s biggest ever emissions reduction project and the first of our large emitter partnerships through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular my decision to lead a trade mission to China in June this year, which helped to deliver on a number of priorities that will grow our exports, create jobs, and increase incomes. The economic relationship between New Zealand and China is worth around $40 billion annually to New Zealanders. Among the agreements that we were able to renew included agreements in tourism cooperation, forestry cooperation, and agricultural cooperation. We saw the launch of new direct airline routes to New Zealand, adding thousands more seats every month. We were able to take the opportunity to promote New Zealand as a travel destination to a very significant Chinese consumer base. And, of course, I was able to welcome international students from China back to New Zealand, who make up 35 percent of all international students who come to New Zealand. This Government’s record on trade speaks for itself. As a result of our commitment to trade, the share of our exports covered by trade agreements will increase by nearly 50 percent—another example of how this Government is backing our Kiwi exporters.

Christopher Luxon: Why did his finance Minister say that a wealth tax is “something I would have liked to happen” on the same day that the Prime Minister tried to rule it out from overseas?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I didn’t try; I did.

Christopher Luxon: We don’t know about that yet. Is it normal for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue to publicly back major tax changes that the Prime Minister has tried to rule out; or is that just how things work in his Cabinet today?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did rule it out, and I would note that a number of Ministers put up bids during the Budget process which they support, which ultimately don’t proceed through the Budget process. That’s not unique to this Government; that happens in every Government.

Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that all work on new taxes at Treasury and IRD has now stopped?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No further work will be done on those things ahead of the election, clearly.

Christopher Luxon: Which tax policy does his Minister of Finance and his Minister of Revenue support: the one he’s trying to run on or the one that the Greens are?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The one Cabinet agree.

Christopher Luxon: Why is it that if you ask three Labour Ministers on what the tax policy is, you get three different answers?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject that.

Christopher Luxon: Why did he tell New Zealanders he wouldn’t introduce any new taxes and then have public officials spend nine months working on them?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve indicated before, my decision to rule those out happened before the Budget, and I stand by that decision.

Christopher Luxon: How can New Zealand—[Interruption] sorry?

Hon Grant Robertson: No, no. Carry on.

Christopher Luxon: No, I will. I will. Don’t worry, we’ve got years of this—[Interruption] How can New Zealanders take his new commitments on tax seriously when he didn’t—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we hear that question, please?

Christopher Luxon: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very good question. How can New Zealanders take his new commitments on tax seriously when he didn’t uphold his old ones?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject that.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What announcement has the Government made about removing the postcode lottery for cataract surgery?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): It has been a priority for this Government to eliminate the inconsistency patients experience when they need surgical treatment because of where they live—the so-called “postcode lottery”. That’s why I was proud to announce that an estimated 3,500 more cataract surgeries will be delivered as a result of a new nationally consistent threshold for surgery. A nationally consistent threshold will remove the postcode lottery that has denied some New Zealanders access to this life-changing procedure.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Why is the Government implementing a nationally consistent threshold?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: For decades, the former district health boards used a point system that held widely differing thresholds for access to cataract surgery, varying from 46 to 61 points. A score of 46 points represents mildly reduced vision; a score of 61 represents poor vision, that a person could no longer legally drive. In Auckland and Waitematā, for example, you could become eligible for a cataract operation with a score of 46, but in Canterbury and Southern, you needed a score of 61. That variation represented the worst of what’s become widely known as “postcode lottery” in healthcare, and it isn’t fair.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Given that, what will the nationally consistent threshold for cataract surgery now be?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In a first under the new health system, there will a nationally consistent score of a maximum of 46 in order to access surgery, opening up eligibility for approximately 3,500 more surgeries. A score of 46 means patients with mildly reduced vision—such as a result of cataracts—will have much earlier access to surgery, improving their quality of life considerably.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this be implemented?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In the Budget, we allocated $180 million to reduce wait-lists and standardise access to healthcare, including cataract surgery. Te Whatu Ora’s hospital and specialist team will work with referring specialists to identify who will be eligible under the new score and ensure they have timely access to the procedure. Actions being taking by Te Whatu Ora include initiatives such as outsourcing to other providers and ophthalmologists, as well as improving the productivity through innovative models of care and improving theatre efficiency.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in June this year that “the extent of the Government’s work on tax was outlined after the 2020 election. That has been the work programme for tax”, and is that consistent with the months spent working on proposals for new taxes, including a minimum tax, wealth tax, and a capital gains tax intended to be part of Budget 2023?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my statement of 21 June 2023 in its full and proper context. This includes my answer to the member’s primary question, which was, “…the Budget process for 2023 began around August of last year, and, as at all Budgets, it considered whether specific tax changes were appropriate”, and then the full statement in the supplementary question, “…the extent of the Government’s work on tax was outlined after the 2020 election. That has been the work programme for tax. In respect of the Budget, we had the announcement on the trustee tax rate. In respect of this Government, those are the actions on tax that we are taking.” The Government’s tax policy work programme was last published on 20 July 2021, and included decisions that the Government had taken at that time, including, for instance, the removal of mortgage interest deductibility. As such, the answer to the second part of the question is yes. As indicated above, Ministers did receive advice on tax changes during the course of the Budget process, including ones that Cabinet did not agree to proceed with.

Nicola Willis: At what point after the 2020 election did he front up to New Zealanders that he had commissioned extensive work to design massive new taxes documented in these reports, including proposals for a minimum tax, wealth tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, corrective taxes—all paid for by taxpayers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As noted in my primary answer, at this Budget, as indeed at many Budgets in the past, work was done on potential alternative tax policies. For example, the Government’s tax policy work programme 2009-2010 did not include the following measures that were included in Budget 2010: the increasing of the rate of GST from 12.5 percent to 15 percent, a cut in the company tax rate, ending landlords and businesses’ ability to claim depreciation on buildings with an estimated useful life of 50 years or more, a cut in the top tax rate for most portfolio investment entities from 30 percent to 28 percent, and changes to the thin capitalisation tax rules. The Budget process is the process in which ideas are tested and explored.

Nicola Willis: On what date did the Prime Minister inform him that he would rule out the introduction of a wealth tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the lead-up to the final Budget paper going to Cabinet, which I believe was on 11 April.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware of a statement by Labour Party finance spokesperson on 9 September 2020 that Labour will not implement any new taxes next term, and, if so, does the Minister think the finance Minister has acted consistent with that in commissioning extensive work for months, designing new taxes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member may or may not be aware that, has she not worked her way through those documents, the proposals being made would not have come into force in terms of new taxes until after the election. In the event, as we all now know, it didn’t happen.

Nicola Willis: Why, on 16 February, did he direct his officials to focus on proposals for a wealth tax, rather than the minimum tax he had previously prioritised, and was it because he felt newly enabled by the election of Prime Minister Hipkins?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was part of the evolving work programme. In answer to the second part of the question, the arrival of Prime Minister Hipkins gave me and others in this caucus pause to reflect on a number of different issues. The member is aware of the reprioritisation programme that has taken place.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Can the Minister give an assurance that Government’s policy on GST before the election will be the same as the Government’s policy on GST after the election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, and as I indicated, in 2009-10 that was not something that was on the work programme of the Government but, magically, GST did increase from 12.5 percent to 15 percent. I’ll also be interested to see the consistency of tax policy, for instance, on the top tax rate—whether that’s going to be reduced—and a number of other measures that we will see whether they’re consistent.

Nicola Willis: When the Minister says the Prime Minister informed him a wealth tax wasn’t a goer anymore, can he clarify the statement in the official advice he received which states, “The decision has been taken that now is not the right time for these changes.”, and can he confirm that there may indeed be a future time where he will consider it the right time to impose hefty new wealth taxes on New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the words of that member’s leader, “we’ve got years of this”.

Nicola Willis: Is that a bid for the Labour Party leadership?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, but it is for you!

Nicola Willis: Is the Minister concerned that the Prime Minister keeps killing his pet projects—first the jobs tax, then his wealth tax fantasy—and if the Prime Minister doesn’t trust this finance Minister, then why should New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is the prospect of a Government coming in and deciding that now is the time to cut taxes when we need to invest more in health, when we need to invest more in education, when we need to invest more in housing. I’m worried about a Government that thinks there should be a top tax rate of 28c, which will mean billions of dollars of cuts right across public services. That’s what really concerns me.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Government saying that they don’t have a mandate to implement taxes on wealth or capital gains when polling shows that 53 percent of New Zealanders—a higher proportion than voted for Labour in the 2020 election—support a wealth tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Unfortunately, mandates are not delivered by polls.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was the decision not to proceed with a capital gains tax or a wealth tax informed by the IRD high-wealth individuals research, and, if not, does he think that that decision should be revisited in light of research that shows that the wealthiest people in this country pay on average a lower effective tax rate than the average New Zealander?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Cabinet has made the decision not to advance that work.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he believe, then, that the revenue generated from a wealth tax or a capital gains tax would enable greater investment in public services and help lift thousands of children out of poverty, and, if so, why has the Government ruled it out?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many different ways to achieve the goals that the member suggests in her question.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to crack down on youth offending and gang offending?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yesterday, the Government announced steps to crack down on recent increases in criminal offending, to break the cycle of crime, and to make sure offenders are held to account. We will introduce a new aggravating factor for posting offending behaviour online—to apply to adults and young people—and provide the courts with an additional consideration when sentencing. It will send a strong signal that this behaviour is unacceptable. We’ll also introduce an aggravating factor for commissioning or rewarding children and young people who offend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, these actions are cowardly, they are exploitative and harmful to the children involved, so the consequences must be serious.

Vanushi Walters: Why are these steps needed?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: These steps are needed because this is about prevention, protection, and accountability. These changes will make offenders more accountable, back our police with greater powers, and work to break the cycle of offending. We know that there is an organised criminal element to much of the recent offending, so, in addition to the offending done for the notoriety on social media, these new aggravating factors give police the tools in the tool box to crack down. This isn’t about locking our children and perpetuating the cycle of crime; it’s about making sure that young offenders know that their actions have consequences. Our interventions that we have introduced have been working. The early intervention programme targeting recidivist child offenders has been highly successful, alongside the Kotahi te Whakaaro programme. We’ll continue the work that’s already under way to keep young people away from crime in the first place.

Vanushi Walters: What other announcements has the Government made recently?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yesterday, the Government also announced that we are introducing greater accountability to those most impacted by crime. For offending by children and young people—from the age of 10—the Family Court will be given the ability to require offenders to undertake community activities, including, for example, cleaning graffiti, picking up rubbish, and those types of measures. The Family Court will also be able to require that an offender attend an educational, recreational, or activity programme. This is vital to get young offenders re-engaged and back on track. It builds on the work we’re doing to improve school attendance as well—back on track. Finally, we’re backing the police by boosting the prosecution service with an additional $26 million to help clear the case backlog in the District Court.

Vanushi Walters: How will the new funding help reduce the case backlog in the District Court?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The funding announced yesterday will allow police to add up to 78 fulltime-equivalent staff to prepare their in-court work against those who’ve committed serious crimes. The funding is designed to ensure better use of resources and court time, to resolve cases earlier and with fewer court appearances. This funding works alongside a range of other initiatives already under way to address delays in the court, including increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, High Court, and District Court—that’s work through to 2025—opening the Newmarket Court Hearing Centre in March 2023 to provide additional capacity for the Manukau District Court; a joint work programme with Te Whatu Ora, the Ministry of Health, and Corrections to address issues around court-ordered forensic reports; establishing the Family Court Associates position; and the use of Kaiārahi—Family Court Navigators—and resources and information for care of children to provide quality, accessible information so that participants understand their options, both in and out of court, to resolve care of children matters.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she believe her Government has the right policies in justice; if so, why?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes. As I just addressed in the previous statement to the House, we’ve been working on a range of measures to address a recent spike in youth offending. In addition, we are tackling organised crime through measures, including the new Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, which was recently used in the events in Ōpōtiki to search vehicles, seize weapons, and make arrests of gang members. Further, we have prioritised victims. Since 2017, this Government has doubled funding for victim support and tripled support for the Victims Assistance Scheme. We are improving legal protections—for example, for victims of sexual and serious violence, through new legislation to give sexual assault victims more control in court processes, particularly around name suppression. Our focus is a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will she concede now that her Government’s priority to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, regardless of what’s happening on the ground, has been misguided and has contributed to the explosion in crime that the Prime Minister referred to yesterday?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No. Public safety has always been a top priority for our Government. Where people commit serious crimes, they will do that time. I note that violent criminals are still being imprisoned; that hasn’t changed. The reduced prison population hasn’t led to crime sprees or an overwhelming majority of reduction for people in jail for non-violent crimes, and the stats back it up. We have safely reduced the prison population by 21 percent and we’re doing this by helping non-violent eligible prisoners with the bail process.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was she consulted on the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that the Government will prioritise creating a new offence for those who use young people to commit a crime, punishable with prison for up to 10 years?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, that was a Cabinet decision.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why would the public have confidence in the Government’s new enthusiasm for cracking down on crime is genuine, when it has emerged just three months before an election?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refute the proposition in that question. This Government has been focused on law and order and making sure that New Zealanders are kept safe. We’ve increased police numbers. We’ve introduced a series of legislative reforms, including particularly CAIL. CAIL is, as the member will be well aware, the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act. This is a piece of legislation that has been seen to be critically important for the police and, indeed, it was something that they have been relying on in a range of different circumstances. Our job as governors is to continue to build on that programme, and the announcements that we made yesterday, and indeed today, continue to address the issues in law and order that we continue to see.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does the Government determine its priorities in justice when the Prime Minister says there’s been an explosion in crime, but the Deputy Prime Minister says of crime in Auckland, “Oh, I wouldn’t say it’s bad at all.”? How can a Government determine priorities when there’s no agreement on the scale of the problem that it’s trying to fix?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Oh, there’s a very clear agreement. Cabinet has made a raft of decisions in the law and order space and will continue to do so.

Question No. 8—Health (Pacific Peoples)

8. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE to the Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples): What actions has the Government taken based on the consultations and reviews of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 since 2017, and will she introduce legislation on this subject in this Parliament?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples)): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. In response to the last question, I am open to amending the Act, but no policy decisions have been made to do so. No changes will be introduced before the House rises next month. In response to the first part of the question, the Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora ran a public consultation process on possible options to modernise the legislation in late 2019. That consultation followed a review by the Law Commission, which concluded that the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 is outdated and should be repealed and replaced with new legislation. The ministry’s public consultation process identified further areas that needed consideration. Since then, health officials have been engaging further with individuals and community groups who have an interest in this area of reform. One issue being actively considered is whether a broader range of factors needed to be considered, the impact of non-regulatory changes such as implementing online death certification, and updating guidance for practitioners.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: So with the consultation the Minister has undertaken, has that included with community sector groups such as Ngā Pou Herenga—the Funeral Guides Collective—and, if so, was there specific consultation with tangata whenua, who act as funeral guides on marae and in their communities?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I’m advised that Manatū Hauora officials undertook public consultation in 2019 and 2020 on potential options to modernise the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 in relation to legislation. The group Death Without Debt provided a public submission and met with officials in August last year to discuss the burial and cremation work programme and policy proposals. Health officials contacted a number of Māori providers based on iwi and hapū listed in Te Kāhui Māngai—the directory of iwi and Māori organisations—as well as other groups such as the New Zealand Māori Council. Manatū Hauora asked these groups and organisations to submit on the consultation document and to disseminate it amongst their members. There were a total of 196 submissions on the consultation. This included submissions from Ngāi Tahu Māori Law Centre; Ngāheke, Waiwhetu Marae; Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust; and Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board. In addition, there were 14 individual submitters who identified as Māori.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What affordable options for whānau has the Minister considered, if any, outside of the private funeral industry, that currently enjoys a captive market for pre - cremation and burial paperwork in almost all after-death care?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I’m very aware of the costs for whānau in the private funeral industry. Health officials are continuing to work on options in this area. That advice has not yet been received. In other portfolios, there are a number of Government initiatives to support whānau who might be struggling with the costs associated with funerals. For example, depending on the circumstances, grants may be available from agencies including the Ministry of Social Development, ACC, and a range of charitable organisations.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: What does the Minister say to advocacy group Death Without Debt—who are in the gallery today—who are concerned about funeral-driven poverty, in her call for extending the health and disability code to include after-death care so doctors complete pre - cremation and burial paperwork and the public is not forced to depend on the private funeral industry to do so?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I am aware of and empathise with Death Without Debt’s concerns. I acknowledge the work they do and their members’ advocacy. Manatū Hauora is still considering work in this space and expects to provide further advice in the next few months.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Has the Minister considered the impact that severe weather events have on tangihanga and funerals in areas such as Te Tairāwhiti, where we must cremate our loved ones, such as we did two weeks ago with my uncle Kahu Smiler, because the high water table will preclude burials, potentially, for months?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: First of all, my condolences to the member for her whānau’s loss. I have not received any advice on this issue. However, the management of cemeteries and burial grounds is the responsibility of local authorities, and those decisions sit with local authorities.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What is the current State highway maintenance budget for 2021-24, and how does this compare to 2015-18?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): The Government is spending more on road maintenance, including on pothole repairs, than any previous Government. The current State highway maintenance budget is $2.8 billion for the period 2021-24, a 65 percent increase on the $1.7 billion from 2015-18. With the increased frequency of severe weather events, increasing the resilience of our roading networks is critical to our economy. Maintenance spending on all roads, including local roads, has increased by 54 percent since this Government took office. This has meant we have been able to fund huge increases in pothole repairs and road resurfacing.

Shanan Halbert: How many potholes did Waka Kotahi repair in 2022-23, and is this an increase?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, in 2022-23, Waka Kotahi repaired 60,989 potholes. This compares with just 12,739 pothole repairs in 2013-14. That’s an almost 500 percent increase in pothole repairs.

Shanan Halbert: What percentage of the network needs to be resurfaced each year to maintain the State highway network—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is embarrassing.

Shanan Halbert: —and what recent trends in the resurfacing is he aware of?

SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. I really need to hear the question so I can rule if it’s in order or out of order. I want to hear the question.

Shanan Halbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What percentage of the network needs—

Hon Todd McClay: And Bidois is out doorknocking.

SPEAKER: Who was that? Are you going to stand and withdraw?

Hon Todd McClay: I withdraw and apologise.

Shanan Halbert: What percentage of the network needs to be resurfaced each year to maintain the State highway network, and what recent trends in resurfacing is he aware of?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Resurfacing, of course, is absolutely critical, because if you don’t resurface the road, when the road gets dished with heavy trucks and cracks, the rain gets in, and you get potholes. So what is needed to prevent that, according to Waka Kotahi, is around 9 percent or 2,000 kilometres of the State highways need to be resurfaced each year. Other than during the first wave of COVID, this Government has delivered more than 2,000 kilometres of road resurfacing every full year we’ve been in Government. In contrast, between 2013-14 and 2015-16, road resurfacing halved to 4.5 percent—half of the 9 percent required.

Shanan Halbert: Is he satisfied with the current level of road maintenance in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’m satisfied that we have been catching up on a lot of road maintenance. I’m also aware that the severe weather events that we’ve had this year, particularly in the upper half of the North Island, are absolutely unprecedented. So there’s still a lot of work to do, and this Government is committed to doing that work—committing to funding it, committing to doing it properly, and committing to funding it properly.

Simeon Brown: Why is the New Zealand Transport Agency installing 21 speed bumps on State Highway 2 between Masterton and Featherston at a cost of up to $450,000 each, which will significantly reduce travel times on State Highway 2, and shouldn’t this money be spent actually fixing our roads instead?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Road safety improvements are important, and I have heard some members of this House say that we should cancel all of the TV campaigns, for example, on drink driving, safety speeds, and others—that would save $37 million a year. I’ve also heard other people say that we should spend less on traffic improvements like median barriers. We’re committed to rolling those out. In respect of speed bumps, look, I’m not attached to every speed bump in the country. Speed bumps are actually normally installed by councils rather than by central government, but if the member’s got some individual speed bumps that he’s worried about and he wants me to see if I can cancel them, send me a list and I’m happy to look at it.

Shanan Halbert: Does the Government intend to defund police work on our main highways?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, the major component of the cost of safety measures that are funded by the Government is the approximately 1,000 police dedicated to traffic duties that the Government funds. It’s really important work, and there’s actually not a lot of money to be saved there that could be spent on potholes.

Question No. 10—Police

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at the time it was given: “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.” I stand by that statement given the recent announcement the Government has made to empower police to crack down on youth offending, as well as gang offending—this includes introducing an aggravating factor that would apply whenever adults aid, abet, or incite a person under the age of 18 to carry out an offence. It would also make it an aggravating factor when posting offending behaviour online for both adults and also for young people. It includes introducing great accountability for youth offending by bringing youth justice tools and approaches into the Family Court. And, finally, I’m pleased to see a funding boost of $26 million for the Police Prosecution Service.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it correct that ram raids have increased by 40 percent in the last year?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The current level of offending is entirely unacceptable, and that is why this Government is taking further action to break the cycle of offending and to hold those repeat offenders to account. The trend is down from a high in August, in 2022, but we have got a lot more work to do and we remain committed to doing that.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So which is it: the trend is down or ram raids have increased by 40 percent in the last year?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: They remain too high and that’s why we’re taking further actions to bring them down. I do acknowledge there has been an increase in ram raids, which peaked in August of last year. I remain committed to tackling the problem. While we have seen those numbers come down since August, I do not believe any ram raid is acceptable.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why have ram raids increased since she became the Minister?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We have seen, as I have said, a peak in August of last year, but that is exactly why this Government is taking action to fund our front-line police, to make sure we have the resources there to prosecute, and to make sure that those young repeat offenders are brought to account. That is resourcing our front line, unlike that member’s previous Government that cut front-line resources.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, why was New Zealand safer under a National Government than it is under a Labour Government?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Did that member say that he feels that all New Zealand—the track record for Labour is that we have delivered 1,800 extra police, we have put $35 million into retail crime prevention, we have enabled Operation Cobalt with 40,000 charges brought against gang members, we have rolled out the tactical response model right across to keep our cops safer, and we have introduced legislation that enables new warrant powers for intra-gang conflict. I put that up against the track record of the previous National Government, which closed over 30 police stations, which froze the police budget, which let police numbers fall, and cut victims’ funding.

Question No. 11—Police

11. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made about the pursuit of criminal offending?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I was pleased to announce yesterday an additional $26 million for police prosecutions to help clear the case backlog in the District Court. This is a significant investment in police resources, which will lead to a strengthened prosecution service, and it means that police can take stronger cases against criminals that cause harm to our communities. Overall, police will get more resources devoted to their work, to improve the quality and the preparation for their in-court work. I have heard firsthand from our communities that they want the Government to go further in breaking the cycle of crime but also to hold accountable those repeat offenders. That is exactly why this Government is doing that by giving police the tools they need to get the results.

Dr Emily Henderson: What practical impacts will this additional funding have?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The police prosecution staff do a fantastic job, but they have been under considerable demand over the past few years. This is a significant investment that will help ease that pressure and help them to focus on greater outcomes for our communities. An additional 44 staff focused on in-court work will be funded by the initiative and a further 41 positions will be funded for key support roles to enable prosecutors to focus on in-court activities. There will also be a focus on the consistency of file preparation, and an increased use of digital files means the file quality will improve. This will allow disclosure of information in a more timely way and also reduce the number of adjournments due to disclosure delays.

Dr Emily Henderson: What other improvements will be made?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: An investment in case progression and resolution will involve improved processes and supporting how prosecution staff are deployed in each case and in each court. This investment will also mean more meaningful court appearances when the cases do arrive at court. Cases won’t need to go back time and time again, meaning fewer appearances in court. This will help with some of the demand pressures on the police front line, and they won’t need to repeatedly attend court. All these improvements will mean quicker progress for victims and provide a greater sense of justice as cases are resolved through the courts. We’ve heard from the community and are strengthening police to better represent and support victims through funding this increase.

Dr Emily Henderson: How will this free up the police front line?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: These changes are about raising accountability for those who commit crimes by ensuring that we have dedicated police resources that will be focused on working to prosecute offenders. Dedicated support staff will help our front line completing key administrative tasks. Our front-line staff will spend less time in court giving evidence as a result of having those decreased adjournments. All of these changes mean our front-line officers can spend more time in their communities rather than sitting at a desk dealing with administration. That’s a win for our police and a win for our communities.

Question No. 12—Education

12. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her actions and policies?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes.

Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $1 million on an attendance awareness campaign was good value for money when it was “not expected to have a direct quantifiable impact on attendance rates”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

Chris Baillie: Does she believe spending $1.3 million on a new maths and statistics curriculum was good value for money; and, if so, how will “expressing the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles” teach 7-year-olds basic numeracy skills?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

Chris Baillie: Does she believe that spending $74 million for 82 new school attendance officer roles is good value for money; and, if so, how many attendance officers have been recruited to date?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes.

Chris Baillie: How can the public have confidence in her when she prioritises wasteful spending on vanity projects over basic things like making sure the next generation of New Zealanders knows how to read and write?

Hon JAN TINETTI: All of those aspects and initiatives that the member has talked about are making a big difference to this country and to our young people. They are wonderful initiatives; wonderful programmes.

Urgent Debates Declined

Oranga Tamariki—Fighting at Youth Justice Residences

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Karen Chhour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 reports of mixed martial arts - style fighting at an Oranga Tamariki youth justice residence. “An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible.”—Speakers’ Ruling 200/4. The Government’s response to this matter and other reports about abuse in Oranga Tamariki facilities has been to appoint a former Police Commissioner to lead a review into youth justice facilities. That response was debated on 21 June. I’m not convinced that there have been further developments in the Government’s response that warrant an additional debate at this point. The application is therefore declined.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Time Taken to Correct a Misleading Statement

Hon DAVID PARKER (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning the time taken by the Minister of Education to correct a misleading statement to the House be noted.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I begin by making a more general reference. I’ve been in this House now for 20 years, and in the period prior to your assuming the Chair, I’ve been Privileges Committee chair for quite a while—and I served on the prior committees for a while. In my opinion, there have been too few references to the Privileges Committee, so I’m pleased that you, as Speaker, are taking your responsibilities seriously to make sure that the Standing Orders are adhered to. That doesn’t mean to say that all references to the Privileges Committee are of the same standing, and I’m not denying the seriousness of this reference, but I do think it’s good that the reputation of this Parliament is maintained. And one of the ways that we maintain the reputation of this Parliament and the confidence of people in this Parliament is by upholding the Standing Orders.

In respect of the reference to the committee on 30 May, the Speaker said that a matter of privilege had been raised by him, alleging that the “Hon Jan Tinetti deliberately misled the House by failing to correct a misleading statement at the earliest opportunity.” The Speaker noted that “In a supplementary question on 22 February 2023, the Minister was asked to categorically state that she had played no part in the delay of release of school attendance information. The Minister replied that she already had, and that it was a decision for the Ministry of Education. The Minister corrected this answer on 2 May, stating ‘I subsequently became aware that my office did have input into the timing of the release of the data through email correspondence with officials at the Ministry of Education.’ ”

Returning to the Speaker’s reference: “The Minister has stated that she was informed by her staff after question time on 22 February of her staff’s correspondence with the Ministry on the release of data. She also stated that she did not know her answer needed to be corrected until she received a letter from [the Speaker] on 1 May, after which she corrected it.” The Speaker has said, “It is an important principle that the House can trust the accuracy of ministerial replies to parliamentary questions. While mistakes are sometimes made which can result in the House receiving an answer containing a misleading statement, it is vitally important that as soon as this is discovered, the Minister returns to the House to correct their answer at the earliest opportunity”, and accordingly, the Speaker said, “I have considered the matter raised and considered its degree of importance”, and then said it was for the Privileges Committee to determine whether delaying correcting the incorrect statement amounted to a contempt and referred it to the select committee.

The select committee then heard evidence from the Minister; that evidence was, in the main, heard in public session. All of the oral evidence from the Hon Jan Tinetti was heard, as all privileges complaints are, in open session, and the media were in attendance. We heard from the Minister for an hour. There were follow-up questions that were put by the committee, at the request of members of the committee, to clarify some of the answers that had been given by the Hon Jan Tinetti. One of those issues that the committee was interested to inquire further into was whether in fact she was rushed after question time—when she had given her incorrect answer and when she first learned, after returning to her office, that her office had been engaged with the Ministry as to the date for the release of the information. What happened on the day was that, at the end of question time, the Minister was on duty, and after her period of duty, she returned to her office and she spoke with two staff briefly. She was informed that her answer was incorrect and that her office had been involved. One of the pieces of advice she had from a staff member was that that meant she had an answer that she needed to correct, and then the other person thought that because she thought the answer was correct when she gave it, she didn’t need to correct the answer, because it wasn’t misleading; because it was correct—as she believed the matters to be when she gave it. There was then a period of delay when the Minister did nothing to update the House as to her learning that her answer had been incorrect. She then travelled overseas for a period.

There was a letter in respect of an earlier complaint by a member to the Speaker where the Speaker wrote to the Minister and said, “Are you sure you don’t need to correct this?” And the Minister replied, “No, I stand by my statement at the time.” And again, the Minister, in her evidence to us, defended that statement on the basis that she said that her understanding was that because she believed her answer to be correct at the time she gave it, it wasn’t misleading because that’s what she believed to be the truth when she gave it. Unfortunately for the Minister, that’s actually not a correct application of the Standing Orders, because it’s not whether we believe the information to be correct, it’s actually whether it was, and as soon as the Minister learned that the information was incorrect, the Minister should have immediately, at the first opportunity, returned to the House and made that correction.

The next decision that we had to take as a committee—having essentially found those facts, as I have summarised them, I hope, fairly—was “How serious is this, and is it serious enough to amount to a contempt?” As you’ll see, the report of the committee was unanimous: we are quite critical of the Minister; we have found her actions to have been negligent. The Minister could have sought advice from the Clerk of the House, from senior colleagues—in a number of ways, she could have sought further information to clarify her position—which, in the view of the committee, as soon as she had that information when she returned to her office, at least gave her pause for thought to actually take an active step to resolve the issue. Instead, the Minister didn’t, and as a consequence of that, the committee unanimously found that the Minister—I think we used the word “should”—should be criticised and be subject to the criticism of the House for that error. Whilst by that time the Minister had corrected her answer in the House, she hadn’t apologised to the House.

Where the committee determined the issue as to whether the behaviour of the member was a contempt—as opposed to something that wasn’t a contempt but still worthy of criticism from my perspective; and other members can speak for themselves—that essentially turns upon whether this was deliberate or not. It was sloppy, it was wrong, but it wasn’t deliberate. Upon that basis, looking at precedents from earlier Privileges Committees, where earlier instances of the House being misled had been considered by Privileges Committees, the committee, in the end, determined that it wasn’t necessary to find the Hon Jan Tinetti in contempt of the House, but it was appropriate that she apologises to the House, which she has since done.

Can I thank the members of the committee for the work that they did. I thought that we handled the issue appropriately. I think it is a salutary lesson to Ministers—and to members generally—that the Standing Orders need to be adhered to if this place is to work properly, and amongst the most important of those functions is the holding of the Government to account; the Government that spends money and has authority on behalf of the people to do very serious things. One of the most important ways in which Governments are held to account is through question time, and therefore, when a question is wrong and misleads the House, it ought to be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as deputy chair of the Privileges Committee to support the motion and to attach myself to the comments of the chair in respect of recent activity by the committee, which is, I think, appropriate. But I do so with a sense of sadness that on this occasion, on a very important matter of privilege—that is, not to mislead and then to quickly correct—we have an example of where standards have fallen well below that which we and the public should expect of its elected officials.

As Mr Parker said, there was no real dissent by the committee in the end, and the committee understood that there would be an appropriately high bar for the finding of contempt. But as is mentioned in the report, on page 13, “Although some of us find parts of her evidence unconvincing”—I would suggest that that perhaps understates the incredulity that members had about Minister Tinetti’s evidence. And certainly I and my colleague Gerry Brownlee, both former Ministers and who know how ministerial offices run, found some of that evidence barely credible for reasons which I’ll elaborate on presently. But in reaching its conclusions, the committee must rely on the honourability of its members if they come before Privileges, and it’s incumbent on us to actually believe the testimony before it.

But that’s not to say that it should be accepted without question. And if various pieces of information that are before it are in conflict with each other, it behoves the committee to drill deeper. It was for that reason that I sought to have the Minister recalled and, indeed, a couple of staff to appear before us to help us understand the evidence. I was disappointed that didn’t occur, albeit that the Minister was asked for further written answers to questions, and it wasn’t agreed to on the basis that that was somehow inappropriate and without precedence, that staff would appear.

Now, that’s not accurate and I’m indebted to former member, the Hon Sir Jim McLay, who wrote an article many years ago about the new processes for the Privileges Committee, and I quote from that article: “Once seized of a matter, the committee meets at the earliest opportunity to formulate the charge, to decide who shall be heard as witnesses and in what order, and to direct the Clerk to advise parties and the witnesses of these matters.” He did go and cite a complaint against former member Duncan MacIntyre, where indeed non-MP witnesses were called. So it’s by no means without precedence.

Now, in order for the committee to reach a finding that Minister Tinetti did not deliberately mislead the House, it had to accept that three things were true. Firstly, that between January 2023 and 21 February 2023, when her staff were in regular contact with the Ministry of Education and in contact with the Office of the Prime Minister, including the Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior adviser, she had no knowledge of that activity going on. That I found rather difficult.

The evidence before the committee was a series of emails between the Minister’s office and the ministry: “Please find attached an information update. We are keen to work with you to agree a release date.” That was from the ministry and that was on 26 January. On 9 February: “FYI. The Minister’s office are looking to potentially release the term 3 attendance data early next week. Something we can chat about at our meeting later today.” And then on 14 February: “Mōrena. Do we have a sense of when the data will be released, i.e., this month, next week, etc.?” The response from the Minister’s office is “The plan is to release it after the announcement.” It goes on to say, “I think it’s safe to say the term 3 data will be released by the end of the month.” All of this activity was going on in the Minister’s office, between the Minister’s office and the ministry, between the Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s office, and the Minister herself had no knowledge that that was going on. Confident, she was, on the 22nd to answer Erica Stanford’s question: “My staff have no influence over that. My office has no influence.” Clearly, that was not correct. But the committee had to agree that that was her belief.

It also begs the question as to why. If she was so interested in the release of the data in December, when the Deputy Secretary of Education came to the select committee and said, “I’m really keen to get it out this side of Christmas. So I’m expecting that any day.” and the Minister was very interested in the data, why the radio silence between December and 21 February when she made no inquiries that a release of attendance data that was going to be released imminently had not in fact been released? However, we accept that.

The second matter is to accept that when the Minister appeared twice in morning media, on 21 February, to discuss the Government school attendance data announcement, she said the term 3 attendance data would be released that same day, but told the committee that she had in fact made that up under pressure from the media—somewhat ironically, given that that’s exactly when the data was released.

And, thirdly, we had to accept the Minister had an honest belief that she did not need to correct her answer because she believed at the time she gave it that it was correct. Frankly, that’s an extraordinary position to hold. I quote McGee, who says, “It is not a contempt to make a genuine mistake and thus tender incorrect information … But it is incumbent on a member or person who has given misleading information on a parliamentary occasion to correct the error at the first opportunity once it is discovered.” Parliamentary privilege 101. Every member, no matter how inexperienced, should know that, and certainly every Minister should have that drummed into them when they become Ministers, that if they make a mistake they correct it. That is a fundamental corollary to the parliamentary privilege we hold. So it does make me sad, actually, that that’s the standard that we have come to.

But the committee, faced with that choice of either contemptible and deliberate misleading of Parliament or a high degree of negligence and significant errors of judgment, came down on the side of negligence and error. Negligent, according to her testimony, in her failure to have the barest clue of what on earth was going on in her office, between her office and the Prime Minister’s office, between her office and the Ministry of Education—and her office were donkey deep in influencing the timing of the release of the data. Now, we have to accept that she didn’t know that, despite being so keen to have that data released at the start—it was going to be before Christmas. An error of judgment in, by her own words, making answers up under pressure from media that by an amazing coincidence just actually happened to be what was going on in her office. And negligent in her failure to understand her obligation to correct an answer in this House, when it was quickly pointed out to her immediately on her return to the office that her answer was misleading.

Three big errors, three strikes, and a standard of judgment and behaviour that comfortably falls below that which we should accept and expect and comfortably exceeds the thresholds for the sanctions that should be imposed. Some have said “Yep, this is a wet bus ticket.” Well, it’s a pretty big wet bus ticket and nothing the committee could do, I think, would be as bad as the damage to the Minister’s reputation that she herself has imposed by her failure, by her gross negligence, by her serious errors of judgment.

Frankly, that’s part of a pattern; a pattern of Ministers who don’t think the rules apply to them. Well, they absolutely do. The public has a right to expect that we treat our privileges seriously, that we act with honour, that we say what we believe to be the truth and, when it’s found not to be, to quickly correct those misleading statements. That hasn’t happened on this occasion, and that is an indictment on us all, and it’s an expectation that we should all have to do better. We owe it to the people who put us here and Jan Tinetti, the Minister of Education, has seriously let us down on this occasion.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have the honour of being a member of the Privileges Committee and I concur with my colleague, the Hon David Parker, in terms of applauding you, Mr Speaker, on your desire to ensure that, as members of this House, we uphold the Standing Orders in order that not only members of this House but members of the public can have confidence that we operate to the highest standards, and that decisions and discussions and debate that is held in this House conforms to procedures that we all agree to—referring to our Standing Orders and the rulings that Speakers make to ensure to that our practices are robust but also that we continue to maintain the confidence of the people of New Zealand.

It’s in that vein, Mr Speaker, that you asked the Privileges Committee to meet and discuss the matter of privilege that came before us, and the issue that you identified, for us to determine whether the delay in correcting an inaccurate statement amounted to contempt of the House. As a former presiding officer myself, I uphold and applaud our ability to examine and continue to question and debate procedures, and to also, where it is required, look at the actions of members and, particularly, Ministers.

It’s important to all of us, as members of this House and as Ministers, to understand how we need to conduct ourselves and what rules apply to us. And no more so than a Minister, who has a responsibility—unwavering responsibility, really—to ensure that the information presented to this House is accurate. More so that when a statement is found to be inaccurate, that at the earliest possible moment, that Minister is required to correct it.

When we heard the testimony from the Minister, one thing stood out to me and that was the question of intent and had the Minister intended to mislead the House. It’s included in the report—the transcript of our examination of the Minister—and one thing stood out to me, and that was the testimony she gave about the lack of prompt that she had after that particular question time where that statement was made. She felt she hadn’t been prompted by further questions to then cause her to examine the answer and then make a correction. That, for me, was something that we all need to take cognisance of. Because it is important for all of us, as members—but most particularly as Ministers—to understand the roles and the rules, and to act accordingly.

It appeared to me that what the Minister was saying was that it is beholden to other members of the House to prompt her to correct her answer. And that is, in fact, what happened. Because, Mr Speaker, you yourself wrote to the Minister and asked her to do so. However—sorry, no, what I meant to say by that is the Minister’s evidence to us was that she wasn’t prompted. However, we know that from the way she viewed her answer, it was important for her to understand that not knowing that her answer was inaccurate at the time she gave it was not a defence; that as soon as she became aware that the answer was inaccurate, she was required—and is required—by the Standing Orders to correct it.

What I am pleased to understand from that is that now we are all very clear in this House. It has changed the way Ministers understand what their responsibilities are, but it is really important for us to continue to review the Standing Orders and to continue to allow rulings from you, Mr Speaker, to refine and continue to improve the rules and the operations of this House.

I thank the chairman and I thank the members of the committee. I think the process was robust, and I look forward to other opportunities to be able to ensure that the operations of this House restore and encourage and enhance the confidence that the members of New Zealand have in our Parliament.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): It’s a little interesting to hear the previous speaker suggest that this case has revealed something new about the privilege of the New Zealand Parliament. It has always been a requirement for anyone claiming that privilege that they behave in an unscrupulously honest fashion when giving information to the House, and that’s what’s at the nub of this particular case.

Before I go in to the substance of what I want to say, can I echo the comments of the chair of the committee—thank you for referring the matter. I think in a future Parliament there may be a need for the Privileges Committee to become a little more activist, particularly when I look at the purpose of it being to judge effectively whether or not the privileges of members are being well respected. That of course goes not only to the members themselves, but also to those who act in supporting roles, and I particularly refer to some access issues, and some staffing issues that I think might border on the edge of impinging on some of that privilege. But that will be for another Parliament.

The chairman set out the circumstances of this case very, very well. The reality of it is that we had a Minister come into the House who gave an answer that was designed to stop a line of questioning that was effective, and therefore uncomfortable for the Minister. I think when the Minister, in part of her evidence, suggested that one of the reasons why she didn’t think she needed to correct her wrong answer was because there were no further questions on the matter. Well, that is exactly the point. If there is to be a situation where a Minister giving an answer in the House is considered to have given a truthful answer, a correct answer, and a factually accurate answer, then why would there be more questions—if it was a positive answer? The reality is that there were no further questions because the Minister was believed. There is the problem, and there is the abuse of privilege in this House.

All members should behave in an honest fashion when they are dealing with matters relating to the laws of this country. All Ministers should particularly ensure that they are acting in a very truthful manner when they are dealing with the administration of the services that taxpayers pay for in this country, the services that New Zealanders expect to be available to them.

So we come to the question of “Well, what happened in this case?” What we know is that the questioning that should have occurred post that particular day when the offending answer was given, did not occur because of the belief in that statement. If you think about it, what that would mean is that a Minister who decided that they were going to influence the way the Opposition scrutinise the Government simply by giving wrong or misleading answers, then we would have a big chink in the democracy that New Zealand prides itself in. We are one of the oldest democracies in the world. Continuous democracy since 1840, and universal democracy since the 1890s. That’s something we should be proud of, and something we should be particularly concerned to ensure is maintained. At the heart of that, that Westminster system, is the ability for people elected by the public to take full charge of the responsibilities—or the expenditure responsibilities in portfolios, and that means they must answer those questions asked of them by those who are scrutinising those portfolios in a totally scrupulous manner.

What we could not understand in all of this is how someone who has a Ministerial responsibility, as any Minister does, not know what’s going on in their office. That’s the bit that still remains perplexing to some of us. So think about how this works. The issue relates to some attendance data from term 4 of 2022. The question was—or term 3, is it? Term 3 of 2022. The question was, “When will that be released?” What we know is that from about October or so of the pre-set of the 2022 year, there was a discussion going on between the Minister’s office staff and the Prime Minister’s office about when would be the optimal time for this information to be released.

Now, the Minister said to us, and the Minister said to the House, that actually it’s not their decision; the decision lies with the Ministry of Education. That’s absolutely true. So she went further to say, “We have no influence over that.” But it doesn’t answer the question “Were there attempts being made to influence?” And that is the evidence that was put in front of us: that there was a long collusion between the Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s office to get a date that might be the best date—I suppose you’d say the quietest day—to release what essentially was very bad information.

I think it goes further to this question, if the Minister did not know what was going on among her staff—and that’s the bit that’s, you know, perplexing to say the least. The Minister did not know what the staff were up to. The question is raised then: “What is the difference, or the separation between the actions of staff in a Minister’s office and the responsibility of the Minister?” If that were to have stood as being a reasonable excuse or, you know, some sort of “Oh well, never mind, it’s all right, let’s forget about this,” then that would have become the standard way of operating very, very quickly for some Ministers who were not on top of their portfolio. This sort of thing does not tend to happen to Ministers who are on top of their portfolio.

I think we’ve got to ask the question also: on that day where the Minister was told by one staff member, “Actually, we have been involved and you may need to correct your answer,” that’s a nice way for a staff member to say to a Minister, “You’ve got it wrong, get down to the House, correct the answer.” Now, the decision not to do that was based on the Minister’s belief that, because she didn’t know at the time she gave the answer, it was correct. That goes right back to the question I just raised before: that intersection between the actions of staff in a Minister’s office, who only work for the Minister and the Minister’s responsibility. So there was never a case, never a situation where the Privileges Committee could have said, “Oh well, look, never mind, we’re not going to worry about this.”

So what was found in the end is that this wasn’t a deliberate contempt of the House, this was a very serious misjudgment of what the responsibilities of a Minister are, a very serious misjudgment of what the responsibilities a Minister of the Crown has to the Parliament. In that regard, this is far from a wet bus ticket solution, requiring—as the Committee has suggested—that the Minister apologise to the House is no small thing. It will be recorded in the Hansard as an apology, and the details for that apology will be now part of the record of this particular debate.

In reaching the conclusion that we did, there was a question about the scale at which someone might be penalised or castigated for any particular action that was a breach of the Standing Orders. It’s been pointed out by the chair that there’s been very little reference to the Privileges Committee over the past six, or longer, years.

I think his suggestion that there might be a more frequent activity by that committee would be a good thing. I know that it—your decision lines up with your efforts to raise standards in this House, and I think it’s totally consistent with that. I don’t think there can be anyone who sits in this Parliament now who is of any view that a misleading or a misrepresenting answer given to this House can in any way be seen as acceptable.

I just want to thank my colleagues who are on the committee. I think we deliberated appropriately and have come up with a reasonable result.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the chair of the Privileges Committee, the Hon David Parker, for giving what I think was a good description of the reason we’re here. I’d like to make a few comments about why a Minister telling the truth to the House is so important and why this particular policy issue that led us to this point is so important, as well as comment on the findings of the report.

To understand why it’s so important that Ministers who come to question time, like we’ve just seen in the last hour, tell the truth to their other parliamentarians is that, ultimately, they’re not telling the truth to us who are standing here asking the questions; they’re telling the truth to all New Zealanders, who elect this Parliament. This question goes right back to the very first time that our Parliament met, at that time in Auckland, in May 1854. At that time, the people who governed New Zealand were sent from London, and they didn’t really answer to the Parliament. In fact, that first Parliament really didn’t have any power at all. The big question was something many people here will never have heard of: “Do we have a responsible Government?” What they meant was: did those Governors from London actually have to answer to the 37 members of that first Parliament, who’d been sent from 24 electorates up and down New Zealand? Some electorates got multiple people, so there were more.

It was a very hotly contested question. In fact, in that first Parliament, there was actually a fistfight over whether or not the Governors sent from London should have to answer questions. So I’m pleased to say that we’re much more civilised these days than Parliament was in the 1850s. However, it goes to the heart of how important this struggle between the people elected from up and down New Zealand and those who hold the chequebook and the keys to Government power really is. And it continues even to much more recent years. It’s only a couple of years ago that Judith Collins, who was sitting there, was the Leader of the Opposition. There were serious questions when the Government was wielding unprecedented power, locking New Zealanders down, stopping them coming in and out of the country. People seriously questioned whether the Parliament should sit and whether she should travel from Auckland to Wellington, as the leader of the largest party, and stand on the same carpet as the Prime Minister and ask her questions. She was asking those questions on behalf of the people of Papakura and also all of those who had voted for the National Party at that time. So it is absolutely critical that the people of New Zealand can send their representative to Wellington, stand on the same carpet as those governors, and ask a Minister and the Prime Minister questions. But that is pointless if they don’t tell us a truthful answer. This is not some academic exercise for Wellington policy wonks; this is actually the basis of a democratic society where everyone has power and a place.

The second issue is that the particular matter was one of enormous importance. It was the question of “Are Kiwi kids attending school regularly?” The question was about when the people will find out information about that critical question for the future of our country. Without going into the topic in any great detail, it’s a real problem. If you go back 10 years—to 2011, ’12, ’13—about 70 percent of kids were attending most of the time. Now it’s about 60 percent of the kids. It varies from term to term. One term last year, it was only 40 percent of the kids who came most of the time. This is a real problem for the future of New Zealand. It’s a real problem for the future of New Zealand as a country, where no matter how rich or poor you’re born, or whether you’re in the town or the country, you actually have a chance—a chance to get knowledge that will extend you to the fullest extent of your powers, as Peter Fraser used to say here, when he was the Labour education Minister and Prime Minister. Yet fewer and fewer kids are getting that chance, because they’re not showing up. And those kids aren’t the biggest problem—amazingly. It’s not the kids who are enrolled in school and don’t attend that often, who are growing in number; it’s the 10,000 or so kids that have been reported—although we don’t really know—that aren’t in enrolled in any school whatsoever. This is a serious matter that the people of New Zealand deserve straight answers on from a Minister who tells them the truth and knows what she’s doing.

Unfortunately, what this Privileges Committee that I have sat on has found is: well, yes, the Minister misled the House. She told us that she wasn’t involved in releasing this information, or delaying the release—because, you see, that’s another problem. We don’t get the information on how many kids went to school until about four months after the term ends. That’s a really big problem as well, because when something really matters, you should be measuring it and people should know what’s happening, so they can do something about it. But we’re managing this problem as a country looking through the rear-view mirror 20 kilometres behind. We don’t know how many kids went to school until it’s four months later. And into this walks a Minister who has basically, in this report, been found not guilty of the major charge. The major charge is that she deliberately misled the House, and she’s been found, in common words, to be not guilty. How is that possible? Because she did mislead the House—even she doesn’t deny that. So how is she not guilty of deliberately misleading the House? Because she didn’t do it on purpose! And the story that we are all expected to believe—and it’s not just us; it’s the people at home—is that she genuinely didn’t think that she had to correct her answer, even when she found out it was wrong, because she thought that, so long as she didn’t know the right answer when she gave the wrong answer, she had no obligation to update people with the truth.

Now, you just have to ask yourself—people in business, people in everyday life—if you’d told something wrong to someone and then you found out that you’d told something wrong and you knew it was kind of important to them, wouldn’t you go back and think, “Oh, well, I told them the wrong thing, and it’s important, and I now know the right information. So wouldn’t I go back and tell them?” Jan Tinetti, apparently, doesn’t think like that. That’s the first thing: that we have to take her at her word that she genuinely just thought, “You can tell something totally wrong and, if you find out that actually it was wrong, you just keep on believing it and don’t tell anyone.” That’s what we’re asked to believe.

The second thing we’re asked to believe is that she did not know, because she had no idea what was going on in her own office. She’s in this office, with all these education people going backwards and forwards, having weekly meetings with a set agenda about everything that’s going on in education, and there’s all these questions in the Parliament, and there’s all these people talking in the news about kids not attending school, and this passionate educator—a former principal—was sitting there as the Minister of Education of New Zealand and she never thought to ask, for months, “Oh, I wonder where’s that data about how many kids went to school. Are we putting that out some time soon?” She wants us to believe—and we take her at her word, because that’s what we do—that she just didn’t know; she didn’t know what was happening in her own office, even though the Prime Minister’s office had been emailing people in her office saying, “Well, are we going to put it out soon? We’d like to time it with a political release so that it sounds good.” But she didn’t know about that!

So what we have here is something that occurs in the context of 170, 180-odd years of New Zealand’s democracy: the tension between the people who are elected to ask the questions and the people with the chequebook and the power over Kiwis’ futures—the Minister—and the obligation of the Minister to come here and tell the truth. None of that seems to be in dispute, but the outcome is that there was no deliberate misleading of the Parliament, there was no deliberate misleading of the people who watch the Parliament—the public; the people who pay the bills—and the reason for that is something much, much, much worse than any argument about constitutional issues. It is because we quite simply have a Minister of Education—who’s responsible for the system that holds in its hands the future of 800,000-odd kids and, with them, the long-term future of our country—and she doesn’t know what’s going on in her own office. Well, that is the real verdict of this case, and it is deeply troubling for every single New Zealander who cares about the future of our country. I support the call for the Minister to be asked to apologise. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise with somewhat more optimism than the previous speaker, my colleague on the Privileges Committee David Seymour. I think we should all be—although saddened by the circumstances that brought us together as a committee on this case—proud that we do live in a democracy where robust debate can happen and that we do have a parliamentary oversight body like the Privileges Committee, that did meet, and that did have the power to question the Minister of Education orally, to request written information, meet for hours and hours, and have those very fulsome debates about what actually constitutes a breach of a Minister’s responsibilities—what the expectations of New Zealanders might be of a member of our executive—and came to a consensus in our decision and in the drafting of the report. Although I must thank the committee clerks, of course, for that incredible piece of work. We did it quickly, though it took hours and hours, but we were very aware that both in terms of the public interest and the human interest, in terms of the Minister in her office, that it was important that the decision be arrived at in a timely manner.

So I think we actually should be proud that when something happens that doesn’t sit right, that when processes in our democracy are not followed, that when question time—which is an absolute cornerstone of democratic transparency and accountability for the Government—may have been the theatre for inaccurate or less than accurate information being imparted by a Minister, we can respond by a referral to a parliamentary accountability mechanism that sits independently and that undertakes that work as seriously as we did.

We received and engaged with jurisprudence from around the world, from other Westminster parliamentary systems. We talked about the Boris Johnson case and cases in Australia. Our thinking in the debate turned on the issue of intent. So we agreed, and others have said, that there was an inaccurate answer given by the Minister, that the House was misled—that that is deeply serious and it is an absolute breech in its effect. We also agreed that the delay was undue and that that continued the misleading of this House, and that that is serious.

But we turned our minds mostly, in our debate, to the issue of whether the Minister did intend—or, as we would say in legal terms, whether there was bad faith. We didn’t find that—although I know others in this debate have expressed their own doubts that seem to remain. It is the case that we did agree—all of us together—that there was in fact no intentional bad faith by the Minister, but that the shortfall was serious. And that is reflected in the strength of the criticism in the report. And it is absolutely, I would say, in the strongest terms that the Privileges Committee could think to criticise this Minister’s shortfall in both ensuring that she had not misled the House and also in ensuring that she had done all she could, pursuant to her duty as Minister, to correct the record once there was any doubt at all that she may have misled the House.

I do want to say that given this process was held, in most part, publicly, and we have a Minister that had to front—that scene was, and would have been to anyone facing it, incredibly stressful. She did go through that process and she now has to live with the record of this damning report—that she has stood here and apologised to the House, that this was by no means sort of an easy route, and we did know that what we were deciding, although short of contempt, was that we had conveyed, and the Minister had experienced, a serious consequence for her failure and negligence, which is, I think, the word most accurately used here to describe what we found.

I do also want to recall that even by the time that the Minister appeared before us, she had taken some steps to rectify the processes within her own office. And I think we can all agree that there wasn’t an adequate process put in place to avoid this type of breach. And we were satisfied—or at least I was—that that has been put in place to some extent. And I want to also note her deep and genuine contrition about what had happened.

So I do want to thank the members of the committee for our shared commitment to arriving at the right outcome—that we decide these standards with the trust of this House and the New Zealand public. And we will, as case by case comes before us, take the same approach, where we will ask ourselves what would let down this House to a degree that contempt will be found. And in this case, because the action was a one off, we didn’t find it to be deliberate or ongoing, we didn’t find that the Minister was definitively told that she’d done something wrong and that she needed to rectify it—that there was no contempt. But we will—parties across the House, both Government and Opposition—come together each time and make that determination again and again. And we thank the Speaker for taking seriously the issue of privilege and referring more cases to us than we have had in probably the past term or this one. The fact that New Zealand has this process, that the process did happen, that it was robust, and that it did result in, I think, some restoration, hopefully, of the trust of the public, the trust of this Parliament, and also changes for the processes in at least one Minister’s office, is to be celebrated. So I think that is in fact a win. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Natural and Built Environment Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Natural and Built Environment Bill.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a second time.

This reform is delivering on the Government’s commitment to repeal and replace the Resource Management Act (RMA). Others have said it was necessary; we’ve done it. I want to start by thanking the Environment Committee for its substantial work on the bill, along with the approximately 3,000 people who took the time and effort to make submissions on it. The Government has accepted the improvements the committee has made to the bill.

This is fundamental systemic reform. As such, it is complex and we rely on the input of system users. We’ve heard it and we’ve listened. We didn’t embark on the reform lightly. We’ve done it because the existing system under the Resource Management Act is failing: costs too much, takes too long, and has neither adequately protected the environment nor enabled development. It’s been a fail on the environment and a fail on development.

Consenting costs have ballooned and urban land prices soared. Overly restrictive planning rules have hindered much-needed housing and other development. No one is enforcing intensification, but plans have prevented people doing what they wanted and the country needs. Costs have spiralled in the five years to 2019, council consenting fees increased by between 66 percent and 124 percent, and processing times by up to 50 percent. Consenting for mid-sized infrastructure in New Zealand represents 5.5 percent of total project costs, compared with a range of 0.1 to 5 percent of project cost in European countries. New Zealand is outside of the extreme end of the European range. This legislation fixes that, reducing the waste of time and money.

The new system will deliver significant cost-saving benefits to system users. In effect, it means that people building infrastructure, subdividing land to build a home will, on average, be able to do so more quickly and for less cost. Economic advice commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment indicates that for every dollar spent, the new system will deliver from $2.60 to $4.90 in benefits. Indeed, the $4.90 is the mid-range; it could be more.

System users get the biggest benefits through a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consents. Total efficiency benefits for system users are estimated to be between $210 million and $430 million per annum. The new system will contribute to more affordable housing; it will enable infrastructure, more efficient development, and more efficient land use. On top of that, the environment will be better protected as we move from an effects-based regime to one that focuses on biophysical outcomes. Until now, too much weight has been given to nimbyism based on subjective matters of taste, and not enough attention has been given to biophysical environmental outcomes or environmental limits.

Over the years, the RMA has been subject to repeated criticism and tinkering by successive Governments. Everyone knows that it’s time to act; to get on with it. It seems, however, that some of our political opponents have now fallen back in love with the RMA, and they’re now proposing to ignore the hard work from the councils, from development interests, environmentalists, civil society across the Government—who, over the last five years, have worked to get this reform right. They’d rather sweep it all aside, start again, and condemn the country to more years of inertia all for the sake of a few votes.

Our opponents should know that this reform is needed. They don’t need to take my word for it; they only need to look at the reports by the Productivity Commission, the Environmental Defence Society, the Property Council, Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), Infrastructure New Zealand, Local Government New Zealand, Waitangi Tribunal, and, of course, the Randerson panel. The RMA has been a fail on housing and a fail on infrastructure and a fail on environmental protection.

Today’s an opportunity to comment on how the bill has been changed at select committee. This new bill, together with the Spatial Planning Bill, will be the cornerstone environmental and development legislation of the country.

The committee clarified the purpose clause—te Oranga o te Taiao, is a defined term which emphasises the importance of protecting the health of our natural environment while enabling appropriate use and development of resources. The Treaty clause in the bill is a “give effect to the principles of the Treaty” clause similar to the Conservation Act. In response to a submission from the Chief Justice, the committee has made it clear the Environment Court itself is not constituted pursuant to that Treaty clause. That Treaty clause is, of course, applied by the courts when they make decisions under the new Act.

The Natural and Built Environment Act shifts the focus of the current resource management system from managing adverse effects to promoting positive outcomes. Clarifying the role and purpose of system outcomes was a focus of submitters. The committee added outcomes for sustainable use of the coastal marine area for public recreation, and for the habitat of trout and salmon.

Not all outcomes can always be achieved across all places. What should be prioritised where and resolving tensions between outcomes is achieved through a hierarchy of instruments, preserving the King Salmon logic helpfully provided by the Supreme Court. Principles set out in the Act help guide decision makers. The Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA), working in concert with the Spatial Planning Act, will reduce resource consent numbers—there will be more permitted activities.

The bill includes the “polluter pays” principle in Part 1. This ensures appropriate consideration is given to minimising or avoiding environmental damage, and reinforces the concept of environmental responsibility. Reducing reliance on the resource consent process is a key goal, and in Part 5, we’ve taken steps to make consent notification better.

The central record of local iwi and hapū maintained by Te Puni Kōkiri becomes a code at the time it is assessed. This means councils and applicants will now, for the first time, have certainty that they have notified all who should be notified. The current uncertainty, which is a cause of a lot of litigation and delay, is resolved. Of course, the central record can be updated, but it can be relied upon as a code when it was used.

We’ve put measures in place to ensure conditions set by regional councils and territorial authorities don’t duplicate or contradict each other—over 100 plans reduced to 16. This means they’ve got to be made regionally. Enabling local voice is important. Can I thank the local government sector for these submissions on this important point and the steering group who we worked closely with throughout.

It’s crucial that people can have their say. We’re not putting in place 50:50 co-governance. That was a request of Māoridom, and it is an effect of some provisions like the Waikato River Authority or the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee that the prior ACT-National Government put in place, but we’re not carrying forward that for everyone into the new system; we’re just carrying forward the status quo. There will be two Māori representatives on each regional planning committee, or a greater number if the local councils and people locally wanted it.

Statements of community outcomes and regional council statements of environmental outcomes will have strengthened weight. The regional planning committee must have particular regard to them, and there is a new step being created through Schedule 8 for councils to assess how the regional planning committees have done so, and committees will also be required to state how they’ve done it. All plans, once notified are, of course, heard by an independent hearings panel.

Over 1,000 submissions on urban trees. We’ve added a new function for territorial authorities to protect tree canopy. This does not mean blanket protection. There will be more national direction on that in the planning framework.

On fast-track consenting—established in 2020 as a response to COVID—we’ve, on average, reduced consenting time by 18 months. That process has now expired. It’s reintroduced for infrastructure and regionally significant housing developments. Goes live when the bill passes.

The bill knocks over “first-in, first-served”, which, allied with a bias in favour of renewal, has prevented the rational and economically efficient allocation of water in New Zealand that has had both unjust and economically inefficient results. For this to be meaningful, renewals for consumptive water uses need to be shorter than 35 years. The current average might surprise members—it’s only 12 or 13 years—but the theoretical maximum is 35 years. During the transitions, renewals will be for 10 years, but they’ll be easy to get.

We provided exemptions for renewals for hydroelectric facilities. They don’t consume water, but they can still get 35 renewals. And the bill had been amended at select committee to enable regulations for further exemptions for significant infrastructure projects like, perhaps, new water storage projects. There are many provisions in the Act to improve infrastructure. I’m not going to have time to go through them all.

On implementation, the poor implementation of the RMA almost guaranteed its failure. We’re not going to do that this time. If you try to do the whole country at once, you get poor-quality outcomes, the system gums up, and everything’s delayed. So we’re going to turn the system on region by region. Central government will give extra help to those who go first; high-quality precedents will help those who follow. Existing RMA authorisations like resource consents are preserved and acknowledged in the new system. We avoid the duality of plans that we had under the Town and Country Planning Act and the Resource Management Act.

Let’s stop wasting money as a country on excessive amounts of long-winded, ineffective processes. Let’s better protect the environment, and within those environmental limits, enable development. I commend this bill to the House.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, here we are, coming to the fag end of this Government’s time in office. Six years in, and we have the “RMA 2.0” that’s been produced. We were told it would make life easier, it would be shorter, it would make it easier to navigate, and this is how big it is. It’s so big it’s had to have two massive, spiral-bound pieces of collateral to pull it together. There are 450 pages in this bad boy—that’s Part 1. Then—let me count this up properly—1,011 pages in total. Look, even if you are slightly generous and you take out the commentary and the minority views issued by the National Party and the ACT Party and, interestingly, the Green Party—so it’s very clear that Labour will be putting this bill through on their own account. So even if you take out the commentary and a bit of the various different aspects of it, you’re still looking—

Angie Warren-Clark: Oh, and the tracked changes.

CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Angie Warren-Clark: And the tracked changes.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh OK, and the tracked changes. Well, there’s not that many of them. But even if you put through the tracked changes, you’re still looking at a 900-page monster—an absolute “mozza”. So the idea that this is going to make it easier for people to navigate, I think, is wrong-headed.

Now, that’s a slightly trite point, in fairness, to start my speech on, but I think it does illustrate neatly that the idea that this is going to be simpler and make it easier for people to do things is just misguided. It’s just wrong-headed.

Do the National Party support reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA)? Yes, of course we do. We have spent the better part of 15 years trying to reform the RMA. We tried—

Hon Dr David Clark: And got nowhere.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, exactly—we never got the numbers to get it through. We never got the numbers to get it through, and now you do have the numbers and you’re making things worse than what we have now. That’s the irony of the whole situation. Gifted an absolute majority by the good people of New Zealand post-COVID, the Government could have done something substantive with their time in office and actually sorted out the RMA, and instead what we’ve got is this dog’s breakfast of two bills that will actually make it harder.

So we do support substantive reform of the RMA, but here’s the test—here’s the test: we are not going to sign up to any old thing just for the sake of it. There’s a real sense from some people, mainly in the Labour Party, that because we’ve spent five years and thousands of pages have been produced and Justice Randerson went out and wrote this longwinded report, and all the rest of it, and the Associate Minister for the Environment sat on the panel—because all this time and energy has gone into it, we should just roll over and go, “Oh yeah, well, that’s enough work. Let’s just pass it.”

Chris Penk: Sunk cost.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, actually, that’s not the way we make law in this country. As Chris Penk says—in fact, that was going to be my next point; great minds think alike, Mr Penk—it’s sunk cost fallacy. Just because we’ve spent millions of dollars and wasted time and money and energy, and a whole bunch of bureaucrats at the Ministry for the Environment—I shouldn’t say bureaucrats—the officials at the Ministry for the Environment have spent a lot of time and energy on it, we should just kind of roll over and go, “Oh yeah, that’s good enough.” I’m sorry, but we expect better, and after 5½ or nearly six years of this Government, many people are sitting there, saying, “Is that it? Is that what we’ve got to show for six years of work?”, because the bill will not make it easier to do things.

It will not increase certainty, it will not increase investment intention, it will not provide certainty as to what people who want to use the environment and invest in this country need, and I want to go through the exact reason why. Let me start with clause 3 of the new bill—I call it the “RMA 2.0”. This is the “Purpose of this Act”. Now, I didn’t think this was possible, but this is what happened: the Environment Committee has actually made it worse. The starting point in clause 3 of the bill at first reading was bad, but clause 3 is now worse. Clause 3(1): “The purpose of this Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.” That’s the purpose—that is stated baldly, in black and white. That is the purpose. Now, the reason why this is important—and a member over there is nodding as if this is like a good thing. This is a disaster. The purpose clause is the operative clause that suffuses itself through everything under the RMA. So every regional plan, every spatial plan, every natural and built environment plan, everything—every decision will have this suffused through it.

Now, “te Oranga o te Taiao” is a term unknown to New Zealand law. It’s completely unknown. It’s not been used before in New Zealand law. Now, Parliament makes new laws all the time—that’s fine—but I’ll tell you what’s going to happen with this one. It is that we are going to spend and the country is going to spend the next 10 years or more litigating what that means through the courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. We’ve already had a submission from the Chief Justice to the select committee saying that the courts expect—and this is a quote—“extensive litigation” following the passage of this bill, and bills—plural. Now, New Zealand is not a wealthy enough country, frankly, to spend the next 10 to 15 years litigating through the various court bodies exactly what “te Oranga o te Taiao” means.

Then we get to subclause (2) of clause 3: “The purpose must be achieved in a way that—(a) protects the health of the natural environment; and [only] subject to paragraph (a),”—the protection of the health of the natural environment—“enables the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the well-being of both present and future generations.” So, in other words, use and development of the environment are subject to protecting the health of the natural environment.

Now, the word “protect” is important because the courts have defined the word “protect” in a very deliberate way. There’s a very high threshold, or very strict interpretation, as to what “protect” means. It means that the bar to do things is very high. So I know that some members might think, “Oh well, protect the environment—that’s of course natural.”, but the word “protect” has a particular meaning through Resource Management Act jurisprudence. The importation of that through into the new “RMA 2.0” has a particular meaning that will make it harder for people to do things, and that’s before you even get into the legal uncertainty created by this phrase “te Oranga o te Taiao”.

I challenge anyone to read clause 3 of the bill and look at subclause (3), which is about what “te Oranga o te Taiao” means. It means: “the health of the environment; … the relationship between the health of the … environment and its capacity to sustain life; … the relationship … and the health and well-being of people and communities; … the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment;”—and then this is the kicker—“the relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao that is based on whakapapa.” Well, leaving aside the fact that that is a circular definition in and of itself, the idea that anyone could look at clause 3 and go, “Yep, it’s going to be easier to build a wind farm or easier to build a solar farm or easier to build”—God forbid—“a new factory or easier to actually develop housing in this country.”, I’m sorry, but there is no show.

This bill locks in a completely one-sided view of development and it will make it nearly impossible for this country to achieve the economic growth aspirations that we need to actually grow our economy and provide prosperity and all of the things that New Zealand needs. We are not a wealthy enough country to start saying no to the opportunities that we have, and this bill makes it nearly impossible to take advantage of those opportunities.

So clause 3 has been made worse by the select committee, and it locks in a very one-sided view about our economic opportunities. It overly protects the environment at the expense of development. Actually, if you read clause 3 of the bill, that is actually the purpose of the bill, and in our view, that is wrong-headed.

There are so many places to go when it comes to criticising these bills—this bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, as well. We are up for resource management reform, but it has to be reform that will work. It has to be substantive reform that will actually improve the status quo. Our obligation as legislators is to look at things diligently and rigorously, and if it doesn’t do that, then we are duty-bound to oppose it.

I haven’t commented on the poor process, but other members may want to comment on this. The idea that—

Angie Warren-Clark: That’s because you weren’t there most of the time.

CHRIS BISHOP: What are you saying? Oh, it was good process, was it?

Angie Warren-Clark: No, because you weren’t there most of the time.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh yeah, well, I’m very busy. Some of us have got jobs to do in addition to resource management reform. I sat through many of the submissions, and the idea that this was a good process is a misguided one. It was dropped on the House before Christmas 2022 and submitters didn’t have enough time. We’ve come back in the new year and it’s being rammed through before the election. National will repeal these bills by Christmas if the Government passes them.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity—a very exciting opportunity, I have to say—to speak on the second reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. It has been a long and thorough process. Now, of course, the problem definition is well known. The Resource Management Act (RMA) hasn’t been working for, really, either side of the argument, whether you want to protect the environment or enable development.

We’ve seen that, in particular, with housing; it wasn’t even mentioned in the RMA until changes made by this Government. It’s baked in the status quo. So how is that to change? That is what the Randerson review looked at, and then that came up with the suggestions that went into the Labour Party manifesto. Then the process included an exposure draft in this Parliament that the Environment Committee looked at a couple of years ago now. Then after that, the bills—and they are substantial, and you can’t get away from that, because they’re trying to do a lot. This is always going to be a litigious area, and so these bills, they’ve got to do a lot.

The select committee was very busy, and I note that a lot of submitters, they did spend their summer breaks making submissions, and that was very much appreciated, and the period for submissions was extended out. Then the select committee did meet throughout February and, I think, beyond as well, to hear the different submissions. A lot of the members of the select committee, we’ve gone to different conferences and tried to talk about the bill very carefully, because it was at the select committee at this stage, and really tried to thank submitters during those different meetings for their really thoughtful contributions. I know the select committee engaged very carefully with the range of submitters, and hopefully those submitters can see that it was worth their time, because there are numerous changes in this bill as reported back by the select committee.

I want to start by thanking all of the permanent select committee members who did so much work on this bill—and they’re outlined in the report; obviously, I was part of that up until the start of May—and also to thank the officials, both the officials of this place, the clerks, and also, of course, from the Ministry for the Environment and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They have been very busy.

So some of those changes that the bill makes overall—and then I’ll comment on the select committee’s changes to those—are to have these clear environmental bottom lines, and this purpose that the previous speaker, Chris Bishop, has just spoken about. He just went to clause 3, the purpose of the Act, which is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao. That is now defined in subsection (3) of clause 3.

I think another useful change that the select committee has made is the new clause 3A, which sets out the different steps for achieving the purpose of that Act. I’d also note, before going on too far, that the select committee commentary is very useful in explaining the changes, and anybody who is listening to this debate or reading Hansard in the future: go and have a look at the select committee report.

Now, the bill—

Hon Scott Simpson: It’s only 200 pages.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —is also—I’m hearing that it’s only 200 pages, but it’s a very good 200 pages. The bill as well tries to move all the GDP in the system at the moment that comes up at the resource consenting stage, and people have to get involved in bespoke processes around that all the time and really move things into the plans—and we’ve heard from the Minister that those are at the regional scale—and also to have more in the national planning framework, so that is the national consistency throughout the country, and, rather than being focused on environmental effects all the time, to really look at positive outcomes and enabling outcomes. These are set out in clause 5, the system outcomes. The select committee heard a lot of submissions on these, and, I think, really did some good work in strengthening the natural hazards outcome, and also a new one that I certainly remember hearing a lot of submissions about was to include “Public recreational use and enjoyment of the natural environment is maintained and enhanced.”

One of the other changes is to make the system simpler for users, and most users do not spend lots of time within the Act itself. They spend time with the plans, and, as the Minister said, there are over 100 plans at the moment. Instead, there’ll be one plan per region, and that will make it simpler for users.

Another change, of course, is that the role of iwi and hapū is enhanced. The bill has a different Treaty clause from the RMA, but also sets out that involvement of iwi and hapū being on the regional planning committees, having enhancement of Whakahono ā Rohe provisions, and also setting up the national Māori entity to really do some audit work of the different components of the resource management system.

Other changes to the bill are that it’s really trying to enable activities that will decrease climate change emissions, and, as I mentioned before, the stronger hazards wording. Part of that national consistency is with the national planning framework. I also note that the select committee made some changes here at clause 58. The national planning framework has to deal with the outcomes and give priority to those where possible. Also it’s got these other things that it can consider at clause 58, and so that now includes urban trees and also enabling the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables, which I think are really important.

Then another major change that the select committee made was for the length of renewal consents for hydro schemes, that this has been increased and that there’s now a regulation-making power for the Minister to make further exemptions if there are good environmental reasons for doing that. So it is a large bill. It’s got a lot of administrative processes in it that are much clearer than they are in the RMA, and it will be of great benefit to users of the system. I commend it to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. As my colleague Chris Bishop said: well, here we are at the fag end of Government’s time in office and we are going to see this piece of legislation rammed through while the Government is still in a position to use its absolute majority to do so. That of itself is sufficiently poor process, but I want to spend a bit of time talking about the select committee process, which is usual at a second reading debate.

This bill was one of two pieces of legislation introduced just before Christmas last year, and then submissions were opened over the Christmas summer break period. Notwithstanding the fact that most of the country was on holiday and those parts of the country that weren’t on holiday were, like mine in the Coromandel, under water with roads closed—still, the Environment Committee received more than 3,000 submissions on this piece of legislation.

It’s a piece of legislation that is part one of a three-piece set of legislation—three bills that will ultimately, in this Government’s view, replace our existing Resource Management Act (RMA). We’ve had the benefit of seeing the first two bills, but we haven’t seen the third one, the adaptation piece. And so any discussion of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, which we’ll debating soon, is actually very difficult if you haven’t got the third piece of the jigsaw puzzle. In fact, it’s a bit like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle with your eyes blindfolded. What the select committee faced, as did submitters, was a Herculean task of trying to digest, interpret, and understand the complexities of the proposals that had been put before us.

Now, this legislation is based loosely—and I say “loosely”, because initially it was supposed to be based closely on what has become known as the Randerson report or what my colleague Chris Bishop refers to as the RMA mark II report. Essentially, if we go back in time and think about when the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991, some of those players are the ones who are still trying to exert change on their failed system 30 years on. Randerson was part of that initial process, as was David Parker back in the day. And so I understand that for the Hon David Parker this is a legacy legislation for him and he wants to see it through. But a process that has been so appalling and so rushed at select committee is simply unacceptable on what should be and what is, to all intents and purposes, the country’s primary environmental statute and also the country’s primary planning statute. To rush it through in the way that it was done, I think, is simply unacceptable.

Sitting on the desk here in front of me is 1,642 pages of departmental report—1,642 pages of departmental report—complicated, convoluted, and confusing for select committee members, let alone submitters, let alone the public officials that were having to work their way through it, but absolutely confusing for laypeople who will have to engage with this legislation should it ever come to pass.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues on the select committee, and I particularly want to acknowledge the role of the select committee chair, Eugenie Sage, who did, in my view, an exceptionally good job. Now, I don’t always agree with her political views or those of her party, but I have to say that she did a thoroughly professional job as select committee chair, a very daunting prospect, and she was across the mammoth detail of this legislation, and so I take my hat off to her. But for the rest of us who were trying to grapple with this legislation, it was a veritable minefield. And I challenge anybody in this House to have given it the due attention that it deserved because it is important legislation—and I don’t think it has been given appropriate attention in such a short time. The select committee had to seek and receive two extensions in report-back time. So now we find ourselves going into the last few weeks of this Parliament, and this legislation is going to be rushed through.

I don’t think it’s going to serve New Zealand or our people or our environment or our built environment at all well. It’s just not going to do what it says it should do. We in the National Party have agreed with, I think, every party in the Parliament for some time that resource management legislation does need updating, it does need reforming, but I didn’t ever in my wildest dreams think that the alternative that would be presented by this Government could be worse than what we already have now—worse than what we already have now! It’s more complicated, more costly, and more confusing. It provides no certainty for environmentalists or, indeed, certainty for people who want to get things done.

At the first reading, I remember saying that the National Party’s simple test for this legislation would be: will it make it easier to get things done? And the answer, after the long, protracted but condensed select committee process is absolutely not. It’s not going to make it easier to get things done. It’s going to be a blight upon our statute book and a blight upon the country, because it’s not going to achieve what I think the Minister and his officials intended, in terms of protecting the environment, and it’s certainly not going to deliver in terms of our built environment.

There are a number of new terms, words, phrases, definitions that are included in this proposed legislation. Now, we had none other than the Chief Justice come to the select committee and make a submission saying—and it’s unusual for the Chief Justice to actually come and have a select committee submission. But the Chief Justice did come and she warned the committee that there were potentially decades—decades—of costly, time-consuming litigation ahead for people who were wanting to try and engage with this piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that, if it ever sees the light of day in fulfilment, is going to be years and years in the legal interpretation. It’s going to be years and years in the application in terms of local government. It’s going to be years and years in terms of the application in planning. And it’s going to be years and years before any of the perceived, real, or imagined benefits to our natural environment can hope to be achieved.

So here we are with a process that was condensed in time frame, that was the subject of submissions that had to be rushed through a summer holiday break—and those submissions, nearly every single one of the 3,000 or more that we received had criticism of the legislation. It was universally being criticised from all sides of the argument and the debate. There were environmentalists who criticised it for not doing nearly enough for the natural environment. They wanted it to go a lot further. Iwi groups, hapū groups came to select committee and said “We can’t agree on the terminology that is being used. We can’t see how the decision making will be made. We don’t know who’s going to make the appointments, how they’re going to be made, who’s going to do it, how are they going to be accountable.” We had local government people coming in saying that they were confused and could not see a way forward. We saw developers and builders and people who wanted to get on with creating the kind of environment for a thriving economy say that it would add cost and time delays that would be even worse than we currently have under the existing RMA.

So we got to a point in the National Party where we decided, after careful deliberation, having heard the submissions, having participated in what we always said would be a constructive way at the select committee—we came to the view that this is going to be worse than we currently have now. And that’s actually saying something, because we know what we have now is pretty awful. We know that what we have now isn’t doing the job that we want it to do.

And so if my colleagues and I in the National Party have the opportunity and the privilege of forming a Government at the end of October or in October, this legislation, even if it is forced through by the current Government, will be repealed before this coming Christmas and it will be replaced. We cannot and will not support legislation that makes it harder to get things done, that is more costly, more confusing, and more underperforming for our natural and built environment than this legislation. We do not support it and will not support it.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I too would like to acknowledge the fine work of the Hon Eugenie Sage, who chaired the Environment Committee as it scrutinised and debated and went through, clause by clause, the Natural and Built Environment Bill. I think the Hon Eugenie Sage did really professional, high-quality work leading the committee on this massive, massive reform exercise.

I also want to acknowledge the Hon Rachel Brooking, who was the senior Labour member on the committee for most of the time that it was doing this work, and, also, for her expertise and dedication to the task.

The old Resource Management Act (RMA) spawned an entire industry of lawyers and consultants and people who fed off that legislation. At the same time, the legislation, the old RMA spawned a huge industry of rhetoric from the National Party over those years, which liked to blame the RMA for every possible social and economic ill.

But it was—finally—the Hon David Parker, who, in this term of Government, has led this massive and hugely important reform process—something that National could never find it in themselves to do for the nine years that they were in office where they blamed the RMA every day of the week. They never ever were able to deliver the reform themselves. Now, as they desperately try to etch out any kind of political advantage in the lead up to the election, they can’t find it in themselves to support this high-quality piece of reform and legislative work that’s been done, led by David Parker. It’s a shame to see them throwing away what’s in the long-term interests of this country, the very people they purport to represent—even the developers who will find it easier to do their business under this law, National and ACT cannot find it in themselves to acknowledge what a fine piece of work this is.

This bill will shift the onus away from the consenting process towards democratic plan-making—a much more deliberative process so that as communities and as a country, we choose the development outcomes we want, we choose how to protect the environment. At the moment, vast amounts of our natural wealth get ploughed into individual consenting decisions. It’s a mad, mad system, and this law is going to change it. The economic modelling shows that there will be a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consents, efficiency benefits for system users between $210 million and $430 million.

This legislation will strengthen the protection of the environment. It will allow us to do more, to build more. It is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT opposes this bill. We believe the Government is putting in place a regulatory regime that will empower the forces that currently frustrate development and restrict progress. Given a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the laws that cover environmental management and land use planning, this Government has squandered that opportunity. This bill—this enormous bill—is sweeping in its scope. It covers everything from geo heritage—I’m a big fan of that, by the way; I studied geology at uni—supply of land, greenhouse gas emissions that are already covered by the emissions trading scheme, coastal areas, and cultural heritage. In short, just about every aspect that affects people’s lives is covered by a rule or provision in this bill.

At its highest level, this bill proposes to uphold “te Oranga o te Taiao”. Well, it gives that term some vague definitions, but it fails to create any kind of hierarchy for decision makers, while throwing in vague and puzzling terms like “te Oranga o te Taiao”. How courts will interpret such statements is unknown. This piece of legislation is a recipe for a decade or more of judicial mayhem, Minister. The bill will centralise planning and direction-setting powers under the Minister through a national planning framework with few, if any, checks and balances. This bill is creating an apparatus of sweeping State power. It fails to balance the legitimate concerns that people have about the natural environment with the rights of individuals to use their property as they see fit. This bill has a list of different targets, limits, outcomes, and principles that the national planning framework will have to make sense of. It’s likely that courts will just end up in a logjam as a result of this bad law.

Now, the unworkable environmental limits that this reform introduces, and the rules that will result, will lead to more prohibitions and endless bureaucratic consenting processes rather than more freedom for the range of urban and rural activities essential to New Zealanders’ economic and social wellbeing—social wellbeing. Federated Farmers told the committee that the Natural and Built Environment Bill would strip away local decision-making in favour of centralisation and that a bill filled with amorphous terms and principles would make it impossible for the courts to define what this legislation really means. Projects will be held up for years in hearings, appeals, consultants’ reports, and, of course, iwi consultations. As a result, the Government is squandering an opportunity to create meaningful change that could improve the lives of New Zealanders and restore the ideal of a property-owning democracy and respect for self-determination and property rights.

ACT engaged with the select committee in the hope—the forlorn hope, it turns out—that this bill could be beaten into shape and that the feedback from submitters would result in a workable piece of legislation. But the regional planning aspects and the devolving of planning to unelected, undemocratic entities, with of course the inevitable co-government aspect—the iwi appointees, unelected like the others—to make decisions about where and how you can apply for consents and where you’ll never be allowed to risks sterilising resources, sterilising development opportunities, sterilising the most efficient use of land, which should always be up to the landowner, not an unelected, undemocratic, co-governed planning bureau, which is what this bill puts in place.

The proposed reforms will deliver less certainty, less accountability—even less than the Resource Management Act (RMA) does today—and that’s at a time when more localised, more adaptive, and agile means are needed so that we can build our cities up, as well as out, and accommodate, for example, where I live in Auckland, a projected half a million to a million new people between now and 2050. Unless we liberalise land use planning rules, we won’t be able to fit them in, they won’t be able to find affordable homes, and we certainly won’t be able to deliver the infrastructure that we need to so that people can get around cities at a decent clip. Instead of progressing this approach, this over 1,000-page approach, ACT has a far simpler solution. Minister, this is ACT’s solution for building New Zealand and conserving nature. We’ve developed this not over five years but over 18 months of consultation and engagement with the same people who came to the Environment Committee and submitted on the Minister’s bill. But, instead of pretending to listen, instead of ignoring their urging to develop far more streamlined legislation, ACT has listened.

We propose, instead of continuing with this integrated approach of land use planning and environmental management, we separate them into environmental management, under a separate Environmental Protection Act, from urban development, under an Urban Development Act. Separating them is critical to recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach will never work. Clearly, it will never work; it’s far too complicated. A shift in principle on resource management to a property rights basis, where people can do anything that doesn’t harm others’ enjoyment of property, is fundamental to ACT’s policy for resource management and land use. ACT would dramatically reduce the number of people who have an interest in someone else’s use of their property and who could object, such as all of those who turn up at hearings now claiming they have a cultural interest or proprietary interest in somebody’s land or their business and how they choose to operate it.

A new Environmental Protection Authority would allow people to do what they like on their land unless specifically prohibited under the Act. Discharges to common property, like water bodies, would be forbidden unless specifically allowed under the Act, and such discharges would be managed under one of two regimes: freshwater or other discharges—noting the special importance of freshwater. And the freshwater regime would involve local councils deciding on acceptable environmental limits, in consultation with their community, not handed down from the Ministry for the Environment or central government officials. This decision making would be based on clearly demarcated, scientifically measurable parameters. We would eliminate the metaphysical—those concepts under the current RMA—which will be enshrined in this new document: like Te Mana o te Wai, concepts of Māori and spiritual matters, which should have absolutely no bearing on decision making about how people use their land and private property. Urban development would be managed, under ACT, under a separate Urban Development Act which sets out processes for streets and neighbourhoods to upvote their density in an organic way, so that neighbourhoods—citizens—can decide if they want to build up and, if so, come to an agreement with their neighbours and not have to ask councils for permission.

If we want to get cheaper goods to market and more houses built in an affordable way for the next generation, we need to reduce Government interference in our lives and in the way we use our land. We need to allow Kiwis to maintain their property rights—their tino rangatiratanga over their land. That’s the only way we will realise our collective economic potential as a nation. All parties agree resource management reform is necessary, but this bill, Minister, is not it. It’s not the reform we need. We do not believe, in the ACT Party, that it improves the status quo. We do not support the further progress of this bill. We set out our alternative here: ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Pleased to take a call on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. It’s certainly been a busy seven months since the bill had its first reading last November, and the Green Party will be supporting the bill. The fact that we put in a differing view was to highlight aspects of the bill that we think can be improved. I am puzzled by the contributions of both National and ACT in terms of the 5½ years of consideration of reform, the detailed thinking that has gone in, the consultation—what is National going to do if not proceed with this bill? We haven’t heard from any of the National speakers, any of the detail of what they would replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) with.

I’m certainly not an acolyte of saying that there will be a brave new world for people and planet as a result of this bill and its companion, the Spatial Planning Bill, but it has been a substantial effort in developing the bill and taking it through select committee—and thank you for the kind comments of members. It’s been a huge amount of work by Ministry for the Environment officials, select committee staff, MPs, submitters, and the parliamentary counsel. But seven months, including the Christmas break, has been a very compressed time frame for the select committee submitters and officials to deal with a bill this important. Because the committee received submissions from nearly 3,000 interested groups and individuals, we heard from 365 submitters over 28 meetings, and we did release all of our background papers just before Christmas in an effort to enable the public to better understand the policy thinking and the context for the bill. I’m not sure whether those hundreds of pages of additional information helped or hindered the submission process, but I do believe that as a result of the select committee work, which was based on very careful analysis of those submissions and the many suggestions for improvements by professional bodies like the New Zealand Planning Institute, businesses, individuals, environmental organisations, councils, iwi, and hāpu, the bill has been substantially improved. I really acknowledge and thank submitters for the huge amount of mahi that people put in, the many who had a foreshortened Christmas summer holiday break in order to provide those submissions and appear before the select committee.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer has described our legislative process as, “the fastest law in the West.” While the gestation process for this bill has been long, the legislative process has felt somewhat compressed, and I think it would have benefited from more time to consider the departmental recommendations, to look at some alternatives, to commission additional independent advice, and to refine the drafting. I really acknowledge the work of parliamentary counsel in restructuring the bill, doing a lot of drafting in response to the committee and the department’s recommendations to try and make the provisions clearer, and to include some signposts in terms of the way the different provisions fit together and should work.

So the bill is intended to enable development within environmental limits, to shorten the consenting process, to reduce the huge energy and substantial waste of time and resources by councils around the country reinventing the wheel with each of their plans, taking 100 plans down to 16. It’s intended to streamline the decision-making process and lead to more affordable housing, and more effective development of new infrastructure. It has interested me that apart from a few press releases and a bit of legal commentary, there’s largely been radio silence in the three weeks since the select committee reported the bill back. There’s certainly none of the controversy that has attended the three waters reforms. So I would take from it that a lot of the infrastructure providers, electricity generators, environmental organisations, and others, may be not satisfied but are comfortable with the bill as amended.

That’s why I think National, in its opposition to the bill without a clear or coherent plan as to how they would replace it, is simply political grandstanding. It’s tub-thumping in the absence of major calls for change to the bill as reported back. It’s a lot of bluster making sweeping criticism, but I think it’s the example that Todd McClay gave of issuing a press statement the day after the select committee reported back claiming that National would repeal the bill to remove the attack on trout fishing—totally failed to recognise that the select committee had fixed that and that the bill now includes recognition and protection of the habitat of trout and salmon, in order to provide a substantial hook for the valuable advocacy that Fish & Game does, and to carry on the protection that the RMA has provided.

Mr Bishop’s claims that the bill is now weighted heavily in favour of environmental protection, fails to recognise that we need a healthy environment in order to sustain our economy and society. It also ignores the many provisions in the bill which the Green Party sees as undermining—cutting across the purpose of te Oranga o te Taiao, the fact that there are generous exceptions for infrastructure from the provisions around places of national importance, the fact that we still have a fast-track consenting process that comes into effect when the bill comes into effect, the Ministerial powers, which allow the Minister to pass further regulations, making further exemptions for nationally and regionally significant infrastructure and water storage. So there are a number of ways in which that purpose clause and environmental protection is, we would believe in the Greens, weakened. Also, I just note Rod Oram’s comment that in Aotearoa New Zealand, “We are perpetuating one of the fastest, deepest degradations of natural capital of any nation.” Our regular state of the environment reports give us evidence of that.

So the concept of environmental limits and targets in the bill of significant areas, places of national importance, and highly vulnerable biodiversity areas are important because they provide the constraints around development to ensure that nature thrives. Those environmental limits are intended to identify a safe space for human activity and avoid ecological tipping points that lead to irreversible environmental harm and damage. The targets are intended to drive improvements in environmental health. One of the major changes that the select committee made was to ensure that we didn’t lock in degradation in terms of current state and that the targets were used to drive improvement. But the first National Planning Framework, which will provide that national direction which has been so lacking under the RMA until recently, will come into play eight months after the bill is enacted. But it won’t necessarily include new environmental targets, it will carry across the ones that are in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. But we think there needs to be provision in the bill that sets a timeline around when targets will be included in the framework.

There’s been a lot of work done around the 18 outcomes which are at the heart of the bill and mark that shift away from managing the adverse effects of activities on the environment. They are intended to drive a much more strategic focus to enhance both the quality of the natural environment and the built environment, and to support the wellbeing of current and future generations. As the Minister noted, the RMA has failed to do that by its focus on effects management.

It is these outcomes that will drive the National Planning Framework, drive the natural and built environment plans, and provide that strategic direction and guidance. We haven’t, in select committee, provided any prioritisation across the outcomes as some submitters recommended. Working of the outcomes across each other and providing coherence will come through the national planning framework. I’m really pleased that there are new outcomes such as a recognition that public recreational use and enjoyment of the natural environment is maintained and enhanced—very pleased that we’ve done away with the problematic provisions on urban trees, but we want to see a real commitment that the national planning framework will deliver on that. We still have a number of concerns with the bill, particularly in relation to outstanding natural landscapes and features, and the lack of recognition that landscapes and natural features can be important at the regional and local scale. But the Green Party will be supporting this bill because it is a genuine attempt to improve our environmental legislation.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an actual delight to be standing and speaking on this bill—not because I spent the last seven months of my life in very long select committee days listening to fascinating submissions but also because I do believe that this bill will make a significant change.

We all know that the Resource Management Act hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked for us doing infrastructure and building, and it hasn’t worked for our environment. Imagine a young person, such as myself, discovering—very, very long time ago—that, actually, how much pollution we put into the ocean or into waterways was a permitted activity. I couldn’t understand it, and I haven’t been able to understand how we’ve been able to treat the environment like a salami, cutting off pieces here and there. This bill will actually create something that goes across the entire environment. We are no longer looking at parts of the environment individually; we are no longer looking at an individual property right. We are looking at what is appropriate for the environment.

I have to just acknowledge, as others have, the Hon Eugenie Sage, and also my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking. Their extraordinary contribution to this bill, alongside our Minister, have been utterly—utterly—professional, and I want to acknowledge that. I want also to say to all of those submitters—we had 2,945 submitters and 365 submitters that spoke to us in Wellington, Christchurch, Tauranga, and Auckland. And I also want to acknowledge Barbara Kuriger for her attendance and her very thoughtful suggestions into the process. I have enjoyed, very much, working with you. This bill changes things tremendously, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Barbara Kuriger for five minutes.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, when I became the conservation spokesperson, in January, I didn’t think I’d spend the next seven months of my life actually working through lots of pages of documents, and, in the beginning, had very limited understanding of, and, even now not proclaiming to be an expert on it. But I do want to say, as others have suggested, that the select committee process was a very open one and was very ably chaired. I found that the people on the committee were all willing to get in and work together.

I think the things that I found mostly confusing, I guess—and if I talk about the select committee—for the submitters was that we have this bill and we have the Spatial Planning Bill, and then we have the climate adaptation bill, which somehow has to fit in, and we don’t know the details of that particular piece of legislation yet. Meanwhile, the local government reforms are going on and we’ve got water entities bills. So we’ve got a lot of things that actually fit together in the regional, local government space. I suppose that was one of the things that submitters were a little bit confused on. Minister, if, at some point, we could align those things, it would actually help the public get a much better understanding of how it fits together.

Now, certainly, in that time in the committee, there were a number of “what ifs”, and the purpose has been discussed today—the purpose of the legislation: “te Oranga o te Taiao”. We had lots of discussion about that. Of course, the health and wellbeing of our environment does lead to the health and wellbeing of our people, and that actually came into many discussions throughout the committee. I guess, the question around that still is—and we hear a lot of comments and commentary around legal interpretation and legal challenge around that—and it would be really good to get some assurances from the Minister, as we work through this and go through the committee stages, that some of that is watertight and is able to withstand the challenges in a law court so that we don’t end up with some of the, I guess, long, long processes that we currently sit with. That has been a concern of a number of submitters.

The second really major one on top of that was around local voice. Whether it be the local council, the local community—as was mentioned before, there were hunting and fishing groups and various others, there were also whānau and hapū that came in and talked about the things that happen in their local community being particularly important to them. So it’s really important for our communities to know how this fits together with this Natural and Built Environment Bill with the Spatial Planning Bill in terms of as the regional focus takes a whole, how that local voice is going to get through in their area at place—we heard “at place” a lot of the time.

The third thing—and I’ve had feedback over this from a number of people since we came out of select committee, and even again today had discussions on it—is the 10-year consenting. I know, Minister, I’ve heard you talking about processes taking 12½ years on average. But there are a lot of people concerned that, with that 10-year consenting, the banks won’t lend money to the process and that it’s too short a term to keep our infrastructure and our building, and all of those things, going on what we need as a country. So perhaps some discussion on that at the committee of the whole House stage would be really, really useful, because I know there are some organisations that are quite concerned about that—some of them are the small electricity providers, and I know we all want to get to renewable electricity as fast as we possibly can and every little bit counts. So I think that 10-year consenting—because, at the end of the day, whatever we consent in this world, if you can’t graze it, grow it, dig it, or extract it, it really doesn’t exist. So we need to put some quite big thought into how we do that to create our resilience as a country in the future.

So I would just like to say, in closing, in this contribution that, yeah, it’s been a steep learning curve for me. I’ve still got some questions that need to be answered, and I intend to ask those through the committee of the whole House stage. But those are my thoughts on how the select committee went. Thanks to everyone involved. Thank you.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I acknowledge the Minister on this for bringing this to the House; the chair of the committee, ably chaired by the Hon Eugenie Sage; the members of the committee, I think we’ve shared a lot of time over the last seven months, both in sitting weeks and on recess weeks on Zoom as well; but mostly to the many submitters that came before us, the many submitters who emailed us—both solicited and unsolicited—because they wanted to see really good resource management laws made here in New Zealand.

Can I say that we are in an interesting time in New Zealand’s history between central government and local government; they’ve pretty much set the rules when it comes to resource management in New Zealand. And we’re at a time now where many iwi have settled with the Government—not all, but many have. Part of that means that they have special relationships, special recognition of their waterways, their rivers, their lakes—where I come from—and land. For that, they have an absolute expectation that they get a say in what any kind of resource management law looks like. That’s why I’m proud to stand here today and back this piece of legislation. Is it a silver bullet? No, it’s not. Is it going to be perfect? No, it’s not going to be perfect, either. But it’s a heck of a lot better than what we’re having to fuddle through since 1991 and the many iterations since the start of the Resource Management Act back then.

This has been the bread and butter of the committee’s work, but I have especially paid attention to the submitters that have come in, Māori submitters from iwi, hapū, Māori land trusts, and organisations saying that they expect that they can have a say in what the future looks like for their area, whether it be the impact on their waterways, on their biodiversity, on building new housing or infrastructure. This has been really, really important, because it’s a new day, it’s a new dawn. These iwi that have settled have new expectations, and I believe that this bill absolutely does this, making sure that we recognise and uphold te Oranga o te Taiao is huge.

It is new to our House, and, obviously, we will need to grapple with what that looks like. But just as we’ve come off our Matariki celebrations, we’ve managed to come off that too. That’s something that we’ve embraced as a nation, and we’ll embrace this too. Making sure that we’re giving effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi; providing greater recognition of Te Ao Māori; having a greater recognition of mātauranga Māori is also really important in this too, making sure that we’ve got Māori around the decision-making tables, the regional planning committees, a minimum of two alongside the councils.

In Māori, we say, “Rae ki te rae”, which is “meeting forehead-to-forehead” or “chief-to-chief”. That kind of representation around those decision-making tables is incredibly important, and it’s for that reason that I believe that Māori around the country will be supporting this bill. I hope that they do; obviously, we’ve still got the committee stage to go and the third reading, but to this point, it’s a heck of a lot better than we’ve had to date, and, for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise for the Natural and Built Environment Bill second reading, and again, I want to comment on many of my colleagues who have already said to thank the Minister, the Environment Committee chair, and the members that sit there. I’ve had the pleasure to sub in at times, and when I’ve come in, the committee is going into detailed discussions that sometimes go over my head! But it’s always good to hear and learn about this space, because I know—and I can speak of my electorate of Takanini: we have many areas that are getting developed and many of the property developers comment on making sure that things of the old system, this current 30-year-old RMA, gets reformed and improved on.

My population is increasing 5 percent annually in Takanini: we’ve got to make sure that we’re providing good housing, but also making sure that the environment is well protected, and this legislation does so. We talk about poorly written district plans that happen across the country; we have delays in consenting as well, high consenting costs, and I believe that—in the discussions I’ve come in during the select committee stages, and then now—that this legislation will do the job. So I commend it to the House. Fa‘afetai.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Ngā mihi o te wā o Puanga me Matariki e hau nei ki runga i a tātou.

[Greetings of the times, of Puanga, and Matariki as they set upon us.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak to this Natural and Built Environment Bill on the second reading. I want to acknowledge, also, the mercurial Hon David Parker and the erudite Hon Eugenie Sage for leading this extraordinary effort to compose and bring this not insignificant companion bill to the House. It’s been very entertaining, actually, listening to the link between Puanga and Matariki, and the nationwide embracing of that, to say that the nation will now embrace this bill, which has a far more significant impact on our communities than a public holiday.

National supports reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but respectfully opposes this bill. I would commence with some minor insights from my short but entertaining legal training and practice which I undertook over various years and various institutions and law firms. I say this because what I don’t want to see, if this bill passes, is an abyss of six-minute units around how to present and argue and lobby for various parts of this bill and to get decisions made.

But where do I start? Back to basics. Our Westminster system is based on a number of foundational principles: separation of powers, judicial independence, parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch as the head of State, protocols like privilege and collective responsibility at Cabinet, and a distinct electoral system—which I hope one day may change to enable elections to take part in the warmer months of the year.

The rule of law is a fundamental pillar of our legal system, and it stands as a pou tokomanawa—or centre pillar—supporting the rich pou of this fine House. That rule of law is something that we have to consider and measure ourselves every day against, particularly with the passing of quite complex and, in our view, uncertain legislation. This rule of law implores legal certainty. It does so in the common law jurisdictions; it does so in the civil law jurisdictions. It states that laws and decisions must be definite and clear. Once we start shaking that pillar, we threaten the stability of this House, its constitutional foundations, and the social arrangements of our great country, New Zealand.

In my humble opinion, practice, and training as a lawyer, this bill, if proposed, passed as law will shake the pillar of legal certainty required for such an important piece of legislation. It will threaten the very stability of this House and the constitutional and social arrangements that we have in this country. It drives our legislation into an abyss of six-minute units. I’ll say why; I’ll give you some reasons why.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Potaka, just reminding you that this is a second reading, and one of the purposes of second reading is referring, at some stage, to what happened at select committee.

TAMA POTAKA: Yes, I’ll go to that right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you will be heading in that direction?

TAMA POTAKA: Yes, I will be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not a first reading speech? Thank you.

TAMA POTAKA: Yes, I will be. And that direction starts with the Chief Justice’s comments at that select committee, where the Chief Justice said and raised—yes, the judicial comment of the highest judicial officer in this land—that the length and complexity of this bill would further disrupt the courts. It was a public warning proffered by the Chief Justice in light of the extensive expected litigation that would emerge from the proposed wording therein.

Federated Farmers, too, that doyen association of resource users, reflect a genuine objection with the bill’s comments. The reform packaging has been “riddled with new and amorphous terms”, including the need for a national planning framework” set out in the bill to “‘uphold’ ‘the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment’ and to not compromise ‘the well-being of future generations.’”

The Green Party itself has remarked, in the papers, that “the large number of outcomes and the lack of priority for environmental outcomes together with the decision-making principles risk a return to a subjective, ‘overall broad judgment’ approach.” Again, decisions being made on how we feel rather than firm criteria with a touch of discretion.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that this proposed legislation would generate a field day of opportunities with such sweeping and all-inclusive language. Even the Environmental Defence Society has resiled from the bill, effectively saying that it is word soup—word soup.

When you read through the proposed purpose of the Act, it gives us a moment to demonstrate how the bill innately infuses legal uncertainty. “The purpose of the Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.”, which includes enabling the use and development of environments “in a way that promotes the well-being of both present and future generations.” Te Oranga o te Taiao—and it sets it out—“the health of the natural environment; the relationship between the health of the natural environment’s capacity to sustain life; the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment; and the relationship between the iwi, hapū, and te Taiao based on whakapapa.” I thought I was going to read the Mabo constitution and vibe as paragraph (f).

The wording makes it very hard for people to make a firm, predictable, consistent decision across resource management, and that is very disconcerting. For example, when you dig down and interrogate the wording proposed—when we refer to the wellbeing of both past and future generations, how do we measure that? Are we weighing this between 50 today and 50 tomorrow?

Are we talking about a 500-year plan like Wakatū Incorporation in Nelson or a 25-year plan like Whakatupuranga Rua Mano or Ngāti Raukawa, Te Atī Awa, Ngāti Toa Rangatira? What is the time frame that we’re talking about here? Because ultimately, the commitment of decision makers, iwi, Māori incorporations and trusts, property developers, and others often rests on timing.

Here, we don’t know where the harvest can come from fertilising and planting something; we don’t know if both present and future generations count for 1, 2, or 20 generations. Because once you start making decisions based on the future generations, you need some guidance as a decision maker. Is that 100 years into the future or 20 years into the future? The wording in this bill, in my view, does not go far enough.

What about the health and wellbeing of communities? What does the legislation give on guidance here? Are we talking about the Whare Tapa Whā model popularised by Tā Mason Durie when we get into spiritual, physical, mental, and social health; or are we back to the Living Standards Framework popularised by The Treasury? Or was it the Wheke model popularised by Rangimārie Rose Pere? You see, these particular models could all be used in different ways with different investment time frames and giving different investment ambiguities and decision ambiguities for decision makers. That’s one of the reasons why I think that the bill, in its current wording, is very premature.

What about the relationships of farmers and their families, like the ones on the Taihape-Napier Road and their connectedness with the Taiao? They, too, have bones buried in the hills up there. Are we saying that their connections are not important? I think that that’s where the Labour-led Government is saying that the relations and the ancestors of people like the member of Northcote and myself, from 200 years ago, Pākehā or Māori, actually divide.

The proposed establishment of the National Maori Entity has actually been opposed by the iwi fresh waters forum group. Rukumoana Schaafhausen has made comments about how that entity effectively seeks to cut against the rangatiratanga of iwi. Yet, we have the omnipotent Labour-led Government saying, “No, this is the right thing to do, notwithstanding that group’s concerns.” The bare words set out in subpart 5 suggest otherwise.

Second, the bill now elevates the standard of compliance and performance against Treaty principles. In the current RMA, as we know, you take account of the Treaty of Waitangi principles. But in this new bill, commensurate with section 4 of the Conservation Act, decision makers are expected to give effect to the principles of the Treaty.

In my brief experiences with the loveable and colourful rogues of Motutapu and Maraetai, James and Billy Brown, and the now famous Supreme Court decision in the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust and the Department of Conservation, the courts have made some determinations on how the department needs to give effect of that Department of Conservation to the Treaty principles. But as the Hon Eugenie Sage would recall, notwithstanding that this was a useful decision, the implementation of the decision has left an absolute bureaucratic nightmare. So section 4, when it says gives effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, in fact, when you go through the guidance of that, it’s very thin and concerning.

In my view, expediting the elevation of this specific envisioned in the legislation requires more careful consideration from people who are actually in the game and deliberation to ensure greater certainty for the iwi, the communities, territorial authorities, and to ensure less failure to deliver on reasonable expectations.

We lived through that process when I worked at Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. We lived through the absolute shemozzle that the interpretation by bureaucrats at the Department of Conservation and elsewhere sought to give to that provision. We were unable to actually progress things in a timely and civil manner because people did not know what to do. They were playing that game that we used to play as children called “Freeze.” Stop, don’t do anything, and never get anywhere.

With these comments. I’d like to reinforce: we support reform, but we don’t support this particular package. Kia ora tātou.

Hon STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. I truly believe that this is one of these legacy pieces of legislation that I don’t think could have actually been carried through this House or advanced or achieved by any other Minister except the Hon David Parker, and competently backed by hugely competent officials and through the select committee, and with also special mention to Rachel Brooking herself, an expert practitioner in Resource Management Act (RMA) legislation.

Mr Parker is a Minister with a passion for this legislation, but also a very deep, deep political and practical knowledge of the management of our natural resources. There is a lot of intellectual grunt in both the Minister’s office and officials, MPs and select committee, a lot of political graft and toil, and precedent-setting concepts embodied within this legislation for the first time. It recognises the importance of true partnership in terms of getting things done in the second quarter of the 21st century onwards.

The RMA, when it came into being, was a very innovative piece of legislation. But like all innovations, its time is now up, and its replacement is just as innovative, if not more so, than the RMA was when it came into being last century. That’s why it is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 72

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

Noes 47

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Spatial Planning Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Spatial Planning Bill.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is an important part of the new resource management system, the new laws that will do a better job of enabling development and protecting the environment. This bill was also introduced in November 2022 and referred to the Environment Committee. I, again, thank the committee for their careful work in considering the around 3,000 submissions on the bill and I, as other members, do acknowledge the capability and hard work and chairpersonship skills of Eugenie Sage. The Government has accepted the amendments proposed by the committee, which will improve the bill’s workability.

The Spatial Planning Bill has a single function. It’s the creation and the implementation of regional spatial strategies. This will do a number of things, including national consistency across key aspects of these strategies. Time and again throughout the long reform process leading to this bill, we’ve been told by developers and environmentalists alike that the absence of regional planning is a major problem in our resource management system. Above all else, those with interests in the system are crying out for predictability—land use rules, land use plans, and uncertainty around where infrastructure should go, delaying infrastructure, and there’s a lot of money and time being wasted. Spatial planning at the regional level will be a big step in overcoming these challenges.

Finally, developers and environmentalists can expect to work with plans across the country that are based on some pretty common-sense underlying principles. For years, we’ve had successive leaders of parties rallying against the Resource Management Act (RMA), promising that they’d throw it out, they’d repeal it. Now that we’ve got around to finally putting something comprehensive in its place, they’re going to chuck it out and start again. They know this reform’s right and they know it needs to happen.

I’m going to recount a bit of a story. Just after we started the RMA reform process, I was somewhat surprised to have Federated Farmers come into my office and say they wanted the RMA. And I said, “Too late. You’ve kicked it to death.” I actually used those words. You’ve got to ask yourself: why is it that Federated Farmers want the RMA now? Because they’ve hated it. It was before they saw the detail of the bill, but they had learnt that we were going to knock over first in first served, in respect of water issues. It’s an issue that’s perhaps more apposite to the Natural and Built Environment Bill rather than this, so I won’t go into that now, but I’m happy to in the committee stage of the House. Now we’re seeing some parties in this House wanting to demonise this in order to court a few votes, and I suspect also to deny the Labour Party and the Greens credit for a job well done.

The regional spatial strategies will drive the direction in growing regions. They’re actually not so important in regions that don’t have growth pressures, but in growing regions they’ll make it easier for regions to respond to the challenges that they face over the next 30 years or more. The strategies will be given effect through natural and built environment plans, and there’s very broad support from submitters for introducing this new spatial planning system that comes through the Spatial Planning Act. We need these spatial strategies to ensure that the regions identify the areas where growth is likely to proceed in the future, perhaps with some population triggers, and the areas where it’s less likely that growth is likely to take place. You know, some of the areas that might be prone to climate change hazards or might be areas of high natural biodiversity compared with other areas that are lower productive land and more suitable for development. So spatial planning will deliver an integrated approach, including protection of the likes of transport corridors or rail corridors.

This will both enable the private sector to mobilise their resources towards the areas which are most efficiently developed, but it will also enable central government to better plan and integrate these things into the long-term investment plans that central government has for the likes of transport infrastructure. So this will both deliver improvements to infrastructure provision and to the appropriate release of land when it’s needed.

Now, we’re not creating monopolies for anyone or saying that all development should be in a certain area. In any event, these decisions will be regional; they won’t be made by central government. But I think it’s pretty easy to see that the efficiencies that will come of this will be significant. And indeed, once a spatial strategy suggests that those areas over there should be developed and those transport corridors protected and those areas of natural importance protected over there, a lot of the development activities will flow through into Natural and Built Environment Act plans as permitted activities. It’s one of the reasons why the new system can have so many more permitted activities rather than things that require a bespoke consent. It’s because they will have been identified as future areas for growth in the spatial strategies. And that’s why developers up and down the country, the big development firms as well as councils, think that this is a good idea.

The new system will also provide benefits by improving housing affordability. I do agree with Simon Court that population areas that are growing need to make ample provision for land and the new system actually embeds that as a principle. It requires very expansive land markets rather than just-in-time supply in a way that drives up land costs. But it also, through this legislation, can be done in a way that achieves sensible outcomes for infrastructure planning. In respect of climate change, Simon Court, in his last contribution, said it was irrelevant to these instruments. I agree that mitigation or emissions reduction is mainly a matter for emissions pricing, but urban form, avoiding natural hazards, including from climate change, storm events and the like has a proper place in the planning system, including at times in the Spatial Planning Act.

Regional spatial strategies will help achieve the purpose of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. While the spatial planning bill is a separate and new part of the resource management system, it is linked to the Natural and Built Environment Bill in several ways. It will be done by the same regional planning committees that are established under the Natural and Built Environment Bill. That was a recommendation of the select committee that we’ve adopted.

The national planning framework that Simon Court again criticised, saying that it was some sort of instrument of the Minister—it’s not. It’s not prepared any differently to the way in which national direction under the RMA is. And indeed, there are more checks and balances, and, in fact, in some ways less ministerial power in respect of the national planning framework than is the case in respect of national direction under the RMA, because some of the shortcut processes that could be abused under the RMA are not as able to be used under the new national planning framework. And the first example of that will be the first draft of the national planning framework will go to a full board of inquiry, quite independent of any Minister.

Essentially, the first national planning framework consolidates all of the existing national direction into a single document, tries to sort out inconsistencies, where that’s possible at that level in the planning framework, and then adds some more national direction in respect of a pro-development chapter for infrastructure and also a chapter on avoiding natural hazards, so that we avoid some of the problems that were so apparent in recent events from bad storm events up north. So the bill sets out what the Regional Planning Committee should consider when they’re doing a strategy. And I welcome the drafting improvements the committee’s made on that.

Because there is a need to align Government programmes with what regions want, there is one Government appointment on the Spatial Planning Committee in addition to the Regional Planning Committee members that are appointed regionally, and that’s because councils wanted that, because they sometimes find it difficult to marshal central Government to actually pony up and make commitments that are needed, and this will assist in that.

Public participation is made clearer by amendments from the select committee, which we’ve also adopted. I’m sure there’ll be lots of additional questions in the committee stage on this bill. The final point I would make is there’s no point having these grand plans if you don’t have implementation plans. So the Act requires implementation plans so that we can see how councils and central government agencies are going to give effect to the high-level principles or the high level provisions of strategic plans.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, the Spatial Planning Bill is not as bad as the Natural and Built Environment Bill (NBEA) that precedes it, or is the accompanying piece of legislation. The National Party agrees with effective spatial planning legislation and a regime. The problem is that, allied to the NBEA bill, this will be a battering ram around development in New Zealand—it will make it harder to do things

I want to canvass a couple of points in my contribution on this bill. The Minister for the Environment seems to be of the view that just because a lot of time and energy has been spent on this bill—that it’s therefore good. And actually, the truth is the opposite: sunk cost fallacy. Just because we’ve spent a lot of time and money and energy, and officials have worked really hard and the Environment Committee’s done a good job, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a substantive step forward for the country or for the environment.

I want to pick up on a couple of remarks that the Minister said in his speech. The first is that the development community is looking out for predictability and certainty. That’s exactly right—they are. And the problem is, at the moment, they don’t have that. But this throws everything out and starts again with the NBEA bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, with these new amorphous legal terms—no one knows how they will be interpreted and no one knows what they mean. And we heard submission after submission to the select committee in relation to this, from both the sort of pro-environment wing of the world and the pro-development wing, and local councils—you know, name a group, there was a submission to the effect of legal uncertainty and complexity, and how worrisome that was. And none of the changes advanced by the select committee fix that basic problem. So the Minister’s right that people are looking for predictability. This throws everything up in the air and creates judicial chaos. That is what is going to end up happening as a result if these bills pass.

And it’s pretty clear, the Government wants to ram them through. Its David Parker’s legacy project for this tired Government. Judicial chaos will result. We are going to end up with year after year of litigation, trying to define exactly what the words mean in the two bills. That is not a recipe for predictability and certainty.

Then, he sort of made that sort of mean-spirited remark and said, “Oh, well, National and ACT are just opposing the bills because, you know, it’s like a job well done—you know, pat on the back, haven’t I done well? Isn’t the Government amazing?” Well, that’s not the reason we’re opposing it.

We’re up for Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. I’ve been a member of Parliament for nine years; I’ve been talking about RMA reform for nine years. And there are members who are a bit more long in the tooth than me. I see Scott Simpson here, who’s been our environment spokesperson for a long time. I see Louise Upton, former Minister in the last Government. No one doubts the National Party’s commitment to RMA reform. You look back and—

Hon Scott Simpson: Couldn’t get any support from Labour.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s exactly right, as Scott Simpson says. I remember, back in 2014, as a new, young buck MP—

Hon Scott Simpson: Still young. Still young.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m not that young. I turn 40 in two months—

Anna Lorck: Oh, you do not! Oh, you’re so young!

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, I know—I know—I know. I’ve got the greys already—got the greys already—this is what being an MP does.

Anyway, so I remember, as a young buck, backbench MP, coming down and solidly arguing for RMA reform and putting forward these ideas. And David Parker and Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins and all the rest of the Labour Party frontbench sat where we’re sitting now and said, “Oh no, we can’t have this. You’re putting the development—it will overcome the environment. It’s such a disaster.” And David Parker opposed substantive RMA reform for years. And Peter Dunne sat over there, just in front of where my good friend Simon Court is sitting now, and he was a stick in the mud on RMA reform and said, “No, no, we can’t do this.”, and he invented every reason under the sun not to do it properly. And you could never get a parliamentary majority through the House to do substantive RMA reform.

Then, much like they did on the TPP—or, sorry, I should say, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—half the Labour Party caucus stood here and marched down Queen Street about this appalling, outrageous breach of New Zealand sovereignty. And then what do I see, what do I listen to on the radio the other morning? I see Chris Hipkins on the radio. “Oh, you need to realise, CPTPP is a gold standard free-trade agreement. It’s just wonderful. Open markets is the New Zealand way, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.” They changed the name—they changed the name. They think adding the word “progressive” to the agreement. Anyway—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Righto, Mr Bishop, you’ve had a pretty good five minutes. The bill.

CHRIS BISHOP: The Speaker’s about to cut me off on it. But I’m just making the point that we’re up RMA reform, but it has to be substantive.

Here are the issues with this piece of legislation. The select committee has deliberately changed the Spatial Planning Bill. It essentially has the same purpose as the Natural and Built Environment Bill. I won’t repeat what I said in my earlier contribution on that bill, but the idea that clause 3—the purpose is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao, a legally undefined term in New Zealand up until now—is going to make it easier to do things, frankly, is fanciful. It’s completely fanciful. That whole Purpose section massively prioritises protection of the environment. I use the word “protect” specifically, because the courts, as I said before, have found the word “protect” has a particularly strict meaning, and it will be interpreted by the courts in a way that massively prioritises the environment over development, despite what the Minister says.

I mean, he sort of waxes lyrical, “Oh, we’re doing this for the development and infrastructure chapter.”, and all the rest of it. Well, that’s all fine. You can wax lyrical all you like in Parliament. The actual issue is how these things get interpreted. The Purpose clause of the NBEA and the Spatial Planning Bill—those Purpose clauses suffuse themselves into the various plans that flow from that. It’s a hierarchy. Everything has to flow from that. It is going to cause judicial chaos and lead to a diminution in predictability and certainty. So that is the most fundamental objection that we have to these two bills.

One of the really interesting themes that came through the submission process was the loss of local democracy. Now, I am not someone who thinks that local democracy is a good in and of itself—that it’s sort of like a supra good that should superimpose itself on everything. I think there’s a balance to be struck. I do think there’s a role for national direction through central government. At the end of the day, particularly when it comes to housing, central government bears much of the fiscal costs of poor local government decision making. So to put that into real terms, we spend, at central government, $4 billion a year on housing subsidies—$4 billion. Over a four-year Budget cycle, that is 10 Transmission Gully motorways on housing subsidies, on accommodation supplement, on emergency housing, on income-related rent—you know, $4 billion.

Angie Warren-Clark: Are you going to cut them?

CHRIS BISHOP: We want to reduce that amount down, for sure, but we want to do it by fixing the housing market. You know, it’s not sustainable that the Crown spends $4 billion per year on housing subsidies—it’s not. And the Government knows that. So the actual answer is competitive urban land markets. And to be fair to the Minister, that is one good thing, of the Spatial Planning Bill, which goes in the right direction.

So, as I say, I am not someone who thinks that local democracy is a good in and of itself—there’s a balance to be struck. But the submissions about the loss of local voice that came through the select committee were striking. Hamilton City Council’s submission, I thought, was very good. They said, “The framework destroys our ability to make timely, cost effective, democratically accountable decisions. The regional planning committee plan process is unwieldy, costly, time consuming, undemocratic, reliant on territorial and regional boundaries which are irrelevant and unreflective of communities of interest, unrepresentative, and lacks political accountability.” Strong words, but they’re not actually unreflective of many of the submissions that came through from many local councils.

The other point that comes through—which the Minister didn’t really address—is all of the Government’s reform processes in this area are completely disconnected from each other. It’s very discombobulating. So you’ve got three waters, which when it was initially introduced was the four entities, and, in the middle of these bills going through the select committee process, that all got up-ended. Now, we’re into the 10 regional entities. We’ve got different structures when it comes to the regional planning committees for this one. But you’ve also got the Review into the Future for Local Government, which is proposing another whole up-ending.

So local government quite rightly feels completely discombobulated by the Government’s reform processes. These bills are not a step forward. We’re up for RMA reform, but it has to be things that actually move the dial and will make a difference. These bills take us backwards, therefore we can’t support them.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment):Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Spatial Planning Bill. I want to touch on a couple of points made by previous speakers, but first, start with saying why we wanted this piece of legislation in the first place. That is because New Zealand—all Government colours—has not been great at linking up our infrastructure with our town planning.

Part of that is because of who funds the infrastructure, and, as the Minister said before, the idea here is that the regional planning groups will have somebody from Government on those bodies, and that is because Government, obviously, is a funder of much infrastructure, along with councils and other groups.

Now, we heard earlier—the Hon Scott Simpson was saying in the previous bill’s debate—that this reform package was supposed to be three Acts and two of them don’t work without the third piece. That third piece is the climate change adaptation bill that we haven’t seen yet, and that piece of legislation is to deal with existing activities or houses or businesses, whatever you want to think of it, that are going to be impacted by climate change. So that is because they are low lying, and there’s going to be sea level rise at some point in the future.

What do we do about the existing people who live there? Part of the Natural and Built Environment Bill does some work in terms of being able to extinguish existing use rights. It’s limited. Of course, these pieces of legislation, both the Spatial Planning Bill and the Natural and Built Environment Bill, allow for stopping new activities because of climate change hazards. How you deal with those existing activities, how you fund them, all of those aspects—that it is difficult, and that is something that we need to continue to work on, I think, in a cross-party way. But it doesn’t undermine the purposes of these two other pieces of legislation: the specific one that we are talking about, which is our planning to link in infrastructure with our town planning, and to do it on a longer time scale. So not the Resource Management Act plans of a 10-year time frame, not the Natural and Built Environment Bill plans of the 9-year time frames, but to really be looking out 30 years or longer.

I just want to touch on that previous speech as well—by Chris Bishop—that was saying that National is keen for resource management reform, and they tried to do substantive resource management reform in the past. I really want to challenge that. The bills that I saw as a practitioner, they did not try and address the status quo, and they did not try and address these difficult issues of long-term planning in infrastructure funding. These reforms do, and that is why they’re so important.

Now, speaking again in reference to the Hon Scott Simpson’s previous speech, I also do want to agree with him that the Hon Eugenie Sage has done a marvellous job of chairing the Environment Committee for both of these bills. Also, I want to say that I think every member of that select committee was incredibly hard-working, and, again, I want to thank all the submitters for making their submissions.

Now, of course, the select committee has recommended some changes to the bill, and one of them is around the Water Services Entities Act, and we just heard the previous speaker mention that. Now, clause 3 is the purpose section, and that is to promote the integration and the performance of functions under the Natural and Built Environment Act, the Land Transport Management Act, the Local Government Act, and now the Water Services Entities Act 2022. So what the select committee has done in their report back is put that new infrastructure Act into the relevant provisions of the bill.

Another thing that I want to highlight is that at clause 16(3), there is now the word “map”. I’m excited about the addition of this word. It was, I think, slightly odd that a bill talking about spatial planning didn’t mention maps; it now does. I think that is what most members of the community imagine a spatial plan will look like; there will be some maps. So well done to the select committee on that.

Of course, the select committee has also made changes that reflect changes also made in the Natural and Built Environment Bill and some of the technical changes. I think another important change that the select committee made was at clause 15(1)(f), that the spatial plans are now to link to limits and targets, where they apply, that are set under the Natural and Built Environment Bill.

So this is a really good bill to do better in the things that New Zealanders aren’t great at doing, which is linking that infrastructure and the town planning. So I commend it to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Listening to the Minister who’s just resumed her seat, I’m mindful of the fact that we are a small nation at the bottom of the South Pacific. We are a nation of 5 million people, about the same size as metropolitan Melbourne in terms of population, but we have a landmass that is about the same size as Japan or the United Kingdom. Yet, we insist on making things so difficult for ourselves, and we have done for years. This legislation does nothing to make it easier for ourselves—for our built environment, for our natural environment, or indeed for those people who are vested with the responsibility of trying to plan for the future needs and demands and opportunities for citizens and for our built and natural environment. So I have to disagree with the Hon Rachel Brooking and her view.

She comes to this debate not only as a member of the Government but as a former practitioner in this area, and let me tell the House that the only people who are going to benefit from this legislation, from the natural built environment legislation and the spatial planning legislation—and, I suspect, the adaptation piece that we have yet to see—are lawyers. This is going to be a lawyer’s gravy train. To my colleague Tama Potaka: if the politics doesn’t work out, Tama, you’re going to be going back and being a resource spatial planning lawyer, because there’s going to be tonnes of opportunity and huge opportunity for vast fortunes to be made in the legal profession. There will be years—years—of judicial interpretation around these statutes, and this one, just because it is smaller and less numeric in volume than its traveling mate, the Natural and Built Environment Bill, doesn’t mean that it’s any less complicated.

The Environment Committee ran these two bills alongside each other, and it would be remiss of me not to join with other colleagues in congratulating and thanking the chair of the select committee, who I think did a particularly good job and was across the detail. The Hon Eugenie Sage, I think, did a job that is not only a credit to her personally but a credit to the select committee process, because we were working under very tight time frames. The legislation was introduced to the Parliament just before the Christmas break last year, and then submissions were called for until early February, over the summer break. Notwithstanding that truncated and shortened period, over a time when most New Zealanders are on holiday, the select committee received something in the order of more than 600—I think 610—submissions, and ultimately we heard from about 365 submitters.

This piece of legislation, the Spatial Planning Bill, is the one that actually creates, effectively, another layer of local government, and it’s a layer of local government that will be non-democratic, will have no democratic accountability, but will have enormous power and enormous influence over the lives, the property rights, and the wellbeing of people for decades and decades to come. These regional planning committees that will be established won’t have democratic accountability. That was probably the issue that was raised most regularly by people who were concerned about this piece of legislation. These people will be, largely, faceless, they will not be accountable at the ballot box, and they will have enormous power to create plans that will have an impact on the lives and the wellbeing of people, businesses, and communities up and down the country.

My colleague Chris Bishop made it very clear: we are up for discussion and debate and for a rational approach to the reforming of our resource management legislation and regime. But this is not the way to do it. We didn’t hear, for instance, a very effective answer as to why this bill is actually needed at all. What we could have had was—as we have now, essentially—the planning portion of the regime included in one bill. A number of submitters made that point, and we didn’t ever really get a satisfactory answer, either from the Minister or from the officials who were advising. Now, just on that note, I do want to thank the officials, because they were absolutely burning the midnight oil on this legislation, and the other piece of legislation as well, the natural built environment legislation. But it was clear, as we worked our way through the select committee hearings and advice from officials, that much of it was literally being made up as we went through it. There were words that were being changed, phrases that were being changed. Questions that were being asked by laypeople who are members of the select committee, who were just asking simple, basic questions like “What does this mean in practical terms?”, were unable to be answered by officials. They literally had no idea what the practical implications would be.

We hear from advocates for these two pieces of legislation that a lot of work has gone into it, a lot of effort has gone into it, a lot of thought has gone into it—therefore, we must proceed. Well, I don’t buy that at all. If the work and the effort and the energy that has gone into it has produced something that will ultimately be worse than the status quo and worse than what we have now, that surely is a good reason to halt it and not proceed any further. The argument that says, “Oh well, we’ve invested so much time and energy into it; therefore, we must proceed.” simply doesn’t wash with me or my National Party colleagues. We don’t think, on this side of the House, that just because we’ve come this far we should just keep going. We don’t think that is a sufficiently robust or clear rationale for keeping going.

I want to take just a minute or two to have a talk about what I think a previous member mentioned was the “intellectual grunt”. I think it was the Hon Stuart Nash who mentioned that an enormous amount of intellectual grunt had gone into this; that there was an enormous amount of intellectual grunt in the Minister’s office. Now, that may well or may not be the case, but that of itself is not sufficient basis to proceed with something that is clearly going to be more complicated, more costly, and more complex than we currently have. The bill hands over planning and decision making to groups of elites that are, in my view, going to be enormously powerful. They’re going to be unaccountable by way of the ballot box, and those regional planning committees—yes, they are less numeric than the situation we currently have, but they replicate the same essential challenges.

I want to just give an example of my own electorate. The Coromandel is nominally included in the Waikato, and we already think that much of what happens in the Coromandel is already too Hamilton-centric, because what happens in Hamilton doesn’t necessarily reflect the thinking and the views of what happens in the beautiful Coromandel. We’re not convinced remotely that decisions made by a geographically physically distant group of people is necessarily going to represent the best interests, long or short term, of people in my part of the country. That’s one of the basic flaws in the Minister’s assumption that just having a smaller number of planning organisations or planning committees is going to make for more effective planning in spatial planning. Again, I remain unconvinced of that argument, and I’d be happy to hear from speakers on the Government benches as to why they think that it will be better for regions like mine that will end up having planning foisted upon them from an area that is geographically remote and culturally, physically, politically different from the area that is being planned for. So I’m very worried about those sorts of things.

I want to follow up, just lastly, on the potential for, I think, judicial uncertainty around not only the creation of these regional planning committees but what job they will do. Again, we heard from submitters about a lack of clarity about appointees—how they would be appointed; who would make the decisions; what accountability there would be; what qualifications, what backgrounds, what experience would be needed. So we think that there are a lot of unanswered questions from this legislation. We don’t support it. We don’t think it is the right way to go. Just because there is some intellectual grunt or otherwise in the Minister’s office is not sufficient reason, in our view, to proceed with this legislation. We don’t support it. We won’t support it. And, what’s more, if we are given the opportunity to form a new Government before the end of the year, we will repeal this and its partner legislation before Christmas.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, before we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the second reading of the Spatial Planning Bill. The next call is a Labour Party call.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to take a shortish call on this important bill, which—as the Hon Rachel Brooking observed before the dinner break—finally integrates town planning or urban land-use planning with infrastructure, and that is indeed one of the breakthroughs. This Spatial Planning Bill is bringing New Zealand into the 21st century in terms of planning practice by making spatial planning a central feature of the new system. It’s not just about integrating various kinds of land-use planning with infrastructure and growth planning and so on. It also integrates on another level, and that is spatially and through governance entities, principally our city councils and district councils.

Let me give you an example of an area where this is particularly important. So in the Waikato, Hamilton is a growing, thriving metropolis, “the Tron”, but it’s surrounded by other district councils like Waipā, like the Waikato District Council. It makes no sense for these individual councils to be doing their own standalone planning in silos. Housing markets, transport corridors, the movement of people, economic activity, the protection of the things that matter that we want to set aside and protect from development—none of these things respect the governance boundaries of local government, of councils.

So this bill, this Spatial Planning Bill, integrates on that level. It requires multiple councils to get alongside each other to create these regional spatial planning committees and produce regional plans. That is really important. As the Minister also pointed out at the beginning of this debate, there will be a representative from central government in the regional spatial planning committee. That’s important too—that’s important too—because central government is the funder and provider of much of the most important infrastructure, like our transport infrastructure, the State highways, the rail corridors; you name it. And it has an interest, has a stake, in this planning. So that is important.

It’s also critically important in the new planning system, because one of the big shifts that takes place now is that there is a shift away from consenting towards planning. The regional spatial plans will feed through into the natural and built environment plans. The work that goes into those plans will enable a very significant reduction in consenting. There will be far more permitted activities. And in the interests of progress, I’m going to leave it there until the next instalment.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to observe that while there’s been unanimous support for reform to the Resource Management Act (RMA) pretty much as long as the RMA’s existed, when I studied resource management law in the 1990s, I proposed to the lecturer that a land developer that we were asked to model consent conditions for should be able to progress because everything that land developers, civil engineers, drainage designers, ecologists responsible for establishing wetlands—everything that we knew back in the mid-1990s about how to design a subdivision that fitted into the local landscape and with the infrastructure was known. It was already known. When I proposed to the lecturer that my model land developer should be able to get a series of very, very simple consents that, basically, said, “Get on and build it.”, he said, “No, that will never be allowed—that will never be allowed. You’ll end up in the Environment Court or maybe the High Court. They’ll never let you do that.” I thought, “That’s ridiculous.” All of the engineers and town planners and environmental scientists in that class knew how to build a subdivision, knew how to build drainage, and knew how to establish wetlands—what you might call now “green stormwater systems”. But, no, that development and all of those other developments since the mid-1990s have had to go through the resource management consenting process.

So what is the problem with the Resource Management Act that we’re here to solve? Well, we’ve just heard from the Hon Phil Twyford, former Minister of Transport, housing even, who proposed a national policy statement on urban development that set out what it is that we want from urban development. We want high-density housing. We want higher densities around transportation hubs, around public transport, transport corridors. No kidding! Of course we do.

Well, when you look at the Auckland Unitary Plan—and I can speak on behalf of Aucklanders, because I live there—it says, “We need to fit in another half to a million people between now and 2050.” It’s coloured in to show where they’re going to live, and even at what densities—whether it’s future urban and what is currently rural land, where people are intended to live on larger sections, large homes, enough room for a trampoline, to park a boat in the driveway, or whether they’re going to live—according to Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan—in more intensive urban environments, places like Ponsonby and Grey Lynn, for example. The spatial planning in Auckland has already been done.

When Hamilton City Council—which the former Minister of Transport and housing the Hon Phil Twyford referred to before—came to the Environment Committee to speak on this bill and the complementary Natural and Built Environment Bill, they said, “For goodness’ sake! Do not lump us in terms of planning with all of those other councils that stretch from Raglan on the West Coast to the Coromandel on the East Coast, because we’re a metro of hundreds of thousands growing by hundreds of thousands or more between now and 2050. We have nothing in common with those rural communities and small towns of hundreds to a few thousand. We need to be treated separately. And, by the way, we’ve done our own planning and we know where the people are going to live.”

So let’s assume the spatial planning’s been done and the Spatial Planning Bill may well help clarify some of the processes around that. But the speaker before, that Labour former Minister of Transport and housing the Hon Phil Twyford, said that this bill now integrates planning and infrastructure development. Nothing could be further from the truth—nothing. There is nothing in this bill that does anything to translate the beautiful coloured-in plans and drawings showing where Hamilton, for example, and Auckland, for example, have identified where hundreds of thousands, even millions, more people will live between now and 2050 and integrates that planning with the provision of the infrastructure in servicing land that will allow those sections to be developed, those town centres to be developed. Nothing in this bill does that.

The only thing that would do that is a reform of infrastructure funding and financing that gave private property owners the ability to raise their own special purpose vehicles—in other words, raise finance and a fond—to build their own infrastructure independently from local government, or alternatively cash flow local government to build the infrastructure. [Holds up document] That’s what ACT proposes in our solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. What ACT says is: by all means do the spatial planning, identify how many people are coming, where are the places people shouldn’t live, where are the natural hazards—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member will come back to this bill. We are not debating ACT’s policies.

SIMON COURT: Well, Madam Speaker, if I may, this document here sets out new directions for resource management in New Zealand. These bills—the preceding bill, the Natural and Built Environment Bill, and this Spatial Planning Bill—apparently provide answers to the problems that the Randerson panel, which included current Associate Minister for the Environment the Hon Rachel Brooking, apparently set out to solve. But they haven’t solved it, and that is why, Madam Speaker, I offer an alternative. In fact, the alternative that I offer is set out very clearly in ACT’s alternative view on the Spatial Planning Bill. So if you may grant me some leave to speak to our alternative view, which is copied here from the committee’s report.

What is the problem to solve? Well, Randerson says—and that’s the Hon Rachel Brooking as well—there’s not sufficient national direction in the Resource Management Act. Let’s look at the Hon Phil Twyford’s National Policy Statement on Urban Development. It’s delivered in our community in Te Atatū, where Phil and I both live, a whole lot of density, one or two houses removed, 11, 13, 15 placed there, no car-parking, no additional waste-water connections, waste water and raw sewage overflowing into Wai o Pareira, Henderson Creek on a regular basis, 80 times in the past year. That’s what the current national direction delivered by this Labour Government has given us.

National direction on the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, released just a few weeks ago, trumpeted proudly by Labour’s partner: the Greens and James Shaw—what does that give us? Well, it sterilises access to resources, energy, quarries, for example.

What does national direction on fresh water—another policy implemented by Labour—tell us? Well, it gives us te mana o te wai, this concept that there is a hierarchy in the way we use water. First, we must consider the spiritual values of the water; only then drinking water and only then water for economic and social benefits—like people who want to make stuff and grow stuff. That is the national direction that this Government proposes to transfer into the Spatial Planning Bill.

But what’s missing? What’s missing when I look at a document that was provided to the public, setting out the purpose of these reforms? The climate adaptation bill—or Act. One of the three natural and built environments strategic planning is missing: the climate adaptation bill—from a Government that said, and a former Prime Minister that said, that the climate emergency is our nuclear-free movement. Who knew? It’s been raining a lot this year. Maybe they could have done something about the climate adaptation bill that told us how New Zealand should adapt to climate change, where we should be building infrastructure, how we should be defending assets, where may not be a good place to live—but, no, that’s missing.

So not only does this bill enshrine co-governance in regional planning committees that will be completely remote from democratic control, so the plans councils develop now will have no oversight under regional planning committees, but they will be influenced and potentially controlled by iwi Māori appointees, thanks to this Government. Another example of outsourcing decision making to unelected bodies and people appointed because of who their grandparents were. ACT opposes this, fundamentally.

What would ACT do? Well, what we would do is preserve the democratic process of planning that is taking place in places like Hamilton City Council and Auckland and all around New Zealand, under the Resource Management Act. But what we would also do is enshrine private property rights—the right to use your own property free from all kinds of objections by people who have no interest in your land except to tell you what to do. We would also, through our alternative policy here, complete the integration of infrastructure delivery, financing, and funding through ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. It’s all here at act.org.nz. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you. In beginning a call on the Spatial Planning Bill, can I again acknowledge submitters, and there were over 610 submissions on this bill, compared to the nearly 3,000 on the Natural and Built Environment Bill.

I acknowledge the huge mahi of the Ministry for the Environment officials, who, as the Hon Scott Simpson noted, were burning a lot of midnight oil and working a lot of weekends on the bill, the departmental report, and advice to the select committee. I also acknowledge parliamentary counsel and the members of the very hard-working Environment Committee. We had a very collaborative process in working on this bill, despite the differences of view.

I would also like to acknowledge the Minister for the Environment, David Parker, but I especially want to acknowledge the secretariat for the select committee and the staff: Dylan, James, Jacob, Zoe, Colvin, Paquita, and others. They did a huge amount of work liaising with submitters, setting up meetings, liaising with officials, organising hearings, and drafting the report on this bill and the other bill. A lot of that work goes unseen, and I’d really like to have that read into the record.

This bill is a bit more manageable than the Natural and Built Environment Bill, but I don’t think the criticism of the Natural and Built Environment Bill on the basis of its complexity is well-founded. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said, “Complexity in legislation of this nature is inevitable. The environment we live in is not simple. It intersects with everyone’s property rights.”, and heaven forbid if ACT gets in and we have property rights dominating environmental legislation.

This bill does aim to establish a long-term—30-plus years—strategic approach to how we, as humans, interact with the natural and built environment through the development of these regional spatial strategies, which are developed with strong public community, iwi, and hapū input by regional planning committees. Those regional spatial strategies are intended to set out a vision and objectives for a region, identify the actions that are needed to achieve those objectives, and help achieve the purpose of the Natural and Built Environment Bill—te Oranga o te Taiao—and its 18-system outcome. They’ll look at what change is needed over that 30-year period in terms of land and water use, and where major development growth and infrastructure such as transport corridors, new renewable energy generation, and urban development should be provided for and how it should occur. As others have said, the aim is to integrate infrastructure with land-use planning, and to the Greens, the most essential infrastructure is the natural environment, which provides us with the essentials for life: water, clean air, and food.

Now, officials made it very clear that the regional spatial strategies would not map and determine land use on a property-by-property basis, but they would look at it over that whole region, and, as the Hon Rachel Brooking—who contributed an awful lot of her professional expertise to the development of the bill through the select committee process—noted, information presented visually in map form is much easier for the public to understand than, in my view, the planning jargon that we get in a lot of evaluation and other reports.

So these regional spatial strategies are intended to be broad and indicative at that regional scale, rather than the individual property scale, and it’s the natural and built environment (NBE) plans which will be much more specific. They will direct investment for things like land transport and for local services by central government and local government, and others have queried this. But the inclusion of a central government representative on the regional planning committees is a key tool to ensure that much better integration between the funding that’s available at the central government level for things like land transport through Waka Kotahi and the planning that is done at that regional level, and it will help resolve the issues that we’ve had under the Resource Management Act (RMA), where you’ve had regional councils having regional policy statements which set an urban-rural boundary and which want to ensure compact cities and towns, but we don’t have the transport investment decisions at central government necessarily accommodating that with better public transport funding and more funding for cycleways and active transport.

The regional spatial strategies will also provide for areas that require or may require protection, restoration, or enhancement. That’s one of the key matters in the bill, but one of the major shortcomings which submitters identified was that because infrastructure locations are identified in the strategy and a lot of that finer-grained work around where significant biodiversity areas are doesn’t occur until the NBE plans, there is likely to be a preference towards infrastructure or transport corridors over the protection of nature.

But those key matters are quite important, and I really take issue with comments by the ACT speaker about the climate adaptation bill. That bill, as I understand it and as the Hon Rachel Brooking noted, is to be largely about managed retreat. This bill has got a much greater focus than the RMA on planning for natural hazards, and clause 17 sets out the key matters to be included in the regional spatial strategies. One of those is the matters relating to risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change, including areas that are or will be vulnerable to those risks, and indicative locations for infrastructure that is required or may be required to reduce those risks or provide resilience to them—things like stopbanks. So this is a much stronger direction than under the RMA. It’s a very good basis, I think, for ensuring that we avoid urban development in flood-prone areas and we ensure that through the spatial strategies, if there needs to be an adaptation plan with specific measures around coastal hazard or flood hazard, that is then provided for as one of the implementation actions that arises from the strategy, and those key matters were something that the select committee did spend some time on and did improve.

Similarly, around the public engagement provisions in the bill, the regional planning committees—which do these regional spatial strategies—have at least six members, including two iwi and hapū representatives. Now, there was a concern from the Hon Scott Simpson that the planning committees would be elite, and geographically and physically distant from local communities, but the select committee did make a number of changes to improve the process by which the planning committees engage with the public, communities, and councils. That public participation and engagement process is critical, and there’s a lot of flexibility now in the bill for the committees to use not just the normal submission process but other processes: public engagement through meetings, through social media, and the like. The bill requires the regional planning committee to actually set out in detail what process it’s going to use, particularly at the front end of the process, and make that publicly available to make sure that it identifies what are some of the barriers to participation by certain sectors of the community and how will those be overcome.

The principles for this public engagement are about encouraging collaboration and avoiding an adversarial process. So that is, I think, an improvement on the RMA, and one of the things the committee did was ensure that there is also provision for a hearing. That was to ensure that decision makers on the regional planning committee are actually face to face with the public and with submitters, so it’s not just unaccountable, faceless people making those decisions.

One of the other issues where we strengthened it was the integration between this bill and the water services legislation, because, of course, three-waters infrastructure is just the sort of infrastructure that needs to be identified in the regional spatial strategy. There is a requirement that the water services entities take account of these strategies and of implementation plans and that they ensure that their own asset-management plans and infrastructure strategies are consistent with the relevant regional spatial strategies.

So it is quite ambitious in its objectives. There have been a number of changes which, again, I think have significantly improved the bill, and one of them in particular is that issue around natural hazard planning and climate resilience. So I commend the bill to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—a real pleasure to be speaking on the Spatial Planning Bill. It is a real pleasure because—currently living in Tauranga Moana and thinking about the infrastructure difficulties that we have in that community and the fact that we did not have a spatial planning bill or operation which gave us that outward look, 30 years, and so we are in a real mess in our community. This bill sort of looks at those kinds of problems that we have in these communities and seeks to solve them. So I am delighted to be here speaking on this bill.

It also does a couple of things which I—I am a business owner and I have a construction firm, and one of the things that I really particularly like about this bill is the amount of attention we pay to developers and their issues around consenting and the fact that if you’re building in one community versus another community, you might have two completely different consenting sets of rules, you may have a different cost here or a different cost there or a different set of standards. So what this bill does in practicality is it fixes those things. It fixes those things by giving a long-view plan out there around how we want to develop. You know, we heard from a lot of the community—610 submissions—and we had independent advice and we had amazing advice from our officials. I’m really delighted that this strategic direction, this work that we’re doing, is going to set us up to protect the environment but to support and enable development. Thank you. I support the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call, and I call on Barbara Kuriger—five minutes.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I just wanted to make comment at speaking about the committee stage on the Spatial Planning Bill. At the start of this process—back in January, February—it was at the stage where we started having cyclones which tended to repeat one after the other after the other as we went through this process.

But when I think back to discussions around planning in the first part of the committee, when we were doing this, it was like we were planning in real time as those events were going on around us. We were often shown maps of where the historic wetlands might have been in the Hawke’s Bay and aerial photos of where the water lay as we were working through the process of looking at what had happened in the Hawke’s Bay. It really got us thinking about just how important, going forward, planning is. I know we’ve had planning in the past, but it gave everybody the opportunity to think about where we build, how high and low we build, because not only did we have places flooded; we had places which were hill slides and those sorts of things.

We also—during that time, as a committee—went and had a look at a report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment talking about green spaces and the use of green spaces as we build our cities. Because often we see big subdivisions and there’s not very many trees and there’s not many gaps between them, and then we were starting to think, “Well, where does the water go?” So it really got us thinking about planning not just as a committee and I guess in a theoretical way, but we had lots of examples that we talked about during that time around planning.

We’ve heard about the Spatial Planning Bill being a move away from consenting and having far more permitted activities. One of the things that I really hope we can get to as a country—so I watch, now, our regional councils and our local councils do their 10-year plans and their long-term plans, and we have a democratic process in our central government which has a slightly different time frame, often, to what people have in local government. I know it’s a different year, but often it’s based on different cycles. What happens is Governments of both colours do this. The councils put their plans together and Governments of both colours come along and throw things in and then, all of a sudden, councils have to change at least parts of their plan.

So what I’m hoping that we can get to, as a Parliament and as a country, is lots more long-term planning. Because I know when I sat back on the Governance and Administration Committee at one point, we were talking about how short-term - thinking we are in this country and it would be great if we could get our heads together and really make sure that when we let our regions make a plan, that we aren’t disrupting it by throwing things in from the outside all of the time.

I also remember the conversation that Simon Court referred to with the Hamilton City Council, talking about how different they were from places like Coromandel and Raglan. Now, I represent places like Raglan and all the way down to Piopio and Mokau, which are also part of the Waikato Regional Council. So I know that, yes, the city was concerned that rural things might impact on them and they were looking at an urban environment as opposed to a rural environment. Me, being a local rural MP, I get the opposite end of that story and I expressed that at the time. So I guess when we’re planning, the big thing is to make sure that urban needs, as well as rural needs, are taken into account because one size doesn’t fit all and often we’ll be doing something slightly different.

The other thing that I would like to mention is we had quite a few conversations around vegetables—and fruit actually came into that as well. But in terms of the land that we actually use—and we look at the prices of broccoli and cabbages and those sorts of things in the supermarket now and we think about how we’ve resource consented our way around vegetables and what our responsibility is to the health and wellbeing of our community around delivering healthy food. So often we put all these barriers and all these regulations and all this proscription down on our vegetable growers, and then we wonder why the land is too difficult to get to and why it’s so expensive. So I just wanted to mention the vegetable growers tonight as I close off on my piece. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Arena Williams for five minutes.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, ngā mihi o te wā Matariki. It is a Whiro moon tonight, which means that it is low energy in the Chamber tonight, but it is a good bill that we are passing and the brevity of this speech is no reflection on how important and necessary this bill is. In fact, it just reflects that we need to do it quickly.

May I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Environment Committee that worked on this bill, the secretariat, their advisors, and the many officials who have put a huge amount of time into this reform project. The reform of the Resource Management Act has been something that around the House we have spoken about with positivity because it is something that people care about; it is something that the people we represent need.

This Government is delivering on that. We have the privilege of tonight seeing in some legislation which will make our planning system cheaper, faster, and more effective. It will also be better for Māori. This bill has provisions which come straight from the recommendations of the Randerson report that will streamline and make more effective the provisions for Māori participation in our planning processes. When we bring in those voices to planning, practice, and infrastructure integration, that is important. That makes our cities better; that makes our planning processes for the entire country better, and that’s why I support this bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to make a short contribution, but nevertheless a meaningful one, on this Spatial Planning Bill tonight. We’ve heard from several people in this session that there were 610 submissions, which is a mighty effort. I’d like to commend those people and also echo my colleague the Hon Eugenie Sage when she gave thanks to the officials—and the secretariat in particular, who often don’t necessarily always get that shout out; they must have done a stellar job for that high praise to have come their way. And, in that same vein, I would also like to extend my thanks and my gratitude towards the Minister, the Hon David Parker, and also acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee—which I hear is a very hard-working select committee—the Hon Eugenie Sage, who by all accounts was an incredibly thorough and very learned chair whilst tackling this particular piece of legislation.

We need an integrated effort, as we have heard tonight, if we’re going to help minimise the costs of adapting to natural hazards, and I think that’s really important when we think about recent weather events and all of the scenarios that that raises. A regional spatial strategy—that are not regulatory plans; they’re forward-looking strategies—that will be able to flow through plans into action, into a delivery and integrated approach, I think, for each area, acknowledging those bespoke requirements and those needs, is a really good thing. This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Tēnā tātou i tēnei whiro marama.

[Greetings to us during this time of whiro marama.]

A whiro moon is upon us and for some of us, that actually gives us great energy—it’s those on the dark side of the moon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Spatial Planning Bill at the second reading. And again, a big shout-out to those committee members left—left the House already—in fostering this bill through the process and the leadership of the Hon David Parker and others. It’s been pleasurable listening this evening, whānau—the wild and aspirational musings of my Labour and Green colleagues who have spoken to the bills that underpin the proposed Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. But given the complexity of the reform and my fanatic appetite for finding solutions of unresolved issues that confront our country, I contemplated whether or not a career in resource management law was a better risk-adjusted return for my time. Alas, I’m committed to spending more quality time with you all in this House.

As mentioned, National supports reform of the RMA, but respectfully opposes this bill. The bill’s purpose around regional spatial strategies to promote integration of the performance of functions under other legislation is noted. But one of the themes of this Government is the feverish compulsion to grow kāwanatanga, or Government, bigger than it needs to be or should be—an absolute imbalance in favour of article 1 of te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi, rather than a careful positioning of articles 1, 2, and 3 across the legislative rubric. This imbalance has pervaded legislative drafting in the short time I’ve spent here, particularly in relation to prescribing Māori initiatives or participation to the detriment of more deliberate exercises of rangatiratanga.

Te Oranga o te Taiao is, yet again, another interesting, noble but ultimately misguided effort to envelope and restrict the innovation and creativity that goes with rangatiratanga. Adding an additional layer of bureaucracy, through the formation and the naming of the regional planning committees over and above city, district, and regional councils, convolutes our planning processes even further and compromises the very rangatiratanga that the Labour Government seeks to actively protect. Appointing members to these committees, rather than having elected officials, reinforces a democratic shortfall or deficiency which is becoming, unfortunately and intentionally, the modus operandi of this Labour Government.

The National Party, this great fine party of ours, the blue party, te pāti kahurangi, welcomes election of officials who make major decisions for big regions. However, where we have a loss of local democracy, an increase of Molesworth Street bureaucracy, I grimace and shudder. This is what is keeping me awake sometimes on a Whiro moon, sometimes on a Rākaunui moon, and cold at night: the thought of poor drafting across legislative platforms and drafting on the hoof.

My wise colleagues Bishop and Simpson have opined on the undemocratic nature of the regional planning committees proposed, particularly Hamiltonians trying to control people in Coromandel. These will be costly. They will be time consuming. They will be unwieldy and faceless and unreflective of communities of interest. These committees will lack political accountability and, basically, add more costs to an already expensive process. My own Hamilton City Council, home of the Chiefs—mana—has submitted that the decision-making processes which are ultimately accountable to the residents of Kirikiriroa, and sometimes answerable to Waikato-Tainui, will be severely compromised.

In clause 100(5), for example, the proposal is to entrench such committees into legislation. Wow! Another undemocratic body requiring legislation to dismantle. We should call it an agency rather than a committee. Clause 5—it’s a beautiful section—mirrors clause 4 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. We have yet another powerful reference to “te Tiriti o Waitangi”. That’s right. Not “the Treaty of Waitangi”, nor the double banger “te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi”, but “te Tiriti o Waitangi”. I’m nervous about having this provision without context.

The elevation of te Tiriti o Waitangi without reference to the Treaty of Waitangi creates some further ambiguity, given the interpretation differences that we’ve had for years, nearly two centuries, for the English version of that fine covenant. My experiences in law over the past 30 years have seen a marked evolution in Treaty jurisprudence, often ignited by poorly drafted legislation. This is one area for the entire reform package, if it continues, that I would recommend further consideration be given to the nuanced wording. Perhaps the double banger is more suitable, or even the parentheses version where “Treaty of Waitangi” is followed by “te Tiriti o Waitangi” in parentheses, or vice versa. But “te Tiriti o Waitangi” by itself represents a risk space that is better located within the He Puapua thought document than the key RMA legislation.

Clause 7: that’s another provision which provokes a range of political PhD and Masters’ thesis projects across our academic fraternity. It reads: “Iwi and hapū responsibilities … [To assist in achieving the purpose of the Act] All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions under this Act must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga, in their [area of interest] rohe, or takiwā.” What mana are we talking about? Are we talking about mana wāhine? Are we talking about mana whenua? Are we talking about mana tūpuna? Are we talking about mana atua? It’s this lack of legislative clarity and certainty that gives rise to an absolute anxiety beating into the heart of a Capricorn.

The proposed legislation does nothing to define what mana, mātauranga, and kawa actually mean. In fact, these terms randomly turn up into an already complex framework. How in the world will decision makers make timely acquaintance and timely location of themselves in this space? Many of them cannot even pronounce tikanga and mātauranga, let alone make decisions based on them. Noble objectives, maybe; ahead of their time, definitely.

As one of possibly only two people in this Whare tonight who, whilst serving an iwi, has had to run a resource management team—people who actually go out and make—

Arena Williams: Me.

TAMA POTAKA: There you go—maybe Soraya over there, my sister over there. People who’ve actually run a resource management team inside an iwi know how hard it is to not only find the capacity but also to fund the capacity to deliver meaningful engagement. The ability of iwi and Māori organisations to actually deliver meaningful capacity to engage, to consult, or, if possible, make decisions is something that confronts iwi on an absolute daily basis. The unintended consequences of this poor legislative drafting actually make it harder for iwi to participate in the resource management decision-making process. But no, we’ve had a whole bunch of drafters, Ministers, and committee members say it’s the right thing to do, without actually interrogating whether or not we’ve got the capacity or the funding within these organisations to deliver that capacity.

It assumes that there is enough RMA expertise out there, and I question that with a big 42-size font in bold and underlined. It is here where I can calmly refer to the wisdom of Laws 213 Public Law lecturer and former Labour leader and Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who noted that we do have the fastest law in the West in his seminal text Unbridled Power. A respectful architect of much fine legislation, it was Sir Geoffrey that formulated section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act—the godfather, godmother of what you’re talking about here in section 5 of the spatial bill—that ignited much deliberation, political, judicial, academic, executive, iwi Māori, and bureaucratic, of what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi / te Tiriti o Waitangi constituted. That deliberation continues. But now we have a bunch of new terms—te Oranga o te Taiao, kawa, and mātauranga. Nōu tō piki amokura, nōku tōku piki amokura. [Mutual respect for different teachings or schools of thought.] How are you going to get consistency across all iwi, I do not know. The only way iwi have been together over the last 40 years is when they were forced in the Māori commercial fisheries legislation, because people have different views around what mātauranga, tikanga, and kawa mean.

Sir Geoffrey has more recently referred to New Zealand lacking the checks to prevent constitutional slippage, Toni. His comments could not be more prescient here. Constitutional slippage and ambiguity is where we are heading with the uncertainty proffered, curated, and created by people who have never been involved in RMA at iwi level, apart from one or two people in this House. If we can’t get these terms clear, how do we expect the judiciary will be able to interpret them, let alone decision makers in far-flung utopic rural electorates like the Bay of Plenty, Rangitīkei, Selwyn, and Tauranga?

This legislation—

Hon Kiritapu Allan: Cuzzie, you can’t believe this rubbish you’re saying.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

TAMA POTAKA: We’ve got to build the road—build the road to Gisborne—build that road. This legislation should give clear guidance to decision makers around planning for the future for our communities, not the clear runway for fiscal futures of law and planning firms. At this stage I am unconvinced, unpersuaded that the wording is either durable or dependable for the tamariki, mokopuna generations who will inherit this messy wording, but also the environment we heartily proclaim to protect by way of this and other bills. Madam Speaker, kia tātou, Whiro moon.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you. Being the final speaker for the Government, I put forward in terms of the Government bill second reading. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the chair, Eugenie Sage, for her commitment, for her leadership in guiding the many Environment Committee members—the permanent ones, because we had to have a lot of subs as well. I do want to acknowledge Minister David Parker and the Hon Rachel Brooking in terms of their kōrero and their advice and strength throughout the process.

I also want to acknowledge the colleagues, even though we disagree, but the collegiality was really helpful in terms of the seven months. Though we disagreed on various points, it was helpful to have a very strong secretariat who provided really good advice, and that includes parliamentary counsel.

I do want to acknowledge the just over 600 submitters who assisted the committee members in terms of understanding and providing examples of the legislation. That was helpful in terms of the report back of the chair to the House.

The Spatial Planning Bill is part of the reforms for the Resource Management Act. It is what the Government has been prepared to do and worked through the many various iterations, because we need it. We’ve seen the weather events of this year, and we need to move to a system that will guide New Zealanders, not just iwi Māori and hapū that we heard from—some very strong submissions. We also heard from many, many industry partners across the motu, and that was very helpful, being provided with analysis and refined drafting of the initial legislation, specifically around project development of where New Zealanders can build and cannot build, as we’ve seen this year.

This bill addresses a number of features, and specific to that is the 100 district plans that will now turn into 16 regional plans that will be administered by the regional planning committees. It will provide more meaningful, efficient development. And there are many views across the House; however, this bill will achieve what we set out to do in terms of stronger intent, the national consistency across key aspects of strategies. So as I wrap up, the bill will provide certainty and predictability. It is a good bill with permitted activity for future areas of growth. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Environment 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 48

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

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 47

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the first reading of the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2); the passing through the remaining stages of the Therapeutic Products Bill, the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill;, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill, the Business Payment Practices Bill, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill, and the Inspector-General of Defence Bill; and the second readings of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill, and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.

With the House soon to be out of action again for a couple of months during the election campaign, there is a need to give MPs sufficient time to consider significant legislation on the Order Paper and to ensure that legislation is enacted before the election. A common feature of many of the bills in the motion is that they bring about significant change in their sector, and a delay in their passing would mean that preparations for their implementation would be frustrated by those awaiting the changes. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill is a clear example. It is desirable that the licenced premises are able to open for additional hours for Rugby World Cup games, have certainty, and can make the appropriate arrangements in good time.

Urgency will cover three sitting days, so none of the legislation in the motion will progress through more stages than would have been possible in a normal sitting week. Earlier today, the Government requested that the Business Committee agree to hold oral questions at 2 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday as normal and that the schedule of members’ days should proceed as it would have done had urgency not been moved this week. This will be the only urgency motion moved in the current sitting block.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere 1.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The bill stands referred to the Regulations Review Committee. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Therapeutic Products Bill.

Bills

Therapeutic Products Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Therapeutic Products Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 13 and Schedule 1—Preliminary provisions.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection to that. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re looking forward to contributing to the committee of the whole House here today because we have a range of provisions that we would like to put into the bill that we would suggest would improve its text. In fact, there are seven issues that we want to focus on tonight, and I’ll make my way through them and then, hopefully, have the leeway to discuss them in further detail.

First of all, we have concerns that under the Therapeutic Products Bill, natural health products, which is a $1 billion-plus industry, continue to be over-regulated, and should not be managed with market authorisation but should be managed with market notification, as originally proposed in legislation going as far back as 2016, rather than expensive authorisation, which this bill continues to speak to.

Secondly, we have concerns that under the Therapeutic Products Bill, exporters—which are a multibillion-dollar industry—are required to get authorisation if they are manufacturing products not for supply in New Zealand.

Three, we have concerns that under the Therapeutic Products Bill, cosmetics such as toothpaste and shampoo may require authorisation where the existing Cosmetic Products Group Standard would seem to suffice.

Four, we have concerns that under the Therapeutic Products Bill, sunscreens may require market authorisation and the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022 will be repealed even before it comes into full force, with the transition period ending 8 September.

Five, we have concerns that under the Therapeutic Products Bill, prescription medicines will be advertised directly to consumers, amidst unified prescriber and consumer.org resistance, as one of only two OECD countries to allow this.

Six, we have concerns that under the Therapeutic Products Bill, the fit and proper persons requirement is too stringent, including offshore senior managers and those within seven years who have left the company to provide certification that they are still fit and proper persons.

Finally, we have concerns that under the Therapeutic Products Bill, the transition time for medical devices is too short, given that it includes things like laboratory consumables and pregnancy tests, and the transition time needs to be increased. We’ll make suggestions as to what an appropriate transition time might be.

We want to start with the first concern that we have, that natural health products continue to be overregulated, in our view, under this bill. Now, there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that, subsequent to the select committee deliberation, is looking to change the authorisation process for natural health products. More specifically, small manufacturers or those who manufacture directly to consumers would seem to be able to be excluded. This is a good thing; this was clearly an overreach. We have also concerns, then, for medium and large manufacturers. I have a number of medium manufacturers in my electorate who have said to me that if this bill proceeds in its current form, they will go out of business.

The overwhelming concern we have here is that natural health products are still enclosed in, fundamentally, a medicines framework. They are still being thought of as a medicine, and they are a significant industry—a multibillion-dollar industry, at least. We would propose that where there was last unanimous consensus in this House was with the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill 2016, and the Supplementary Order Paper that followed that was the last time this House agreed that the appropriate way to approve natural health products was through a market notification process rather than a market authorisation process.

So we have two mechanisms that we want to propose to adjust this. The first is Supplementary Order Paper 384 in my name, which talks about how we could basically change the market authorisation process: remove it and make it a market notification process, and somewhat segment it in the bill and keep it to the side. Discussions with representatives of the industry have said that this would achieve most of the goals that they’re looking for. They’re not enthusiastic to go back and re-litigate and spend another four or five years through what’s brought us here at least, but they do feel that this part of natural health products should be segmented from the rest of the bill.

So in collaboration with them and with their teams, Supplementary Order Paper 384 creates a mechanism to do that. What it fundamentally says is that we believe that safety and quality and all the things that we want with natural health products can be achieved through default market notification, without requiring what we believe is unmanageable, unrealistic, and unachievable market authorisation.

So we have a proposal on the table here, which we hope the Minister and the team will consider, that puts natural health products in a safer place and encompasses more of the manufacturers and the industry that we want to offer quality assurance for, but also a mechanism for them to go about their business in a safe way. We propose, in my name, SOP 384 as the mechanism to do that, and we’d ask the Minister and her team to consider that. I hope to come back and talk to these other points in further detail.

I would like to talk to a further issue that we have, around how the legislation describes “fit and proper persons”. We have several concerns. We absolutely agree that there needs to be appropriate character certification for players who are entering this new market. But as the legislation is written, we have a range of concerns.

First of all, the time frame for scrutiny of whether a person or an entity is of good character seems to be unbounded. It seems to be an endless open time frame, and this would be out of keeping with other similar domestic legislation and, similarly, with international legislation. To have an unbounded time frame to assess suitable character is out of keeping.

Secondly, there’s a part in the bill that talks about senior managers who have significant influence over an operation and a requirement for them to be of good character going back for what can be up to seven years’ time. Now, we’ve got a number of issues with that. First of all, if we look at global corporates who are quite geographically removed from us here, it is quite possible that a corporate offshore could be reached through this bill when they are quite removed from the field of operations here.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): If the member could come back to Part 1, please?

Dr SHANE RETI: Oh, OK. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an overview of what we can anticipate in Part 2, clause 60. Thank you.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. The ACT Party is also very concerned about this bill, with a lot of the overreach—and especially concerned around the safety, quality, and efficiency. And once again, most of us don’t have too many problems with Part 1; we’ve got Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in further parts. But overall, we’ve been talking to a lot of the people in the industry, and they’re just concerned about these overreaches—again, those within the cosmetic trade, our toothpastes, as well as the natural health products. Again, we’re very concerned that there’s overreach and there’s regulation systems that this bill is going to bring to New Zealand.

We all believe in making sure that these things are safe for people to use, but when you have to put a whole lot of regulation—and where are we going to get all these regulators from? This is where we’re a bit concerned, around the administration of this regulatory system. It is a huge concern, definitely, because these products are important in everyday lives for everybody, and whoever is going to be part of this regulatory authorisation is—you know, where is this expertise coming from, and what sides of these expertise have we got? Now, this is our biggest concern.

And again, the likes of Dr Shane Reti, the ACT Party—under Brooke van Velden—have put many SOPs in the following parts, and we look forward to discussing this, because we, again, think there is a lot of overreach that’s been going on in this bill, and also so many changes. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to see this bill, the Therapeutic Products Bill, through to its committee stage. It’s right to reflect on the work that’s gone on across both sides of the House on this bill since 2003.

I want to address the concern in relation to the notification of authorisations of natural health products (NHPs), which I believe is being addressed as part of Part 1. This is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 376 in the name of Dr Reti. The SOP seeks to develop a notification instead of an authorisation for declaration of online natural health products. That’s a concern and an interest of the industry here that the Government has heard as well.

Overall, one of the principles we’ll come back to probably several times this evening about this piece of legislation is the desire to have risk-proportionate legislation. We’ve had many debates on these issues around natural health products previously in this House, and, of course, it’s well-established that there are harms from natural health products, but these harms are different from those of medicines, and this bill seeks to regulate them in a risk-proportionate way.

So in turning to SOP 376—

Dr Shane Reti: 384.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Sorry, 384, which is very similar to 376 in that it seeks a notification scheme for natural health products. I just draw the committee’s attention to clauses 122 through to 124 that already provide for an approval pathway that is functionally equivalent to a notification scheme. The bill’s provisions also allow the regulator to exercise necessary regulatory powers and decision making. The SOP removes this, putting in doubt the regulator’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances—for example, IT failures.

In addition, the proposed SOP may unintentionally restrict the ability of the regulator to assess and improve custom health benefit claims. This is the only way by which a sponsor can be approved to use a health benefit claim that is not on the preapproved list of the health benefit claims specifically for that product. That is something the industry has sought to have in the bill.

So for that reason, the Government does not support SOP 384, because the provision for a notification scheme is already there. Rather than providing clarity to the industry, the proposed amendments risk creating uncertainty over natural health claims.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that clarification, but we still have concerns. Information and statements around the mechanism for market authorisation for natural health products (NHPs) would appear to be not only unclear but in some cases contradictory. Furthermore, there are concerns with the capacity of the regulator to assess the potentially huge number of NHP authorisations. The process for NHPs should be a market notification process where the regulator is satisfied that an NHP product conforms to the relevant criteria. Currently, under clause 124 of the bill, an NHP would meet the criteria if the regulator is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a number of criteria apply. This includes that “there is reasonable and adequate evidence to demonstrate the safety and quality of the NHP”. Reasonable grounds should not be a condition, because the product will be declared to meet the requirements in regulations and rules.

So, fundamentally, we have quite a number of concerns for the large number—the hundreds, probably thousands—of NHPs that will require market authorisation, even with the exclusion of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Minister has put on the Table. We just can’t see how there will be a regulator who could possibly undertake the compliance for those authorisations, both in a snapshot inventory on day one, or any transition period leading up to it, or certainly monitor it in perpetuity. This is why, through SOP 384, relevant to Part 1, we’re seeking to make a change.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Interpretation

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 14 to 66, including Interpretation. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to Part 2, particularly starting with clause 60, and would like to restart the conversation around “fit and proper” persons and the concern that we have with the legislation.

The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we have in my name, SOP 373, looks to address this. We have no issue with character tests—we think that’s important—but ourselves and the industry think, again, that this is an overreach. The SOP seeks to improve the fit and proper person test to be more manageable and pragmatic. As currently drafted, the fit and proper person definition may impose a significant barrier to entry into the New Zealand market. The regulator has a good character reach back that is not time limited and is broader than in other similar New Zealand legislation. There appears to be no similar requirement in Australia, the EU, or the USA, and, given the relatively small size of New Zealand’s therapeutic products market, the assessment process will create a sufficiently significant regulatory burden so that some companies may choose to bypass the New Zealand market.

Compliance may also be problematic, with fit and proper person tests potentially affecting those who may “exercise significant influence” but may be quite removed in time in the role, function, and geography from the regulator. For example, for a New Zealand sponsor and a large, global company group, the fit and proper person assessment applies to an extensive list of senior managers in the group, despite many of them having no direct role in the management or administration of the New Zealand sponsor. Directors of the sponsor’s overseas holding companies, however—including the ultimate overseas parent company—may be classified as senior manager in the corporate structure of the group, which would technically place those directors in a position that allows them to exercise significant influence over the management or administration of the sponsor despite them being offshore and having no direct role in the business operation of the sponsor in practice.

It would be very difficult for a corporate applicant to obtain the relevant information required under the fit and proper person test from former senior managers who are no longer employed by or hold any role within the organisation, the sponsor, or a relevant member of the sponsor’s company group over the proposed seven-year reach back.

This SOP proposes an alternative. It places a 10-year time limit on assessment of fit and proper persons. It deletes broad grounds for “believing” that a person may contravene the Act. It removes the reach into senior managers over a previous seven year period and reaffirms the fit and proper person test only applies to direct management for bodies corporate incorporated in New Zealand, specifically the New Zealand sponsor, licensee, or permit holder.

We can see how this might be problematic. We may disagree that it’s too unbounded. We may disagree that there are parts of this that are reasonable, but I think it is challenging to contemplate a global corporate where managers might be deemed to have significant influence over the sponsor, and to be able to reach back into them when they have no direct geographical association or past history with New Zealand—that would be a challenge. That would seem unfair, particularly if the reach back is seven years and they’re no longer employed by the sponsor. And yet their influence could still be over the sponsor in New Zealand, and their fit and proper persons character test would still need to be taken into account. That would seem to be a burden that creates far too much on the applicant and is probably unmanageable, and we see it in no other similar legislation, either domestically or internationally.

So in our SOP we look to change that. We look to expound the time frame for fit and proper persons, we look to limit the seven-year reach, and we look to make direct associations of fit and proper persons to the sponsor or the licensee so that we can directly say we’re assessing correctly the correct person—and by the correct means—who has a direct influence on the authorisation and sponsor process that we’re talking about.

So we would commend the Minister of Health and her team to consider some of the points we’ve taken into account, which have been collaborated with industry, who are also deeply concerned. So this is no epiphany for us here tonight; this is of some period of time collaborating with the concerns that they brought to us, which we’ve digested and we agree with. So it would be interesting to have a response to that, and we place this SOP on the Table. Thank you.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak on behalf of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 382 in the name of Brooke van Velden, around clause 65. Now, this clause here is about a “special-case requirement”. We feel, talking with the industry, that there could be a bit of an overreach here around this.

When you read the explanatory note in the SOP, it says that “Clause 65(2)(b) currently adds an additional and imprecise requirement of ‘appropriateness’ that risks adversely interfering with the exercise of professional judgement and, accordingly, patient treatment and outcomes.” Now, this is a bit of concern in terms of these special cases—it’s a little bit of an overreach where it comes from the regulators, rather than necessarily from the practitioner or a veterinarian. And this is the other thing that most people who are sitting at home probably don’t know—that this Therapeutic Products Bill is not just for humans; it is also for our animals as well and all treatments. It’s quite wide-reaching.

So we would hope that the Minister of Health would consider this, because this is another thing that’s been brought to us by the industry and also by the professionals within the medical profession. We’re just a bit concerned about this overreach around these special cases, because we really need to make sure that the right people are actually administrating the right procedures that are required.

So I would hope that the Minister will consider SOP 382, in the name of Brooke van Velden, to change the clause and just bring it back into the authorised people and with the indication of off-use labels and patient needs. This is the biggest thing: that we have a lot of doctors who are prescribing things that aren’t necessarily able to be gotten here in New Zealand or are off-label because they are needed for something else, and we need those expertise people to be able to judge it, not necessarily these regulators. So I’d hope the Minister would consider this change to clause 65. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Under Part 2, I would also like to address clause 16—I have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, SOP 374, that starts to operate at clause 16. The concern we have here is that sunscreens are caught up in the regulations associated with the Therapeutic Products Bill. Part of the concern here is that unanimously across the House we all approved the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022—a nod to Todd Muller here. We all agreed on this last year, and we said there would be a transition period of one year, through to September 8, which is coming up really soon, actually, yep.

So what’s happened is that manufacturers have done what is necessary for labelling and everything they needed to do to be compliant with the Act, and yet this bill is going to repeal it no more than eight to 10 weeks away from it being fully enforceable—that would not seem to be right. What we do know is that there are other things that manufacturers have concerns about with sunscreens being removed from this bill. That includes the fact that it’s taken quite a while to get joint approval with Australia, and there are huge concerns that, as this bill overtakes sunscreens, if you like, that joint standard with Australia and New Zealand may not stand up and there may not be the same interests that the manufacturers have and that this House agreed to when this bill overtakes it.

So we have a proposal here on the Table, SOP 374 in my name, and what this does is it clearly amends the Therapeutic Products Bill. The Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022 came into force on 8 September 2022, with the transition period, as I said, through to 8 September 2023, and this was for the establishment of product safety standards created by the Act. Manufacturers have taken the steps necessary to be compliant with this legislation. The Therapeutic Products Bill would repeal the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act before the transition period is even expired, causing further uncertainty and potentially wasted effort. Sunscreens are well regulated under the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act—everyone was reasonably happy with it; this House was unanimous—and the applicable standards. This SOP, then, seeks to retain the current regulations which are considered suitable by the Commerce Commission as the monitoring entity for the sunscreen Act.

So you can see what’s happened here: manufacturers have gone with what this House directed them. They’ve gone through this year-long transition period. They’re only weeks away from it becoming fully enforceable—change labelling, adopted standards; everything that we asked them to do—and now we’re going to pull the rug out from under them no more than eight to 10 weeks away from it being fully enforceable, and say, “Nah, changed our minds actually. Therapeutic Products Bill is going to repeal the sunscreen Act”—which is what this will do; it will repeal the sunscreen Act—“and we’re now going to bring it all under the Therapeutic Products Bill”. The SOP in my name changes that; it removes that repeal, and it places sunscreens back under the same standards applicable under the sunscreen Act.

I would appreciate it if the Minister and her team could consider this with some seriousness; there was unanimous agreement across the House that this was good legislation. Manufacturers acted in good faith, they did everything that was asked of them, and now, eight to 10 weeks away, we’re saying, “Actually, we’re going to repeal that legislation and we’re going to have a different framework for you to operate under.” That would not seem to be the right thing to do when we were all in agreement on what our intention and our end-goal purpose was. So this SOP looks to reset that. It looks to give certainty back to manufacturers; back to the sector. It looks to give certainty that what this House agrees to in a unanimous way is something that we really intend and that we can deliver for New Zealanders. So I’d appreciate it if the Minister and her team could consider this.

Under Part 2, with operating clauses starting around about clause 59, I would like to talk to exports and concerns that have been raised with us around the impact on exporters of the Therapeutic Products Bill. The concern that exporters have is that they will require some sort of export authorisation before they can export offshore, even though there may never be an intention to actually supply that product to New Zealanders. They will become liable to legislation and regulations offshore: that is their customer market—why would we have any interest in that? We have no interest. We know there’ll be good manufacturing practice in all good quality standards. I get that—we want our products offshore to be well representative of good-quality manufacturing in New Zealand, absolutely. But it would seem somewhat ludicrous that for a product that is never going to be used in New Zealand—it will never be supplied here, but it is part of our multibillion-dollar export industry—we will impose New Zealand regulations through this bill and expensive authorisation, which manufacturers tell us could be in the hundreds of thousands—expensive authorisation for products that will never ever be in New Zealand. Why would we do that? That makes no sense whatsoever. It certainly makes no sense to manufacturers and exporters, and they’ve told us as much.

So what we’ve done here with the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, SOP 375, is we’ve looked to redress this. What this SOP does is provide some remedy to the multibillion-dollar export industry and to those medicines that are manufactured in New Zealand for the export market. It removes the requirement for medicines and medical devices to have export authorisation—because this also actually applies to medical devices. They may never be supplied here in New Zealand: why would we require them to go through expensive authorisation when that will happen? Any requirements they need to have will happen in their target market. We shouldn’t need to do that here. So this SOP allows a medicine or medical device to be exported, provided it meets all other applicable export standards outside of what this bill may require.

This doesn’t make any sense. This would hurt our exporters. They have told us it would hurt them, and so I think we should look to offer them some certainty, offer them some remedy for what seems like common sense. The medicine or the medical device will never be used here in New Zealand. Why would we impose our regulations and they would face offshore regulations in their target market? So I’d appreciate if the Minister and her team could consider this as well.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): It’s a pleasure to respond to colleagues’ comments in turn: firstly Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 373, relating to the “fit and proper” person test. It is important that the regulator has the opportunity to do due diligence on the individuals who are empowered under the Act to manufacture or undertake other controlled activities with drugs. The SOP undermines the ability of the regulator to undertake that due diligence. It is important that we note that those firms have the opportunity to disagree with a decision of the regulator and to seek an internal or external appeal. But I put it to members of this House that we would want to know if someone with influence over a person who was sponsor of a product, for example, had a criminal conviction for bad behaviour in this or another jurisdiction relating to medicines or drugs.

On the matter of the special-case requirement—the colleague from ACT speaking to SOP 382—it is important that there are opportunities to use medicines off-label. It is an important source of flexibility to make sure that people get the care that they need. However, there is an important role for being able to use clause 65 alongside other professional standards under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act to make sure that prescribing is consistent with clinical guidelines for that disease or other criteria that might relate to informed consent. So, for that reason, we do not support that SOP.

I recall the discussion about sunscreen in the House earlier in this parliamentary term, and indeed that very good bill by colleague Todd Muller was supported by all parties. But the Government was always clear that the Therapeutic Products Bill would replace that sunscreen Act 2022. It’s important to note that the Therapeutic Products Bill would come into force in 2026, so it would not be a case of the sunscreen Act being repealed so quickly after it’s in force, and, most importantly, it is possible for the existing standards, such as those in the sunscreen Act, to be taken up and incorporated as standards under the Therapeutic Products Bill.

On the issue of export authorisations, the Government shares the objective of promoting the export of innovative therapeutic products by New Zealand overseas through this bill. Export authorisation has a different purpose than product authorisation in the domestic context. Here, it is for New Zealand to play its part in global traceability and post-market surveillance of therapeutic products. So it is serving a different purpose, and, in addition, all the provisions in the bill are intended to be proportionate to the risk, so this form of authorisation is likely to be very different from product authorisation for domestic use in New Zealand. The bill gives the Minister of Health the ability to recommend regulations relating to exports, and it appears there is concern on both sides of the House to make sure the opportunity for strong export growth from this industry is maintained.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to raise another concern that we have, and that industry has, and that is around cosmetics, which we seek to address in Supplementary Order Paper 371, in my name. The concern we have is that our $1.25 billion cosmetic industry—that’s turnover in New Zealand; $400 million export dollars, so this is not an insignificant industry at all—is also caught up in the Therapeutic Products Bill.

There are concerns that things like products which I’ve mentioned before—an anti-dandruff shampoo and, potentially, fluoride in toothpaste; anti-wrinkle cream, if you like, with retinol, for example—could all get caught up in the Therapeutic Products Bill. Currently, cosmetics are excluded under the Medicines Act, because they are thought to be reasonably regulated under the Cosmetic Products Group Standard. We think that the industry and the 24 manufacturers in New Zealand who manufacture cosmetics think this bill is an overreach and opens up the possibility for reasonable cosmetic products that we all use to be captured and have to go through authorisation processes as well.

So, in collaboration with industry, we have sought to address this in a Supplementary Order Paper, which we commend to the House. The Supplementary Order Paper amends the Therapeutic Products Bill. The cosmetic industry is a $1.25 billion industry. The definition of a natural health product in the bill has a very wide and interpretive set of meanings and includes a specific list of ingredients that are widely used in cosmetic products. Such width of definition provides far too much scope to include cosmetic products which might have a health benefit but are not a health product—which might have a health benefit but are not a health product; that’s quite important. I’ve mentioned that anti-wrinkle creams, toothpaste, and shampoos have health benefits but are well accepted as being cosmetic products globally.

There is also a concern around the bill’s regulation of the $400 million cosmetic export market. If ingredients that are naturally sourced, such as lanolin or lavender, were used in a product deemed to be providing a health benefit or a “natural health product”, under the current definition, they could be captured under the bill’s scope. In such circumstances, the product would require an export licence as well as having to meet any good manufacturing practices the bill determines are required. This would be a barrier to trade. In this circumstance, the cost to industry of the bill’s regulation would raise pricing for exports and make New Zealand products less competitive or uncompetitive.

So we’re raising concerns that it is our view that cosmetic products that everyone accepts are reasonably cosmetic products globally—not just domestically as well—will be caught up in this legislation. We’re proposing, in SOP 371, that they be put aside and that they be regulated under their current regulations, which are the Cosmetic Products Group Standard, which has been more than adequate and suitable to date. The industry is telling us that if we move away from these, if we pass the Therapeutic Products Bill, through any stages of authorisation, this will make the industry uncompetitive, and we may not receive global cosmetic products in New Zealand because of those restrictions. We agree with them, and we think this needs to be addressed. This is what we’re looking to do in Supplementary Order Paper 371.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I thank the member Shane Reti for that contribution. There is, of course, an interface between cosmetics and therapeutics, and it’s important that we address that. The Supplementary Order Paper is a blunt tool, in that it prohibits regulation of all cosmetics under this bill, and that contains a high risk of unintended consequences. There are some cosmetics which it would be desirable to regulate under this Act. It would be a minority, but there would be some that it is appropriate given their intended purposes. One example is a sunscreen with a sun protection factor above a certain level where the intention is to prevent cancer. Another could be a lip balm with natural health product ingredients where the primary purpose is to relieve mild eczema. Some products could be cosmetic and therapeutic products, such as dermal fillers and breast implants. Therefore, I intend that most cosmetic products would be excluded from regulation under the bill—for example, non-sunscreen make-up, insect repellents, decorative non-corrective contact lenses.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 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 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to clause 14 and 59 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to clauses 14, 61, and 62 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 16 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 16 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to clause 60 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 373 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden’s amendment to clause 65 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 382 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Dealing with therapeutic products

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 67 to 116, “Dealing with therapeutic products”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 377 that Brooke van Velden has in her name, around clause 67. Now, this is around importing medicines and medical devices for the purpose of supplying it to health practitioners. What we’re just a bit concerned around here is around this clause, especially under clauses 88 and 89 in this, a health practitioner or veterinarian can legally import such unauthorised medicines or medicine devices in accordance with a special-case requirement.

This has happened a lot in the past around, again, cancer treatments that you can’t get here in New Zealand, or other specialist rare diseases that people have, and that the medicines aren’t available. We’re concerned that we just need to make sure that this is made a little bit clearer so that these people, health practitioners and veterinarians, can bring these in, because as we’ve said, this bill doesn’t just cover humans. It also can cover Fluffy, the cat, you know, because sometimes they need cancer treatments as well. So we’ve got to make sure that we are able to make sure that our loved animals can also get the treatment that they need as well as our loved humans.

The thing is, you forget that there is so much medicine out in other parts of the world that have been approved and used around the world, and we may not have them here because Pharmac has not had the time to assess them or make sure that they are here. However, they are used overseas, and we need to still be able to bring these in with the special cases, and especially put it back again on to these health practitioners and veterinarians—again, these people are special cases, and required especially in clause 65.

Anyway, we have got to make sure that we have these medicines here if we can get them easily. So we’re just a bit concerned that, again, some of this is limiting the stream because it goes also to upstream activities in new clause 102A, “Upstream supply of medicine or medical device to health practitioner or veterinarian”. So we’ve just got this major concern and this is why we have brought this, as well as with the advice from our medical professionals that have brought this to our attention. You know, they are still very much concerned about this, and especially around rare disorders and rare cancers that we don’t see a lot of, and people having to being able to get these medicines or devices that are required for the specific cases. We just make it very clear that we need to be able to do this because if we can’t get the medicines here approved ASAP we, again, lose loved ones, be it human or the furry kind, a little bit too soon if people can’t get these special medicines.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I endorse that previous contribution, that it’s important to make sure there are provisions to allow the import of medicines by individuals, and I appreciate the intent of that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), because that is an important part of the environment. In New Zealand, though, of course, the vast majority of medicines are approved and available, but, none the less, individuals need this opportunity.

I do not support the SOP because the bill already provides this through a number of clauses, which I’ll outline here. In particular, clauses 105 and 106 allow individuals to personally import medicines and medical devices, subject to conditions. Clause 115 allows regulations to enable a class of persons to carry on this activity. Clause 151 allows licensing for a person to carry out a controlled activity. And clause 160 allows a person to import or supply a therapeutic product. So that SOP is unnecessary because those opportunities for individuals to import already exist in the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to clause 67 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Market authorisations for medicines, medical devices, and NHPs

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 4, and this is the debate on clauses 117 to 150—market authorisations for medicines, medical devices, and NHPs. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to address the issue of natural health products (NHPs) again through Part 4, starting with clause 122, as we continue to be of the view that natural health products are over-regulated and are an overreach in this bill. Despite the post - select committee Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 368, we continue to believe that this bill is an overreach for the natural health products market.

Supplementary Order Paper 376 that we’re proposing amends the Therapeutic Products Bill, and we do it in quite an elegant way. What we say is that, OK, continue with the market authorisation process—that’s fine. Do whatever you’re doing there, even though we’ve got concerns that there are thousands of natural health products that are going to require authorisation. Even removing the small manufacturers, we don’t believe that there’s going to be enough administration, or if it will, it’ll be exceedingly cumbersome to actually regulate those. Go through that process, but here’s the operative clause we’re wanting to insert: Clause 123(2), “For the purpose of subsection (1), the Regulator must accept the applicant’s declaration referred to in section 124 as sufficient evidence of the matters declared unless there is evidence to the contrary.”

Now, under the bill, natural health products require market authorisation—certainly, our moderate and medium sized manufacturers. Information and statements around the self-identifying method of market authorisation would seem to be unclear and sometimes contradictory. There are concerns, as I’ve mentioned, with the capacity of the regulator to moderate a large number of NHP authorisations. This SOP, effectively, develops functional notification instead of legislative authorisation by maintaining the market authorisation framework for NHPs, but it has the authorised criteria, the sponsor criteria, and the applicant’s declaration all accepted by default.

In this respect, the legislation would function more like the near-unanimous cross-party support for a previous natural health and supplementary products bill. It’s an elegant way to achieve what we’re wanting to achieve—to move towards market notification of natural health products, rather than cumbersome bureaucratic market authorisation—and the way we do that is we say, “OK, go through the market authorisation process, but, again, the operative clause is here: “the Regulator must accept the applicant’s declaration referred to in section 124 as sufficient evidence of the matters declared unless there is evidence to the contrary.”

So it is a market notification process by default. It sits within the market authorisation framework that this bill is proposing. Certainly, our discussions with the industry were that this would make a significant difference. They have the grave concerns for their industry that they have had right from the beginning. That hasn’t been substantively allayed. There has been some shift around small manufacturers—and that was appreciated by a number, actually—but there are still many who will be caught up in this legislation who remain of the view that it is an overreach.

We are offering here a midway point that utilises the framework that the Government is proposing, albeit we still have concerns about the bureaucracy around market authorisation. But if that is where the Government is committed to going, then accept that documentation by default, unless, as we say, there is evidence to the contrary. That would reasonably achieve what the industry is looking for, which is a more “market notification by default” sort of process, rather than a cumbersome, bureaucratic, and expensive market authorisation process.

So we’ve put this forward as a middle ground that utilises existing frameworks, which we have concerns about—but if the Government is committed to going down that path, there it is—but provide an option and an ability to achieve what industry is looking for in changing the focus with just a few words: “sufficient evidence of the matters declared”, “must accept the applicant’s declaration”. That’s the word—“must” accept the applicant’s declaration—and we think that that will make a difference. Industry think that that will make a difference, and we’d ask the Minister and her team to reconsider this, please.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Kia ora. I’d like to echo the words of my colleague who just resumed his seat, Dr Shane Reti. One of the major concerns we heard from submitters, from natural product producers, especially small producers across the country, was about compliance costs and the range of requirements of this bill, and that that level of compliance is absolutely disproportionate to the overall level of risk that they pose. Again, echoing words my colleagues have used earlier in this committee, the framework for medical devices and medicines is not appropriate to be used for natural health products.

The other concerns that people who came to us raised were about those expected compliance costs being a barrier to entry into the market. I think, as climate change is continuing, more people are thinking that it might be better to start growing their own food. I come from the Tairāwhiti. Where some seed falls in the ground, that is going to grow. People think, “Well, I could make some money out of—and maybe an income, a life out of—what our whenua produces.”—and just a shout-out to all of those producers now in that situation after our severe weather events that have actually impacted on that as well.

Coming back to this, we know that overregulation will disadvantage small businesses, who are unable to maintain those maintenance costs while staying competitive with our larger, multinational companies that have products available online and from across the world. We just wondered, when you’re discussing in this reply back to us, about how these amendments will ease their minds. Kia ora.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Many concerns shared by the Government expressed in the House. Let me reassure the previous speaker, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, that foods that are governed by food standards under the Food Act are excluded from the Therapeutic Products Bill. And, on the matter of regulation of natural health products (NHPs), I think everyone accepts in this debate that natural health products have some activity, some risk, but not no risk, and the overall approach to this bill is a risk-proportionate approach to regulation. That will be borne out in how authorisations are done.

Responding to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 376, we canvassed some of the issues we discussed in relation to the related SOP tabled in Part 1. Just to repeat: those clauses 122 to 124 already provide what is being sought by this SOP, which is a notification scheme, but also allowing flexibility where necessary. These clauses provide the platform for an automated self-assessment declaration pathway for most natural health products. But rather than providing clarity to industry, the proposed amendments risk creating uncertainty over the criteria that might apply to NHPs.

Finally, removing clause 123(3) will limit the ability of the regulator to assess and approve custom health claims. These claims are what industry will want to be able to make in order to speak to the potential benefits of their products. So, for that reason, we won’t be supporting the SOP.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): I’d like to speak on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 380 in the name of Brooke van Velden around clause 120(2A) in this that we’re wanting to look at. We’ve just got concerns around, as the explanatory note of the SOP says, “The circumstances which justify a product being made available in New Zealand through provisional authorisation may include a public health emergency or other time critical matter, it is essential for the avoidance of doubt that the Act clearly states the Regulator may rely on evidence from trusted overseas entities or expert organisations when determining a product’s safety, quality, and efficacy. Any uncertainty in this regard presents a risk of delay or a trigger for debate concerning what evidence a decision may be based on, and delay and debate may be counter-productive given the circumstances. So this is a concern that was brought to us again from a lot of our medical companies that have come to see us—just not also in natural health stuff as well. We’re just a bit concerned around this, and about a risk of delay especially.

I know that, yes, things happened through COVID, but this is just to make things a little bit more clear and a little bit more precise because there is a little bit of doubt around some of these clauses in here. I know we jump around with a lot of the clauses, too. We’re just trying to make things a little bit more tidy so that people can understand these bills a little bit more clearly because they are very complicated—especially this page—because, as you know, we’re going from one Part to the next. So I’d like to speak on behalf of SOP 380 in the name of Brooke van Velden. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am also very concerned around issues relating to the use of authorisation of medicines for response to a public health emergency, because one of the first piece of pieces of legislation I passed in this House was the retrospective amendment to the Medicines Act under urgency in order to do the COVID vaccine roll-out, and that is not the ideal situation we want to be in.

We want to be able to respond to public health emergencies in a timely way, and that may mean that different processes for authorisation may need to be used in that setting. It may mean that we’ll rely more—there is the option to use information from overseas authorities already, as well, in this bill. The proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 380, unnecessarily duplicates clause 346, which says that the regulator may rely on decisions of designated entities in evaluating a therapeutic product. In fact, that is a codification of current existing practice; half of the approvals that Medsafe currently make, they make using information from overseas regulators as important parts of their decision.

So that reason, while we agree with the intent of the SOP, it is already reflected in the bill and we will not be voting for it.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): I would like to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 385, on behalf of Brooke van Velden. This one is around clauses 148, 149, and 150. It’s all to do with commercially valuable assets owned by pharmaceutical companies, and confidential information, including tech data and trade secrets and intellectual property (IP). Now, quite a few of our companies have come to see us and they’re concerned about their IP and how safe from disclosure the active ingredient information or use will be. Because, again, a lot of people—not just companies but also people—have created natural health medicines or medicines in general. You know, they’ve put a lot of time, effort, and money into making these medicines, and a lot of them have already gone through a lot of regulatory stuff, like the Food Act and all that. And I know that they’re all behind. But, the thing is, we want a guarantee that if we give this information to the regulator, it is going to be kept safe and it is not going to leak out. That’s the biggest thing that these people have asked us. You know, we have created this stuff in good faith; we are selling it. If someone else is able to get some of their information around the products and then are able to compete against them, it puts it into an unfair advantage.

So we just would like to make sure that protection period in clause 148 and also 149, the protection with the ingredients, and then also the limited circumstances in which protected active ingredient information may be disclosed and used—so we just want to reiterate and make sure that these loopholes are tidied. Again, you know, intellectual property is a huge thing for a lot of people, and especially when they’ve put a lot of time, effort, and work into creating products, and we need to make sure that we’re not going to disadvantage them by giving this out accidentally to a competitor or something. So we would hope that the Government would recognise that there could be possible problems with this and make sure that no loopholes are there. So this is why we support this SOP 385.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): The bill contains protections on data and confidentiality already, and care has been taken to make sure that they are in line with our international obligations, with respect to these matters. It is important that we protect the data that is used as part of the development of innovative medicines. There is a risk with the Supplementary Order Paper, as it’s drafted, to undermine the ability of the regulator to discharge its obligations.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden’s amendment to clause 120 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 380 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 385 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Licences and permits

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 151 to 186, “Licences and permits”. The question is that Part 5 be agreed to.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): This Part 5 is around licences and permits, and we’ve just got little bit of a concern. Brooke van Velden again has put in a Supplementary Order Paper, 379. This is around clauses 158 and 159 and changing clause 158 by adding, “at least 1 responsible person is ordinarily resident in New Zealand.”

As you can guess, with this many companies, we also have to bring expertise into New Zealand and they may also buy shares in it. We’ve just got a concern to amend this to make sure that the committee reviews that submitter, including supplier of key therapeutic products—that requirement for responsible persons to be ordinarily resident in New Zealand could present a barrier particularly to New Zealand companies in this market, because of that expertise. If we have to have all of them having to be New Zealand citizens, that could slow up a whole lot of things. So we feel that at least one person in there who is responsible and is an original New Zealand resident should meet the criteria, because we don’t want to hold up, again, any of the therapeutic products that we make, and especially when we do have a lot of overseas investment and a lot of overseas expertise that comes here. This is where we just thought there was just a little bit of an overreach around that standard of having responsible people, but we go to a responsible person that’s originally from New Zealand.

We don’t see this undermining things, because, again, we make sure there’s always going to be checks and balances, and because we’re in a small global market we’ve got to be able to make sure that we can meet here, and if we put too many restrictions, even on these companies, it’s making a big thing. That’s why we think that by having at least one that is a New Zealand resident, that should meet those criteria that have been put in here in clause 158 and 159.

So we’d hope that the Government would consider this, because, again, we want to make sure that we can supply products to the rest of the world and we want to make sure that we can have the expertise here. As we all know, it’s a global market, as well as having a lot of people come and go from New Zealand, and these things can change quite quickly, but if we can make sure that’s as easy as possible so that these companies still can operate—and have to make sure that this is at least one, as I said, New Zealand resident.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps I can clarify for the member who’s just resumed her seat, Toni Severin, that the bill does not require that every person who works for a licence holder be a responsible person; rather, secondary legislation will specify the terms of a licence and can include how many responsible persons are required. There might be some situations where multiple people are required—for example, where activity is conducted across multiple sites; for example, manufacturing or clinical trials that occur at multiple hospitals. So we want to balance flexibility with certainty. For the reasons outlined above, we don’t believe the amendment is necessary.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Brooke van Velden’s amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 379 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 5 agreed to.

Part 6 Other prohibited conduct

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 6, the debate on clauses 187 to 201, “Other prohibited conduct”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. The National Party will not support direct-to-consumer advertising in this bill. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 372, in my name, amends the Therapeutic Products Bill

New Zealand and the United States are the only two countries to allow full direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines (DTCA-PM). All other jurisdictions have determined that the harms to public health of such advertising are of such sufficient magnitude to override the protections in their bill of rights - equivalent legislation. Providers describe inappropriate advertising pressure arising from DTCA and patient expectations to prescribe. They describe how direct-to-consumer advertising - driven pressure on prescribers promotes inappropriate prescribing, expensive substitution, and rapid uptake of new medicines before full safety data are known. Examples are cited where large numbers of patients have been harmed as a result. This SOP will bring our regulatory framework back into line with international best practice.

Active campaigning against direct-to-consumer advertising for more than two decades has been led by consumer advocacy groups such as Consumer NZ and the public health and primary care sector. An open letter in the past week from the New Zealand Council of Medical Colleges has been signed by several hundred distinguished leaders in health and science, academics, researchers, and health practitioners, together with leading patient and consumer advocates. Taking these factors into account, this SOP seeks to prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines for human use in New Zealand.

I want to describe some of the issues with direct-to-consumer advertising that have been raised by specialists in the past week, in particular—not just in the past week, in an open letter from the Council of Medical Colleges that has been provided in the past week, signed by luminaries, as I have said. It’s actually been a discussion over several decades. Here are the concerns of some of our most senior and most experienced clinicians and advocacy groups. Direct-to-consumer advertising is prohibited almost everywhere else in the OECD. Direct-to-consumer advertising is inconsistent with efforts to improve New Zealanders’ health literacy—and I’ll abbreviate direct-to-consumer advertising with “DTCA”. DTCA targets the most vulnerable. DTCA leads to increased costs for the health system. DTCA leads to inappropriate prescribing and overtreatment. DTCA leads to iatrogenic harm. DTCA puts the doctor-patient relationship at risk. DTCA regulation options are flawed. DTCA does not provide patients with useful information. And, finally, DTCA perpetuates power imbalance in pharmaceutical companies’ favour.

We understand the balance of patient information versus prescriber manipulation. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - type issues were raised in select committee, with no backing whatsoever from Crown Law to substantiate them. And similar bill of rights legislation in the EU, by way of one example, has not provided remedy. It is currently banned in the EU. The mechanism we propose in this SOP is elegant, and 20 words. It’s just 20 words. It’s the line that says, “notwithstanding that advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are only available on medical prescription (DTCA-PM) is prohibited.” And we’ve borrowed that particular phrase, that particular wording, from the EU so that we know that we are consistent with international best practice. It’s no epiphany that’s sprung into our head overnight; we’re using well-established international wording here.

The mechanism we propose here is elegant. The Minister does or has generated an SOP which pushes this issue to regulations at some time in the future. We think that is weak, and we think that does not address the issue. This is the bill; now’s the time. Now’s the time to make a statement on direct-to-consumer advertising. You’re either in the camp for direct-to-consumer advertising or you’re out. We are out. Instead of millions of dollars in advertising and manipulating prescribers, maybe those millions of dollars that pharmaceuticals spend could be spent on reducing the price of pharmaceuticals to the most vulnerable. We would contend that is the best place for this sort of funding, which we know is in the millions.

As a prescriber myself, I’ve faced and confronted—and you deal with it; it’s part of your day to day—patients arriving with expectations that they’ve seen from the television around what is the best preparation for them. You spend a considerable amount of time explaining why maybe not. Very occasionally it might be; most of the time it’s not. That’s time that could be better spent with other patients, actually. You can offer other alternatives, and I would come back to the point that the millions of dollars that pharmaceuticals spend on direct-to-consumer advertising would be much better used reducing the price of their products to the most vulnerable.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to report progress. Members, that was not the correct thing to say. The debate is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow, and we will pick up where we left off.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 18 JULY 2023

(continued on Wednesday, 19 July 2023)

Bills

Therapeutic Products Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 6 Other prohibited conduct (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, good morning. The House is resumed in committee. When we suspended last evening, we were considering Part 6 of the Therapeutic Products Bill, and I’m seeking a call.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So last night, before we rose, we were having a discussion about the potential provisions that could be in the bill to better support our medical professionals and patients, and I wanted to draw attention to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 383 under my name, particularly the bit that talks about Part 6.

As Dr Shane Reti alluded to, there is a growing call by medical professionals and experts around the need to ban direct consumer advertisement for prescription medicines. It’s one of those issues that, I think, we’ve become an outlier, alongside the US. In the US, we do have a great example of how things can go terribly wrong, where big pharmaceutical companies can dominate a market in terms of aggressive advertising to their communities. While that may not be reflected so much here, I think we leave ourselves vulnerable to huge power dynamics between different pharmaceutical companies—who, as has been acknowledged by the experts, their intent in advertisement is not necessarily grounded in public health so much as it is to make profit, and therefore there are concerns by the medical community about whether the advertisements, in and of themselves, actually support public health outcomes or whether they are clogging the healthcare system and adding pressure to general practitioners.

I acknowledge that the Minister wants to put this in regulations, and I guess my question around this would be about her level of confidence in being able to resource the departments who then would be in charge of those regulations to take into account the multiple dynamics that would exist and tensions that would exist in terms of the lobbying that would end up happening by pharmaceutical companies to prevent banning of direct consumer advertisement for prescription medicines, because there is an opportunity to just put it in primary legislation and follow international evidence and international best practice with this SOP. I have to acknowledge that, for me, it’s not so much about which SOP that does this is the one to choose; it’s more about getting the outcome that medical practitioners and our community wants, right?

So to just summarise, my question would be around the level of confidence around being able to get the regulations right—particularly concerned because we have seen what happens with the medical cannabis regime in terms of tensions around properly resourcing our departments to make good decisions and understanding that then there’s going to be a lot of lobbying going on. With this one, I do think it’s quite crystal clear in that there hasn’t been evidence overseas to suggest that this type of advertisement supports public health outcomes. So I’m keen to get a sense of the Minister’s confidence about how she thinks leaving it to regulations will deliver the outcome that I think many of us actually want and that medical professionals want.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, I hope to raise an issue with you regarding clauses 193 and 194 regarding advertising. An issue’s been brought to my attention by Business Events Industry Aotearoa about the effect that can have on medical conferences. I’m advised that under section 20 of the Medicines Act 1981, which these clauses, I understand, largely replicate, Medsafe New Zealand restricts trade shows attached to a conference from displaying or discussing medicines that have not been licensed in New Zealand but are licensed in some parts of the world and therefore have relevance to delegates who may not be locally registered doctors.

Obviously, these trade shows are important for bringing others to New Zealand, and they think there’s probably about $90 million worth of business and direct spend that’s potentially at risk here if we can’t attract people here. I have had examples brought to my attention where, for example, Australian-based sponsors are nervous about coming to New Zealand and holding scientific conferences due to this issue. Additionally, there are Australia-based clients who will not even consider New Zealand when the Australian delegates cannot be given the same information they’d expect to get in an Australia-based meeting. So I’m wondering if the Minister could clarify the intention of this and whether it will have that impact from his perspective.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise briefly to contribute on this discussion regarding Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 383, in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March, and SOP 372, in the name of Dr Shane Reti.

I’d just like to hear the Minister’s input into the concept of banning such advertising. I’d like to know if the Minister has considered any unintended consequences around this, such as a lack of information that can be provided to consumers, to patients. Perhaps they might go to the GP with a request that’s not quite right but at least they’re getting some more information and they’re becoming aware of these treatments. I reflect on something on the news last night; there was a new treatment undergoing trials, very successful trials, for Alzheimer’s disease. Could something like that be caught up in this where coverage is restricted, or at least when something gets approved, they can then not actually educate the public? So what are the Minister’s thoughts on this? Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to start by acknowledging the two contributions around direct-to-consumer marketing. There have been concerns raised by medical experts about the role that direct-to-consumer advertising can have in appropriate use of medicines and the harm and wasted resource that may occur from that. That evidence and those calls were what led the Government to amend the bill to include a provision for a regulation that is strengthened in my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to enable prohibition of direct-to-consumer advertising. So I’d just like to reiterate the difference: the Government’s SOP allows prohibition of direct-to-consumer advertising in regulation whereas SOP 372 from Dr Reti and 383 from Mr Menéndez March puts that into legislation. So, in essence, those members from those parties and the Government are in agreement that there is a case here for harms from direct-to-consumer advertising, and it is appropriate that we seek to prevent that through our legislation.

I want to be clear—interestingly, the other two contributions made in the Chamber this morning illustrate the risks that may be present in this approach. Mr Mooney made a contribution about restrictions on advertising at trade shows of unapproved medicines and a concern that why would scientific meetings or trade shows occur in New Zealand if certain medicines that were at the cutting edge but not yet approved here couldn’t be regulated? When the select committee considered the bill, those sorts of unintended consequences from restrictions on advertising were considered, and that’s why clause 193 has been amended in the bill in the form it returned to the House in order to address that potential risk in unintended consequence. There is no intention of stopping experts from knowing about the advancements in science that occur in pharmaceutical science.

It is the risk of unintended consequences by a blanket ban in the legislation, in the bill, that gives the Government pause when considering whether or not to vote for these SOPs, and it is these types of unintended consequences that became clear at select committee that mean a blanket ban on direct-to-consumer advertising is not the Government’s preferred position. Instead, we have the opportunity to develop proposals, take advice on them, consult on them, address the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues that have been raised—that I have been advised on by both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice—and then make a decision and make a prohibition or other regulation in secondary legislation. That is the Government’s preferred approach.

This is not an area where we want to rush our legislative approach. There is a risk of unintended consequences, as the select committee identified when it went into this area of restrictions on advertising. The select committee was very concerned about potential bans on forms of communication about medicines that we consider appropriate in a free society, such as Givealittle pages, such as advocacy, such as satire.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that contribution, has the Minister seen overseas evidence where most jurisdictions—apart from ourselves and the United States—believe that the harms caused by direct-to-consumer advertising outweigh any perceived or real unintended consequences, and certainly any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - like implications?

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): I take a brief call, mostly for the purposes of allowing the Minister to have time to respond to my colleague’s contribution. I suppose, just to pick up on Dr Reti’s point regarding New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) implications; for the uninitiated, of course, our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act includes that section 14, “Freedom of expression”: the right to impart, but also the right to receive opinions and information, and so forth. And no doubt my learned colleague, who obviously knows much more about things medical as well as other fields than me, presumably refers to the fact that it would be helpful to ensure, within reasonable limitations or justified limitations in terms of NZ BORA, that people have the ability to make informed decisions on their own account.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I thank the members for their contribution. In response to Dr Reti’s contribution: yes, I have been advised that Australia has a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising. I’m advised the European Union has a directive, but individual members of the European Union vary widely in how that directive is implemented—and there are numerous reports of how pharmaceutical companies escape that regulation. So I think to cast the international picture as black and white is perhaps not totally accurate. My role as Minister is to make sure that I have diligently considered the implications in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), and the fact is that there needs to be, in my view, further consideration of that because the bill that went to select committee did not have a proposal for direct-to-consumer advertising. There is an opportunity to evaluate a concrete proposal when secondary legislation is developed, and to have that evaluated for its BORA implications.

I’d like to go back to the contribution of Mr Menéndez March about the resourcing and prevention of undue influence on the Government’s decision process. I hope Mr Menéndez March is reassured by the widespread concern across parties in the House about this issue that there is support for Government, of any form, to be able to regulate in this area. But the issue he raises reminds me of the legislation, the work we’ve done in regulating tobacco in New Zealand—another area where lobbying and inappropriate influence of regulatory processes and legislation is an area of concern. I have a lot of confidence in the ability of the Ministry of Health officials to protect their regulatory processes from that type of influence, and I think, as you can see, there are numerous—both in the conversation we’re having today and the conversation we previously had on tobacco control—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order. I’m just going to have to rule on this, because it is out of order for any member to impute any influence on the Government of the day. Now, I will review Hansard, and if such a comment was made, then the House should view that very seriously. So I would appreciate it in the meantime if the Minister just steered away from that.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I’m confident that the regulatory process will be resourced so as to make sure that all the appropriate considerations are taken into account.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): The Therapeutic Products Bill has been in progress for many months now. Can I ask the Minister, then, if she has sought a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act opinion on direct-to-consumer advertising from Crown Law?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet is only provided on the bill, not a Supplementary Order Paper.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Just in the spirit of helpfulness, I think it might be helpful to point out that a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet can be provided, or a further opinion can be provided—it’s not required; the Minister’s right to say that it need not be, but it could be. I suppose if I could take the liberty of refining my colleague’s question to ask if she’s had any conversations with the Attorney-General or anyone else who would be helpful in the space of determining whether the Supplementary Order Paper might fall foul at, admittedly, a later stage of the legislative process.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I thank that member for that contribution. Yes, I am confident I have thoroughly tested the advice about whether or not there are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues to be explored. I’ve heard from health officials and other officials that that is indeed the case. That was very influential in my decision to have the Supplementary Order Paper written as it is.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Part 6 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 192 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 194 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to insert new clause 194A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 383 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Part 7 Regulatory matters

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 7, which is the debate on clauses 202 to 237, “Regulatory matters”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Shane Reti’s amendments to Part 7 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 7 as amended agreed to.

Part 8 Enforcement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 8, the debate on clauses 283 to 329 and Schedule 2, “Enforcement”. The question is that Part 8 stand part.

Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Part 8 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 253 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 375 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of committee.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to clause 253 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 383 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 8 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 8 as amended agreed to.

Part 9 Regulator

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 9, the debate on clauses 330 to 362 and Schedule 3, “Regulator”. The question is that Part 9 stand part.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to stand on behalf, again, of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 378 in Brooke van Velden’s name. Again, this is around information sharing—this, again, is companies as well as individuals that have worked very hard to create information and products—products that we send overseas. It’s about regulating how the information is going to be shared, and, once again, many of these people have a bit of concern. And what we just want to do is we just want to tighten this up a little bit better to make sure that this information—people’s intellectual property (IP)—is not going to be shared to other companies or other individuals. Like as we said in an earlier SOP that we did as well, again, it was around information sharing and making sure that it is held and contained and it’s not going to leak out. Also, the bill—because we jump around from one thing to the next—can be very confusing for a lot of these businesses out there to know where all this actually stands, especially around IP and information. We’ve got two different sections within this bill, and all we want to do is make sure that it is very, very tight.

We’ve got replacement clauses here that are actually necessary to make sure that these powers are not accidentally abused with people’s information and that they sneak out and that that register is actually well and truly tight and that we don’t accidentally send information out to other companies that are competitors to those that are giving their IP to the regulators so that their products can be regulated. And, again, a lot of this comes around the concern about the compliances and making sure that these people are going to be guaranteed that this information doesn’t leak out. And that’s a huge concern for many companies that we have spoken to and also quite a few individuals who have created their own. It’s necessary to make sure that this information—because of this bill with this information sharing with the regulator—does not sneak out, especially around people’s property rights, IPs, that they have spent time and they’ve spent the money to create. And it’s necessary that we make sure that they’re all tight, especially around the powers here.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my colleague Toni Severin has done a wonderful job explaining this Supplementary Order Paper 378, in my name. But I also wanted the opportunity to speak to it.

Look, New Zealand is a very small market. We’re a very tiny little nation on the edge of the world for a lot of big players, especially large pharmaceutical companies, and I think it’s really important that this regulator gets things right. And it doesn’t appear that that’s the case, as drafted, because we’ve had people who are involved in medicines and pharmaceuticals say to us, “We’re a little bit concerned about this law and we’re concerned because we spend a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of resources in developing new and innovative medicines and new technologies. That means we have a lot of data and information that we have that’s privileged information, because we have spent so much time investing in our own products.”

Now, under this law, they’ve said, “We’re a little unsure that that data would actually still belong to us”—that it would still be safe, it would still be secure—as intellectual property. So they’ve asked for an amendment to this law to ensure that if they are a big player internationally and they take the chance of coming to New Zealand, going through the rigmarole of becoming regulated under this new regulator, in fact it’s not going to open them up to having damage to their intellectual property in New Zealand and internationally. Now, you can understand why that’s of huge importance, because if you have spent so much time and energy and resource and capital into investing in new innovative medicine, you want to know that you can actually hold on to that product—that is your product—and not because the process that you’ve gone through with a small regulator on the other side of the world has opened you up to other people having access to your data and privileged information. You might, all of a sudden, see competition where your intellectual property is no longer valid.

I think this law does need to be tightened to make sure that people have the faith that they can invest, they can develop new technology, new medicine, and they know that it will be safe and secure—it is their intellectual property, and they do have access to their own data. I think it’s also important for New Zealanders. That’s what’s missing here. If we want Kiwis to feel like they have a shot at having access to new, innovative medicines and they have a shot at having better health outcomes, they need new, innovative technology. They need new medicines. If companies around the world don’t have faith that this regulator will protect their intellectual property then they won’t seek to have their products regulated in New Zealand. And that means all New Zealanders are worse off.

So I hope the Minister will see sense and tighten up this regulator to make sure that international companies, people who import and export, can have faith that the New Zealand regulator will not disrupt their intellectual property.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I thank the members for those contributions. Of course, these issues around protection of intellectual property of companies that develop and manufacture medicines and medical devices is not new, and in the case of medicines, the existing regulator already deals with them on a day-to-day basis. In formulating the bill, the Government has taken account of that need for confidentiality, and we believe there are already strong and robust protections for confidentiality around intellectual property in the bill. We are also confident that it aligns with our international obligations in this area.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just a brief one from me, if I may, within Part 9, which I think we’re sitting in at the moment, just about the procedural aspects of reviews that are able to be made under this part. So clause 361, for example, allows an appeal to a District Court if an applicant for review wants to seek another look, for want of a better phrase, against the regulator’s original decision. I think it’s actually quite helpful that the following clause, 362, sets out that a person still has the right to go to another court or tribunal, for example—and this is just, now, my own thinking, but I think it would be a reasonable thing to point out that at a High Court, for example, someone could go and seek a review of an executive decision. So that’s all good and helpful so far, and it actually points out—again in, I think, actually helpful clarity—that if that takes place, then a review under this part would be put on hold.

So my question is simply: if a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner is made, I would say that’s outside the meaning of the phrase “proceedings in any court or tribunal.”, but roughly speaking it might be—you know, in general terms, it could cover the same subject area. I think I know what the answer is, or certainly from my point of view it seems to me that someone should still have the right of review under this Act, as it will be, even while they’ve made a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner. The Minister in the chair, Ayesha Verrall, may or may not have thought that far ahead—comfortable if not—but if she or her officials are able to give any clarity on that now, then that might save some argy-bargy later, to use a technical legal term.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Kia ora koutou. Firstly, I want to thank the Minister and all of the officials who have worked on this bill. As a member of the Health Committee, I’m very conscious of the huge amount of effort that has gone through the drafting of this and multiple changes that were made through that select committee process, and then this significant Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has brought to us to consider.

The only reason I am voting against it is because of the provisions related to rongoā. When I was a Green MP and I spoke in the first reading, we supported it, hoping that through that process the provisions for rongoā would be improved, and specifically to respond to the call from Māori across the country—the resolution that was made at Waitangi that rongoā should be excluded. We’ve had further conversation through the first reading that would necessitate a definition being added, which has been.

My concern remains that instead of just excluding the impact of the different parts of the bill, it goes further and establishes an advisory committee. So this is here in Part 9. We’re just wondering about and want to get some feedback from you and clarity about the powers of the advisory committee, because it appears that instead of resting the power to do with rongoā, identifying rongoā practitioners in the community and that mātauranga Māori in Te Ao Māori, this rongoā advisory committee will then advise Government how it will protect this whole field.

So some questions that I have are around how this advisory committee will work. We see under subsection (2) of clause 347 that the regulator is required to notify the advisory committee and take into account any advice. So we see that we have our rongoā practitioners in the community, and they have associations, organisations that they affiliate to, collectives that exist around the country. Government has this particular role, the regulator has a role, and this advisory committee seems to be the liaison between them, as opposed to those organisations themselves. So it appears that if the regulator has reasonable grounds, it can actually ignore that advice, and decide, actually, not to even notify this advisory committee of issues that might impact on rongoā practitioners.

It seems to us, with the absence of a Tiriti o Waitangi clause in this bill, as we did in the revolutionary Pae Ora legislation, that there’s no requirement in here for the regulator to give effect to Te Tiriti when it’s dealing with issues to do with rongoā, and the Government has taken on a role to protect rongoā itself, as opposed to perhaps funding, resourcing the groups in the community whose role, I believe, is to actually protect and guard the mātauranga Māori that is rongoā. Yeah, so I’ll start there and ask for some clarity around that. Kia ora.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, thank you. I’ll deal with Mr Penk’s question first. The bill doesn’t limit the ability to go to the Health and Disability Commissioner for that set of concerns where, within the scope of the Health and Disability Commissioner, the consumer has received a health service.

With respect to rongoā, the Government has heard very clearly from Māori the concern about regulating rongoā, and you’ll note in the earlier parts of the bill, there is a statement that the bill seeks not to regulate rongoā. However, there are some challenges there, and the main one posed by that approach is the ability for natural health products to carve out rongoā as a way to escape regulation even when they’re not rongoā. So the regulator is not tasked with proactively going out and identifying what is rongoā and what isn’t and what is OK—not at all. It is more likely to be used in a situation where in order to not be subject to the natural health products regulation, a producer says, “Oh, well, my product is actually rongoā so it doesn’t need to be regulated.” In that case, it will be very helpful for the regulator to say it is or isn’t rongoā and that’s the purpose of that. The committee does make sure that the voice of Māori will always be heard in these decisions.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (ACT): I wish to turn to page 186 of the Therapeutic Products Bill, all the way through to 188, talking about costs. Now, we know that this new regulator is going to impose a lot of costs on to companies and individuals who will now be wanting to regulate their products. It seems like there’s quite a lot in here, and I know that a lot of New Zealanders are also quite concerned about the cost of living; the cost of everything seems to be going up.

When I’ve been out talking to industry leaders across the board who’d be captured by the Therapeutic Products Bill, they’ve suggested this goes all the way from your medical devices like your hips and your knees through to software, new technology, all the way down to your shampoo and your hand soaps. Every single little thing that you can think of, even if it might be a toothpaste, could be regulated under this bill. Now, my concern is that this regulator will impose these costs, which will then have a flow on effect of increasing the cost to consumers in New Zealand for very basic products that they never thought could be actually captured by the Therapeutic Products Bill, but might be. But I also note that there are quite a few formulas about how the fees and levies will be set, and there are principles for cost of recovery, but it also says that “The Minister must not recommend … regulations be made imposing a fee or levy unless satisfied on reasonable grounds that” it’s in accordance with all of these other parts of the bill, and that “the fee or levy is otherwise appropriate and proportionate.”

I’m just seeking from the Minister a guarantee that people will know—people on the ground, New Zealanders who are actually struggling—that this bill is not going to impose such a huge burden on them or such a huge cost that it will actually flow on to basic goods that they need in the rest of their lives; things like toothpaste, shampoo, hand soaps. Can the Minister actually guarantee New Zealanders that this regulator won’t impose such high costs that they will actually feel that effect in their daily life?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am thrilled to see that that member shares my concerns about the cost of medicines in New Zealand, and perhaps I’ve found a new-found friend in support for this wiping of the co-pays of medicines for the public in New Zealand, which is an excellent matter to address the cost of living. Yes, we canvassed in the parts of the debate that ran last night, these issues around risk proportionality of regulation as an important way of keeping the costs and burdens of regulation down, where they are not appropriate, and, indeed, we canvassed the ways in which products such as cosmetics could be excluded, where appropriate, but not as an entire class because there are some areas where regulation of them is necessary, where they have a therapeutic purpose.

We also talked about the different classes and how there could be different approval processes depending on their risk. Indeed, a number of formulas are used, and criteria for determining the appropriate levy, and a fundamental concept in this bill is the idea that the burden of regulation is in proportion to the cost. So I can assure that member that there are protections in that place.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (ACT): I’m very happy to hear that from the Minister. I just wondered, when you touched on the fact that you’d talked already about cosmetics and that there are some that you don’t believe should have a high cost imposed on them versus others, whether you can give any form of example about which types of cosmetics you deem appropriate enough to be exempt and which ones you don’t.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Indeed I did, during that section of the debate on the relevant part.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (ACT): It’s always helpful if the Minister could actually articulate that, because not everybody, all the time, is actually watching Parliament TV, so it’s actually nice to have those things clarified. But, if I may, I’m also interested in knowing a little bit more about the set up of this rongoā Māori advisory committee. So the committee, it says, consists of members appointed under section 367 and “the joint Ministers must appoint the number of persons that they think is appropriate to be members of the rongoā advisory committee.” Can the Minister give any sort of guidance as to how big they think this committee could be? You know, we see bureaucracy, we see so much waste throughout all of Government, and things can grow and grow and grow and we see the number of bureaucrats even hired under this Government just grow and grow and grow. Is this deemed to be a committee that should only have one or two or three members? Or is this a committee that will actually end up being, you know, 20, 30, 40 people, and it just becomes a large committee where nothing actually gets done and people just sit around all the time? You know, is this actually going to be useful? Has the Minister considered what an appropriate number would be to actually get things done?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In the response to the questions by Dr Kerekere, I have already outlined the function of the committee. I have outlined the limited set of circumstances in which we believe it would be used, which I think is probably the major influence on the costs of regulation in the committee, and I do wonder why the member draws particular attention in this instance to “people sitting around all the time” when it is a committee for the purposes of advancing Māori interests.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (ACT): I’m happy to answer that. It’s because, under this Government, we’ve seen a number of cases of very poorly thought-out pieces of legislation. We’ve seen a number of advisory boards being created, we’ve seen a number of working groups which have created reports that go absolutely nowhere, so that’s where the concern comes from. This Government likes to just pass things over to other people but actually fails to get things done. So, of course, there is a concern about added layers of bureaucracy. There’s a concern about people just sitting around and not actually achieving what is set out in legislation—not actually achieving anything that helps with policy development. We know that this Government puts in place lots of working groups that never actually saw the light of day. The reports were made. Nothing happened to them. So we are cynical. We are cynical about more advisory boards being created by this Government.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: I just wanted to say that I am less concerned about the fact that if that group is formed it will be made up of committed individuals who will do actual work, so long as the process is sound, the selection is sound, and it’s rooted in finding who community would best want to represent them in that space. I did wonder, though—and I want to express the concern that has been expressed to us from across the country that we’ve seen through this process where the Government did not heed its own agencies, Te Aka Whai Ora and Te Puni Kōkiri, who explicitly stated that rongoā should be excluded from the bill and that there should be strong Tiriti o Waitangi provisions in the bill.

And so our concern is more that the people in that group may not actually get listened to when it comes their time to voice that opinion, because we know advisory groups are there—and I have been on Government advisory groups before, long before I came into this role. And it goes—the advice is given but somebody else makes the decision. And if one of the major concerns is making sure that people are not appropriating rongoā for financial gain—because that’s a significant concern; I can see how people would try to do it, but, also, there are certain constraints around that. Rongoā is a way of being; it’s an entire practice. It’s not about using particular individual ingredients for a particular lotion or treatment; it’s a whole philosophy that’s rooted in mātauranga Māori. So it should be very, very simple to see that somebody is trying to make false claim, so I’m fine that that is the place that it goes to.

But, I guess, I wonder, in the scale of advisory committees across the whole of Government, can we assure our rongoā practitioners across the country that what gets said in there will actually be heard, will actually be acted on?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): The Government has heard the concern from Māori about the regulation of rongoā. A number of hui were held around the country to understand the depth of that concern. There has been a tremendous effort made, I believe, in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has presented to make sure that that concern is addressed, but it does create other unintended consequences, which is why this committee is needed. It’s mostly about the ability of natural health products that are not rongoā to escape regulation. So that is our purpose in setting up the committee. The member will note the process was put in place around how decisions about appointments to the committee are to be made. Te Aka Whai Ora is also capable of providing advice on these issues.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thanks for your patience, members. Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 332 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 is out of order, as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 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 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Brooke van Velden’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 378 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 9 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 9 as amended agreed to.

Part 10 Administrative matters

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 10. This is the debate on clauses 363 to 382, “Administrative matters”. The question is—

Camilla Belich: Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. The question is that Part 10 stand part. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am leaving.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It was an impressive entry.

Chris Penk: Point of order. Just to point out, I think that’s what you call an involuntary withdrawal and apology.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’ll bank it.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, number 381. I think it’s really important that we don’t try and recreate the wheel. You know, there’s a lot of information that’s held by international regulators, very well respected international regulators that have already done essentially what New Zealand is aiming to do. We have very safe products found throughout the world in jurisdictions quite similar to ours that already have regulators. I think it’s important that we have the ability for our regulator to use information that other regulators hold, and to be able to adopt that, rather than having to go through the process of using new information in New Zealand that will end up getting you to the exact same place.

So my amendment is about inserting a clause, after clause 379, saying that “An exemption may be granted in reliance, in whole or in part, on the report, assessments, or decision made by, or information received from, an entity designated under section 346." A lot of information is stored internationally about medicines and devices and products that are already highly regulated throughout the world. Why do we need to impose more cost, more time, more resource on getting to the exact same point? Wouldn’t it be easier if we could make sure that we can be guaranteed that information that’s trusted internationally can be considered by this regulator to grant an exemption? That means we have less delay for new technology. We have less uncertainty about whether or not a product would get an exemption under this regulator and law, and make it easier for people to have access to products that benefit their health. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. Of course it is already the case that New Zealand’s medicine regulator Medsafe relies on the decisions of overseas regulators in about 50 percent of the approvals that it makes. It’s certainly not the case that everything begins afresh when medicine that’s well established and authorised by trusted regulators seeks authorisation in New Zealand. In fact, that approach is already taken in this bill: clause 346 provides the regulator with a general ability to rely on the decisions of designated entities in evaluating a therapeutic product or making a decision under this bill, and that is why the Government does not support Supplementary Order Paper 381.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to clauses 363 and 364 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Brooke van Velden’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 381 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 10 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 10 as amended agreed to.

Part 11 Repeal, revocations, and amendments to other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Part 11 stand part. The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to clause 383 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 11 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Part 11 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come to Schedule 1. Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Schedule 1 of Supplementary Order Paper 368 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Noes 71

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 42, Noes 71.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to Schedule 2. The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come to Schedule 3. Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to Schedule 4. The question is that the Minister’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 4, deleting the amendment to section 302 of the Customs and Excise Act 2018, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 72, Noes 41.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Kia ora. We were just wondering if you could give assurances that when this bill comes into effect, we can expect all secondary legislation will be fully in place—or regulations for the bill.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Clearly, the bill will come into effect in 2026, and all of the regulation to enable the regulation of medicines and medical devices will be in place by then—and other regulations as necessary.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Therapeutic Products Bill and reports it with amendments. I move, That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

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

SPEAKER: 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 third time.

This is a very important day for the future of the New Zealand health system. The Therapeutic Products Bill will introduce a new, comprehensive regime to regulate therapeutic products in New Zealand. As well as replacing and modernising the existing regulatory arrangements for medicines, it provides a fit for purpose regulation of medical devices—innovative products such as cell, gene, and tissue therapies that are currently not fully regulated. The bill also covers natural health products, and these products will have their own regulations under the bill.

It is very important to me, having gone through the COVID pandemic, to ensure that the regulation is flexible enough to support innovation, while ensuring that effective control over quickly evolving health technologies is in place. The bill also aligns with international standards to uphold the standard quality of regulation currently carried out by Manatū Hauora. The bill will ensure the safe use of products used in healthcare delivery, and support both imports and exports from New Zealand.

This bill has been a long time in the making. I’m advised that work on this bill started in 2003. It is intended to replace the Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985. The Medicines Act currently provides insufficient coverage for many products used in modern healthcare delivery, and dietary supplement regulations are not fit for purpose, are inflexible, and are out of date. So the bill is truly a once-in-a-generation change for our health system.

I want to acknowledge some of the people who have been important to getting the bill across the line. It has been a significant undertaking. I want to acknowledge the input of all members of this House, the many members of the public who submitted, and all who have expressed their view, both for and against, since the bill has been introduced. In particular, I want to acknowledge the former Minister of Health, the Hon Andrew Little, who introduced the bill to the House in November last year, and also the Health Committee, who recently reported back on the bill.

I’d like to thank committee members for their hard work, and over the last six months reviewing submissions, and the many sensible changes that were made. In particular, I want to acknowledge the chair, Tracey McLellan, and the deputy chair, Neru Leavasa. Thank you both for your work. The committee did an excellent job reviewing more than 16,500 submissions and hearing more than 300 submissions from organisations and officials. They worked tirelessly and produced an excellent bill when they reported back.

I also want to acknowledge officials from the Ministry of Health, who gave their support for navigating this bill, especially Tim Vines, Steve Waldegrave, John McGrath, Jane Hubbard, and John Whaanga. Thank you all for your work and your support. I also want to acknowledge that it has taken almost two decades to get this bill in place, and some of the officials working on the bill have been working on it for 15 years. I also want to give thanks to my colleague Peeni Henare for his contributions to the bill, including in the areas of regulation of rongoā.

You’ll be aware of the changes to the bill since the second reading, including the changes to make sure small-scale natural health products have the ability to be exempted from some of the provisions in the bill. There have also been sensible and proportionate changes in the areas of advertising. I acknowledge that there is concern about the harms caused by direct-to-consumer advertising. Currently in New Zealand, medicines can be advertised direct to consumers under some controls. Officials have looked at the evidence around direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicine, and they did not find sufficient evidence to justify a ban. However, changes made to the bill strengthen the controls that can be placed on advertising and include the opportunity for prohibition, should sufficient work be done to justify that in light of some of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns and that we work through the potential for unintended consequences there.

As a doctor, I am extremely attentive to the views of medical practitioners and advocates who have been in touch to ask for direct-to-consumer advertising to be banned. We do all want the very best for our patients and the public, but as a legislator, I take my role extremely seriously and want to ensure that we do not make legislation about such important matters in haste. I want to be careful that there are no unintended consequences for making decisions without due consideration.

Some small-scale natural health product manufacturers raised concerns that the regulatory regime for natural health products is not risk-proportionate and that the costs involved may drive them out of business. A large number of these producers operate out of their homes and manufacture only a small quantity of goods sold locally—for example, at farmers markets. While natural health products are not risk-free, I’m comfortable that the evidence available suggests that these products do not pose a significant public health risk. After all, the scale of that risk is influenced by the scale of distribution of the product.

Under changes to the bill, regulations can be made to small-scale natural health product manufacturers that will not need to obtain a product authorisation or manufacturing licence from the new regulator where their products are made and supplied to in-person customers in New Zealand. This is a sensible approach. Product authorisation will still be required for imported natural health products. There is still a need, though, to regulate natural health products. This is significant, and the bill will bring New Zealand into line with international counterparts. It is vital that people have the information they need to make informed decisions about natural health products. The regulations will help ensure that products contain safe ingredients, that there is assurance around the manufacturing process, that health claims are based on evidence, and products made in New Zealand and exported overseas meet international standards. The bill is designed to ensure a clear distinction between natural health products, medicines, food, and cosmetics.

It’s also important to address some of the early misinformation that was reported about the bill and its potential impacts. Contrary to some reports on social media and feedback from some submitters, you will still be able to buy natural health products. You will not need a prescription. Practitioners will still be able to deliver care to their clients. There is no list of prohibited ingredients in the bill. There is no proposal to ban common herbs and spices used in cooking. They are not covered by the bill. The impact of the bill on any particular natural health product or ingredient will be determined by secondary legislation, following consultation with stakeholders and the public.

We’ve already canvassed in the committee stage some of the changes around rongoā. Some people have asked why the Crown felt it had a right to bring rongoā into any system of law or regulation. The answer comes in two parts. Rongoā was already involved because many of the natural ingredients it uses, such as mānuka or kawakawa, fall into the category of a natural health product. Secondly, the Crown has an obligation under Te Tiriti to actively protect rongoā and engage Māori on how rongoā could be protected under the law. That’s why the ministry undertook a rongoā work stream last year to explore the relationship between the Therapeutic Products Bill and rongoā and how the legislation could protect it.

There is no available evidence that the practice and regulation of rongoā to date has created significant risks to people’s health. That is the view of Māori, and the evidence supports that. Our decisions reflect what Māori have said, so whānau will continue to use and manage rongoā as they have for generations.

I’m also confident that the bill will be implemented in a way that supports and enables innovation. For New Zealand researchers, innovators, and businesses, it’s important to compete on the global stage, and we need a regulatory regime that enables that innovation, supports exporters, and promotes trust and confidence in the products made here in Aotearoa. The bill does exactly that. It supports new technologies to come to market, and accelerates their entry when necessary, such as in a health emergency. It supports innovation more widely, such as creating pathways that are easily navigated and aligned with international standards. It will make the job easier for importers, local manufacturers, suppliers, and exporters.

I’m very proud to see this bill go through after so many years. I’ve often reflected during the pandemic on the fact that had we gone into the pandemic with a modern regulatory regime for medicines, we would have had a smoother path to approval of the COVID vaccine and the regulations of medical devices that—

Nicola Grigg: Would you have got rapid antigen tests in any faster?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —for example, diagnostic tests. Those are precisely arguments for this bill. I’m pleased that this Government has been able to see through this piece of regulation that has been 20 years of work across parties on both sides of the House. Alongside our record funding of Pharmac and our removal of the co-pays on medicines, it shows the commitment of this Government to access to medicines for New Zealanders.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party and my good friend and colleague, Dr Shane Reti, to oppose this bill, the Therapeutic Products Bill. You’ve got to give it to the Minister, the whole process—

Nicola Grigg: She’s running away.

MATT DOOCEY: —she’s kept a straight face, because, I’m not sure if it’s a medical term or maybe a rugby analogy, but boy, was she given a hospital pass by the last—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, just to interrupt—Ms Grigg, you will stand, withdraw, and apologise. You cannot comment on the fact that a Minister has left the House.

Nicola Grigg: I withdraw and apologise.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thanks for drawing the point to that. The point I was making was that the Minister was given a hospital pass by the former health Minister, Andrew Little. The Minister said in her first call here of the third reading of this bill, that it was “fit for purpose”—fit for purpose. Remember the other slogans, “Let’s do this.” Now it’s something like “In it for you”. I mean, imagine the ability to get up and say this bill has been fit for purpose when it has so much opposition.

The Minister also said it’s a long time in the making. Well, it actually didn’t have to be a long time in the making because there was a bill on the table under the former National Government in 2017 that many of the submitters have referred to during the process, that this Government could have picked up, and then the bill would have ended up in a better shape than it lands today. The Minister acknowledged the Health Committee members; I want to acknowledge them, especially the Government members who did a very studious job only to be thrown under the bus when it came back in to the second reading and the Minister said, “It’s not good enough, I’m having to put a Supplementary Order Paper in.”

What I find very interesting with the Therapeutic Products Bill—I think this bill is very emblematic of the Government we have today that’s just lurching side to side, limping along till the final whistle in a few weeks’ time. Because the only good news for people today—as the Minister said—is this bill is not enacted until 2026, and by then we will have a National Government in place that will repeal this bill because it’s absolutely been a shambles. We’ve heard that from the 16,500 submitters—16,000 of them opposed this bill—and this bill has been shambolic the whole way through. Plenty of backflips, and now we have a bill that we’ve been told is “fit for purpose”.

What I thought was some subtle messaging by the Minister about our natural health product producers that are opposing this bill, she implied it was just the small-scale natural health products producers, the manufacturers, and then had a go at them for misinformation. Have a look at the sector who’s opposed this bill. It’s been pretty clear right across the natural health products sector that they oppose this bill. We had a new Prime Minister that stood up and said this would be a Government of bread and butter politics—back to the basics—and here we are in a cost of living crisis, putting some very productive New Zealand markets at risk.

Let’s be very clear: the natural health product market is a billion-dollar industry. This bill puts that at risk. The medical devices industry, it’s a billion-dollar industry as well. Let’s not forget the debacle we’ve got with cosmetics that is now under the natural health product definition tangled up in this bill, and that is going to put an industry at risk for New Zealand as well.

The key issue that’s come out time and time again in these debates and the submissions, is the issues of notification versus authorisation. It’s very clear. I mean, if you look at the history when the EU attempted to do this in 2021—I mean, it was a narrower scope, they already had a regulator in place, and this caused huge disruptions to the sectors. Huge time frames, huge cost. So here we are with a wider scope, implementing a new regulator and saying, “Actually, this is all going to be tickety-boo.”

I’ll tell you what’s going to happen for our hard-working manufacturers, our producers, our exporters in the medical devices sector, in the natural health products sector, in the cosmetics sector—their costs are going to go up. Delays are going to be incurred around notifications. One medical device alone, a producer who contacted us said they would need to notify the regulator over 700 times a year for improvements on medical devices. There’s one thing I think the public knows from the last six years under this Government, is anything they do is delayed and bureaucratic.

So I agree with the sector. Why should we have any faith in the regulator and what the Government is introducing in this third reading today? Because when you look at the vital income these sectors bring us by exporting, this overreach of bureaucracy, this regulatory overburden, all it’s going to do is make us less competitive with countries who do not have this level of compliance. That will make our exporters less competitive, and that’s hugely concerning.

In my final comment, I just want to acknowledge some of the brave faces and names who stood up against this bill. I’m thinking specifically of Theresa Zame. Theresa put a petition together because under this bill initially, it was going to stop people accessing medicines through compassionate medicines schemes. Theresa Zame’s story is she has stage 4 lung cancer. She doesn’t qualify for any publicly funded medicines in New Zealand. If she was to go private here, the closest medication she could get would be over $10,000 a month. She imports one prescription, Tagrix, for $1,000 a month, and, in her words, she calls it life-saving. A mum from Gizzy that stood up and led a petition to the forecourt here—thousands of signatures supported by Malcolm Mulholland from Patient Voice Aotearoa.

That issue, of stopping people’s ability to get the vital life-saving medicines they need, is emblematic of this bill right from the start. Poorly thought out. They have lurched back and forth right from the start. Backflipped—trying to make bad good. What’s been very clear is Dr Shane Reti’s position and the National Government—the National Party, getting a bit ahead of myself—the National Party’s position on this bill as well, that we will stand up for those 16,000 submitters that this Government wouldn’t stand up for. Once again, we’ve got a bill in the House that says Wellington knows best. It says Labour knows best. We’re going to run the country out of Wellington. At a time, in a cost of living crisis, why are we putting billion-dollar industries at risk?

So I want to thank everyone who’s submitted to this bill. I want to thank all my colleagues from across the House who have worked hard in the select committee, and I want to give New Zealanders hope that after 14 October, we will make the changes needed to this bill.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): E te Māngai o te Whare, I stand in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill, at the third reading at this point in time. For my part, rongoā Māori has been something that is dear to my heart, passionate amongst my community, and led by my whānau. Māori have always determined what rongoā means, how it’s practised, and who can practise it. I’m proud to say that today, in supporting this bill, that still remains the same.

What this bill adds to the practice of rongoā is the protection for this taonga from those who may wish to exploit it—in short, those who want to make a quick buck of ancient mātauranga Māori. They might want to ship it in bulk overseas, or even denigrate its value, or leverage off years of mātauranga Māori in the development of a particular product. The way this bill has been carefully shaped through its iterations, including by listening to the clear expectations of our people, means what has always happened with rongoā will continue to keep happening. Our romiromi will continue to keep rolling. Our mirimiri will keep soothing. Our taonga puoro will keep singing. Our mamaku who will keep healing and our karakia will keep soaring.

Those simple lines there clearly speak to the breadth and the width of rongoā Māori. To simply try and define it to something such as a pill is incorrect. Understanding and appreciating rongoā Māori can only continue to enhance the offering of wellbeing not just to Māori in this nation but to everybody. The bill sets out that rongoā and mātauranga remain in the hands of our people. Its definition, descriptions, and explanations stay with our mātanga and with our tohunga, and its ongoing protection and recognition as a taonga is safeguarded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Crown’s upholding of that responsibility. Ultimately, though, rangatiratanga remains with tangata whenua. I will note, though, as some of these submissions did insist on having a Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause in here, this Government in its health reform work made it clear that our job is to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi by including a clause that will drive our health sector into the future.

Like other members in the House, I want to acknowledge everyone who participated in the bill’s development, from the careful hands that crafted the draft through to the committee members and the public servants who sifted through thousands of submissions and heard in person the aspirations of Aotearoa New Zealand. We wouldn’t be here today if not for the many people who sent through written submissions, came to our rongoā work stream hui, or took to the streets and online forums to make their voices heard, or grabbed every opportunity to grab the ear of a Minister walking through the street.

We also wouldn’t have gotten to this point today without the expertise and generosity of healers and experts who guided the Crown’s thinking as it stepped through this very important landscape. So in addition to acknowledging the many people working within the machinery of Government, most importantly I want to acknowledge our whānau and our communities; the kaitiaki of rongoā Māori, who made it abundantly clear what they wanted us to do. I said it at the time, ka rongo mātou. That’s what democracy is about—hearing from the people in our communities and ensuring their views, wants, and aspirations are reflected in how we govern this country, no matter the issue, no matter the person. We’ve upheld that noble aspiration today, which is a win for democracy and a win for communities, and, from my perspective, a win for rongoā Māori.

This also wouldn’t have been possible without the leadership of my colleague the Minister the Hon Ayesha Verrall. Nō reira e te tuahine tēnā koe. [And so, sis, thank you.] Thank you for guiding our waka to this milestone today. Thank you for continuing to not only listen but to open your heart to what rongoā Māori means and how precious it is to the communities that practise it and receive it. As the Minister said, the changes we’ve made to the Therapeutic Products Bill will ensure whānau will continue to create, use, and manage rongoā.

So what does that mean for our communities? What it means, in short, is that rongoā services, supply, and activities will continue as they have for generations, not just with the past at its heart but also a more contemporary use. I think of my time during the promotion of the COVID vaccines up and down this country, where we saw rongoā Māori working hand in hand with Western science, where one could receive a vaccination and then go into a wharenui, have karakia, have romiromi, and to be able to reset themselves to get on with their lives.

It means Māori maintain tino rangatiratanga over determining what rongoā means to them and defining who can be a rongoā practitioner. It means that, in most cases, rongoā will be excluded from the new regulatory system and not regulated in the same way that other natural health products will be. It means healers and those who support them can carry out their services and activities on marae and the many places that are important to not only Māori but all of our communities up and down the country. Healers can keep sending their rongoā to individual clients and our whānau.

The bill makes it clear that the regulator can’t make rules about how rongoā activities are carried out or set training and competency requirements for rongoā practitioners. We know that rongoā is already appropriately regulated by Māori communities. The bill respects that and acknowledges Māori as kaitiaki of rongoā. While we go through what this all means for our communities and how little will change, it is also important to clarify that there are one or two circumstances where rongoā will be regulated. That is when rongoā is being sold for commercial wholesale activity, such as supplying rongoā products in bulk to a chain of pharmacies or grocery stores, either here or overseas. If that was the case, then rongoā products would be regulated as natural health products.

But most of the people who are making and supplying rongoā do not operate at this size or in this scale. So, largely speaking, this part of the bill will not apply to most of our rongoā community. For those that do operate in that space, and there are some and some of them are iwi, who look towards the opportunities that production of rongoā might have for them and their communities and other communities, whether domestically or internationally, they’ve asked that they make sure that they be given the opportunity to fall within this regulatory space and be given the opportunity to practice.

We acknowledge the Government doesn’t have all the expertise to protect rongoā in a way that upholds mātauranga Māori and upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That’s why we’re establishing a committee to take on that protection role and guide the implementation of the bill alongside Māori. This committee will be made up of rongoā experts and Māori health leaders with experience in mātauranga in rongoā Māori.

The rongoā Māori advisory committee serves an important but limited role under the bill. The committee won’t screen or set qualifications or professional standards for rongoā practitioners, but if questions come up around a particular activity that claims to be rongoā and is not regulated but perhaps should be, the committee will give its expert advice to the new regulator. The regulator would then need to take the committee’s advice into account before making the right decision.

Heoi anō e te Whare—as you can see, there is still more work to be done. I look forward to continuing to work with Māori as we begin to implement this bill together. There is no rush for the next steps. We have time to get things right. We are committed to walking that journey with our Māori partners, and, in this monumental occasion for the health system in Aotearoa, this is a big win for the voices of our people. This bill will push out our waka that much closer to achieving pae ora, healthy futures, for all New Zealanders. Like my colleague the Minister, I too commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, how ironic is it that the Associate Minister of Health says that we wouldn’t be here today were it not for the Rongoā Māori submitters on this bill. Well, I would add to that, we wouldn’t be here today if the Government had listened to the 97 percent of the 16,500 submitters who were in opposition to this bill, for good reason. And all the Minister of Health could say was that there was misinformation in dismissing the legitimate concerns of those thousands and thousands of people who the select committee heard.

The Associate Minister says it’s a win for democracy. Well, I remember a day when the Labour members would be up like meerkats if a National Government had introduced a bill as bad as this. In fact, they never did. They were up like meerkats when we introduced good legislation and they would drag out committee stages under urgency. But in the hours that we have been debating this bill, credit to the Associate Minister—he has skin in the game—he has made a material contribution to the debate. The only one—apart from Dr Verrall, who has—apart from probably the odd “I move that the question be now put.” We haven’t heard a dickie bird from the Health Committee members from Labour or any other member of the Labour caucus, and I reckon that’s because they know it’s a bit of a dog.

It’s certainly what they heard in the select committee, and most of those concerns were ignored. There’s a pattern emerging here: there’s a tendency, when faced with a choice—as there was with this bill and the regulatory impact statements articulated them—between different levels of intervention in a regulatory sense. Between no intervention on the one hand and deep, deep intervention on the other—with a range of options in the middle, from minimalist to a more hands-on approach—this Government goes to the extreme bureaucratic end, and this is the product of that attitude. It is a pattern, because this Government believes that activity is a proxy for outcomes. We see it in the DHB reforms, we see it in the polytech reforms, we see it in three waters. As long as we look as if we’re busy and make everybody else busy, we must be making progress. Well, nothing can be further from the truth.

In two main areas, there has been, I think, significant regulatory overkill—that in the area of medical devices and in natural health products, where there was a choice that the Government had to have a lighter-handed regulatory environment. It’s not as if the status quo is light-handed or overly risky. In fact, as a former CE of a surgical hospital with hundreds of pharmaceutical products, thousands and thousands of medical devices from tongue depressors to perfusion machines to beds—they are all regulated already. The idea that this is going to make people safer or reduce risk simply because we overly burdened suppliers and providers with more regulation needs to be challenged. We have to manage risk—there is no question about that—but the question in this policy setting is: are the reductions in risk justified by the increases in cost and bureaucracy? Will there be less risk? Probably. Will there be more cost? Certainly. Are those costs and processes and delays justified? Well, we’ll see, but I don’t think so.

The Minister talks about the COVID response; that the COVID response—according to her—would have been better had this regime been in place. Well, I would say two things about that: the COVID response would have been a lot better had a different Government been in place. But I’m not convinced that it was the regulatory environment—it wasn’t the regulatory environment that caused millions of rapid antigen tests to be wasted, millions of vaccines to be left unused, significant delays, when the Minister of COVID response told us New Zealand was going to be at the front of the queue and then wasn’t. That had nothing to do with the Medicines Act—that had everything to do with management. [Interruption] Oh, they’re up like meerkats now. They don’t like it when the facts are repeated back at them. But those delays had nothing to do with regulation. They had everything to do with talk but no action, because that is emblematic of this Government.

Now, nevertheless, like a good Opposition should, the National Party has tried to improve a poor piece of legislation. To some degree, there were some improvements made in the select committee, but my colleague, Dr Shane Reti, in the select committee process pointed out the overregulation of the natural health products—the requirement for exporters to get authorisation even if their product is not sold here in New Zealand, cosmetics such as shampoos and toothpaste being overly regulated, the duplication of the sunscreen regulations this Parliament passed only a year ago, the fit and proper persons requirements being too stringent, and a number of other things.

National and the ACT Party have proposed sensible amendments to improve the bill and they were rejected. That is the prerogative of the House, the prerogative of the Government. But I think the reason this bill isn’t better is because it was National and ACT that were the people proposing the improvements, not because the improvements did or did not have merit. They are blinded by the fact that somebody else thought of them. They weren’t the only ones, they were what the 16,500 submitters were talking about—and 97 percent of them did oppose it, but there were constructive suggestions and many of them were left on the cutting room floor. For that reason, this bill is going to pass into law in much poorer shape than it could have.

But that is actually inconsequential, because in three months’ time, when there is a new Government, there will be a new approach to regulation, one which is lighter-handed but effective at managing risk commensurate with the costs that go along with it. As a consequence, this will be consigned to the dustbin where it belongs.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa‘afetai lava, Mr Speaker. It is a good pleasure to take a brief call on the third reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill. I just want to say that in my own electorate of Takanini, there are many who have been keeping a close eye on the progress of this bill, whether it be community members who think about their medicines or their natural health products, or our clinicians and health professionals in the area who want an updated Medicines Act and Dietary Supplements Regulations that are also risk proportionate.

A huge fa‘afetai to the Minister, Dr Ayesha Verrall, for the work that she has done; also, too, the officials who are sitting up in the gallery—thank you so much, fa‘afetai, for the hard work that you have put in as well. To the chair, Dr Tracey McLellan, and to our members across the House, thank you. It’s been a good discussion, good detailed discussions within the Health Committee. To all the submitters that have come through, thank you for all their input as well in trying to make good changes to this bill.

We all want regulations that have safe ingredients, that make health claims substantiated and regulated as well. Many in South Auckland are approached by practitioners who have shakes and all sorts of things that have health claims, but many that make our people sicker, much more concerned about their medical issues. They come through the door and drop all their medicines and cause more issues with their health conditions. So this will help improve in making sure that these practitioners make the right claims and that is evidence-based.

To the DTCA, or direct-to-consumer advertising, I want to acknowledge my medical colleagues that have put through an open letter, but I thank the Minister in the committee stage in clarifying those concerns and making sure that the regulations are boosted to address some of them. I just want to say that many patients in the area that I work in are quite hard to present to the clinic, and they come in with their late presentations of hard conditions to treat, and some of them come in because of advertising as well. So this is just the flip side—I’ve seen the risk from DTCA but also the positives of having that advertising prompt patients. Many of my patients do present quite late, so having advertising that prompts them to come in with some of those questions is a benefit to us as well.

So I commend this bill to the House. It’s a good bill, and I thank everyone involved. Fa‘afetai.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to speak on behalf of the ACT Party on the Therapeutic Products Bill. It is a very sad day—especially today, when I still just left a meeting early this morning and a young lady came up to me with her concerns, especially around rare disorders. This bill still leaves a whole lot of unanswered questions, especially for those people with cancers and rare disorders. Even though things have been improved, they have not improved enough to give them certainty to be able to get the treatment that they require, especially with medicines that are overseas.

Now, the bill came back to us—because I sit on the Health Committee—with 226 pages. Then during the debate in the committee of the whole House, the Government supplied us with a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) with another 257 pages. Now, this is why we are concerned, because it still has not answered many questions that many people have written to us. Over 6,000 people put their submissions in, and we listened to as many as we could. We understood, yes, that there was misinformation around herbs and spices. However, if they are in a natural health medicine, they may be regulated because of what they’ve put into, but you can still go and get your normal herbs and spices to cook with.

Now, the other thing is we’re in a cost of living crisis, and these companies that have come to us that make these products—toothpaste, cosmetics, medicines, natural medicines—all we’re going to be doing is adding more costs for them. Yes, they say it’s going to be risk proportional, but we still don’t know what those costs are. And where do these companies put these costs on? To the consumer. So the consumer ends up paying more money for their products. It’s very sad, especially when we know we do need to update our Medicines Act 1981. I look around the House, and I wonder how many were actually—well, at the moment most of us were around in that time. Also the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985—we know these things need to be updated, because we know technology, medicines, everything advances quickly, but we need to do it sensibly, and this does not.

It does not answer many questions for many people. Also, people are still concerned about their intellectual property (IP), providing it to regulatory people. We don’t know how many regulators we’re going to get. We don’t know how many of them there are and what their expertise behind all this is. It just keeps getting more and more—and, yes, there is going to be secondary legislation, but, again, there are too many questions. Too many people are scared about what it’s going to do to their businesses and for those patients that are going to be seeking medicines that aren’t readily available here in New Zealand.

Now, the other thing is everybody thinks this therapeutic bill is all about natural medicines; it’s not. It is everything you can think of. It includes your hip replacements, your knee joints; you name it, we can give it—software. There’s so many things. It also includes our veterinaries as well. So even getting medicines for Fluffy our cat—that they might not be available here is also regulated in this bill. The thing is people forget: not only do we want to look after ourselves, but for most people, their animals are part of their family. So there’s concern around that.

Well, the thing is, as we’re saying, we listened to many people that had given us submissions. We helped to write SOPs. I assume also the National Party was also listening to those people that had submitted and advised us around things that needed to be changed in this bill. I’d like to say to them: we listened, we have done our best for this, but we know that this is not good enough. For me, for 33 years nearly—when you hear that there was a bill back in 2017 that many of these submitters said was good, but it still needed a lot of changes, we could have reformed it. How about we do that instead of reinventing the wheel—which we seem to be doing constantly—which takes up more time, more money, and more resources?

I would also like to thank the officials that have helped us. You guys did a great job. You explained things immensely to all of us. I know it’s hard when we sit and listen and hear that your hard work is being debated. But it’s not your fault; it is what we have heard from many different parts of New Zealand within this sector. It’s quite sad that this Government, I feel, hasn’t listened, and it’s quite sad that we’re here still debating it and that we could have probably made it even much better if things were taken into account. Again, as we are saying, another lot of bureaucratic red tape is being put on the simplest things of cosmetics and toothpaste and sunscreen. It’s just going to be added on and on.

As my learned colleague in the National Party said, it will not come into force until 2026, so when we get into Government, we will be looking forward to looking at this bill, replacing it, fixing it, making it better, and also looking at what good practices are done overseas. Look at what Australia is doing; look at what the US is doing, because we can learn and make things speed up.

Yes, we know there are checks and balances around medicines for Pharmac and Medsafe, but we need to speed up that process. Yes, we know we need to find more money for funding, so let’s make sure we have less red tape so we can afford that funding to make sure it’s going in the right area—and that is to make sure that our people that need the medicines or need their hip replacement joints or the software updated are getting it, and that it’s not going to people in the seats that are just ticking boxes. Let’s must make sure that our people that need this help are getting it.

Shanan Halbert: You’ve got no investment with your tax rates. They’ll be on health cuts.

TONI SEVERIN: Health cuts. No, no, no. We’re talking about the people that are in the head office.

Hon Member: Stupid spending.

TONI SEVERIN: You’re the ones that are spending. When you say, “Let’s make sure that our people, the boots on the ground, are looked after.”, and this is what’s not happening. It is showing all the way through, in all these reforms that have happened in a cost of living crisis, without that much thought and without really listening to those with their feet on the ground, working hard to make sure they’re keeping us all safe.

We know that it is risk proportional. We do know that pharmaceutical medicines can have a higher risk than natural medicines. We also know that some natural medicines can be a risk. We understand that. But we do realise that we do not want more red tape that is adding more costs to our people, because this is the sad reality that this bill does. It just still leaves us, as I said, with far too many questions. When we have listened to, I said, a lovely young lady around rare disorders this day, she is still concerned around the medicines, and especially people who have put the hard work and savings into building companies or making medicines and have created an IP as well as digital stuff—they are still concerned to make sure that these things don’t fall into other people’s hands when they’ve worked hard to create them.

We are happy about a few changes in this bill, but generally there are not too many I can be proud of. It just leaves us with a huge mess to tidy up come 15 October, when we will be elected into Parliament. So on that, we cannot commend this bill to the House. We oppose this bill in its current form that it is in, and we look forward to making it even better—or even a better bill—come this next parliamentary term. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think this bill isn’t so much about the number of pages it has or the level of red tape. Ultimately, I think most of us recognise that it is important to have a robust regulatory framework for things like medicines, medical devices, natural health products, and active pharmaceutical ingredients, which most of us use either currently or at some point of our lives. It is about supporting good public health outcomes.

In this journey, I do want to acknowledge the Health Committee; the officials; Minister Verrall, who I acknowledge took on this bill and its life form, and that that’s always a challenge for any of us—as someone who took on the health portfolio halfway through the passage of this bill. I want to particularly acknowledge submitters and campaigners, particularly those campaigners that are fighting for Tiriti justice, for patients’ rights, for taking on big pharmaceutical companies and making sure that we have the balance right in this bill

The changes that have happened during the course of the debate, I think, can be attributed to the strong grassroots campaigns that were centred on good public health outcomes and evidence-based policy. I acknowledge that, for us, there will need to be a continuous debate with the passage of this bill about whether the stuff that has now been left to regulations will serve the needs of our communities.

There will always be that tension about whether we could have protected rongoā properly in primary legislation or whether we want to create a kind of regulatory framework for that. Equally, for things like banning direct-to-consumer advertisement, whether we missed the mark on following international best practice by entrenching it in primary legislation or whether we again want to leave it to regulatory frameworks.

We do have examples, recently, of where leaving it to regulations has created tensions, particularly in the medicinal cannabis framework, where we then subject our Public Service to not being necessarily properly resourced to deal with the tensions between lobbying from different groups, particularly those more well-resourced groups. I think this is why sometimes we do need to look at making improvements in primary legislation, which we attempted to do.

I think there could have been more work around the Supplementary Order Papers to perhaps have a more cross-party approach to this. It’s unfortunate that we didn’t get the chance to, and the Supplementary Order Papers do enough cross-party work to, I guess, take it away from the political football and centring it more on what is the best outcome that we can achieve for our communities.

But I do want to push back on the argument that the issue with this bill is the red tape that it creates. Because, actually, there are many instances where there are harmful medical devices that are still out there and being used in our communities. I think of, particularly, surgical mesh. That is an example of a medical device that its banning is well overdue, and this bill will create an avenue to finally put an end to the use of surgical mesh.

I think, therefore, we can’t just cast a blanket statement about whether this bill will be good or not based on whether it’s creating regulations or otherwise; but rather, we must take a nuanced approach and understanding that, yes, there will be scrutiny post the passing of this bill to ensure the regulations are working as intended, but that we can also celebrate the opportunity to actually finally put an end to some of those more harmful uses of certain devices or products that do create a risk for our communities.

Finally, I think I want to again acknowledge that it will be with the force of patients, advocacy groups, Tiriti campaigners, and people who are calling us to not let big pharmaceutical companies drive this conversation to continue scrutinising this bill together. I think we will need to work together, as a Parliament, to support officials and resource officials to do the work that they need. I think that will be the debate to come in the next few years.

So the Green Party will be supporting this bill, but with the caveat of us maintaining that really, really close scrutiny to ensure the regulations work. Kia ora.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Great pleasure this afternoon to rise in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill at its third reading. I also want to add my words of gratitude to the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall and to Dr Tracey McLellan, Dr Anae Neru Leavasa, and the very hard-working Health Committee—and also to our officials, who worked so incredibly hard on what was a very large, dense piece of legislation that has been in progress for some years.

I spoke briefly in my second reading speech on the purpose of the select committee process, which I won’t re-litigate, but I just want to highlight that many changes have been made, and that is the purpose of the select committee—to make sure that this bill was the best that it could be. Changes were needed, and after the Health Committee reported back to the House, as we’ve heard, Government did announce an exemption scheme for small-scale natural health product manufacturers and removed obligations that may apply to rongoā practitioners and activities, which were two areas that we had highlighted, as a committee, of being of critical importance.

Very serious concerns were raised by many of the submitters, and I want to highlight that, although we have been talking on many occasions, about mis- and disinformation, that’s not to say that every presenter was presenting us with mis- and disinformation; that’s a ridiculous assertion to be making. Many serious concerns were raised and we heard them. We read all submissions; we listened intently to the many submitters. One of the most serious concerns was around the importation of prescription medicines, and the Health Committee recommended changes to allow for personal importation, and that’s what we’ve done—I welcome that change.

I find it extraordinary to hear that it is not important that we ensure that cosmetics claiming sun protection factors actually need to adhere to those sun protection factors. The risks from sunscreen that does not meet standard are substantial. I’ve spoken for many, many minutes on the sunscreen products bill that the Hon Todd Muller bought forward, in support of that bill—which was intended as a placeholder before the more robust framework of this piece of legislation, in the Therapeutic Products Bill, which was a point that was agreed across the House. So I don’t know; we seem to need to go back in time and read our speeches again, some of us—on the other side of the House.

But to address misinformation quickly: you will still, under this legislation, be able to buy natural health products; you will not need a prescription. There is no list of prohibited ingredients and no ban on common herbs and spices used in cooking. This was never the intention of this piece of legislation; it is not in this piece of legislation, and to assert that it is is misinformation. I recommend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m just going to take a short call and join my colleagues to oppose the Therapeutic Products Bill. I think nobody in this House would deny that the intention of the bill is entirely valid and worthy when it seeks to protect, promote, and improve the health of New Zealanders. I think everybody in here would agree on that, but, unfortunately, this bill that we have in front of us—which is going to pass into law today—is a real failed attempt at that.

There’s a number of reasons why the National Party has opposed this bill since the second reading and during the select committee process. Primarily, to be clear, our concerns have been around the overregulation of natural health products, the effects of the bill on exports, the potential impact that will have on small businesses, the effects on cosmetic products and the users of those cosmetic products, issues around advertising to consumers, the definitions of “fit and proper person”, and, of course, the transition period.

I haven’t, obviously, sat on the Health Committee, but we’ve remained very close with our members who have sat on it, and in the differing view from them in the report back—and, indeed, in the report back itself—it does speak to an entirely shambolic process, and I would suspect that even members on the Government side have felt out of sorts with the way they’ve actually ultimately been treated by their front-bench members. We know that select committees do put a lot of work into the passage of bills through this Parliament and it’s really unfortunate that they have been denied the recommendations that they ultimately have made.

The purpose of a select committee, as we all know, is to scrutinise and approve legislation, and to make sure that when it does make its way to the statute book, it is as workable and as efficient and effective as possible. That is why the National Party supported this bill at the first reading—because we believe that there were parts of this bill that are valid and worthy. But, unfortunately, as it has progressed through the House, it has become more and more cumbersome, less and less workable, and less and less useful to members of the New Zealand public. It’s particularly concerning when we hear that the committee itself was not willing to wait for information from a further three working groups—and when we see numbers like 16,000 submitters opposed to this bill, we know that there’s a vast majority of New Zealanders who feel disenfranchised and unheard by the members of this Parliament, and that is a real shame.

But I come back to one of the original concerns that we have around this bill and that is the overregulation of natural health products. Pulling them in to what is effectively a medicines framework is an overreach. I just want to refer to the National Party’s minority view, where Dr Shane Reti said that the bill has a general ambition to require all medicines and active pharmaceutical ingredients, devices, and natural health products to undergo market authorisation with a therapeutic products regulator.

The National Party believes, as I’ve said, that this is an overreach. We have—and this is really important—no compelling evidence, and nor has the select committee, for substantive and significant or serious harm from natural products. And we’re concerned about the cost of compliance on small manufacturers and retailers. And that, I think, is emblematic of so much of the legislation that comes through this House. It is just not fit for purpose. It is imposing a huge cost of compliance, which ultimately trickles down to regular, ordinary New Zealanders who will ultimately be the users and purchasers of these products.

We also do hold concerns for the impact it’s going to have on a burgeoning and potentially growing export market. A number of other speakers have referred to the cost of living crisis that New Zealand finds ourselves in. Look, we as legislators, I think, have a responsibility to promote and invest—and when I say “invest”, I don’t mean financially—in ways and mechanisms and means that can build our export economy and allow us to get our products offshore. But all this bill does is stifle growth and stimulation and all those important ingredients that are required to get our products overseas and into those huge markets that we look at at the moment with quite some envy.

So on that point, I complete my submission to the House in opposition to this bill and, as other speakers have said, we will repeal it when we’re in Government.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Mānawatia o Puanga Matariki ki a koe koutou, koutou katoa. I’m pleased to be able to take a short call on the Therapeutic Products Bill third reading. I welcome and I’m very happy to see this bill in its third reading for the simple but very important reason it is intended to replace the Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985—two pieces of legislation that are each over 35 years old; a lot has changed during those years.

It took a lot of work to get this bill to the stage. It’s going to be flexible to support innovation, it’s going to help control health technologies, it will align with international standards, and it will ensure safety of products and healthcare delivery in supporting both imports and exports.

I welcome the exemption scheme, a mechanism for small-scale natural health product manufacturers, removing obligations in relation to rongoā practitioners. Rongoā Māori is a taonga tuku iho, meaning that it is passed on to us by our tūpuna. For generations, whānau hapū have used rongoā—including my own—and I want to acknowledge all our rongoā practitioners across the motu and our obligation under Te Tiriti to actively protect taonga. Māori are kaitiaki of rongoā and continue to serve their people according to tikanga. I reflect a kōrero that I had back home with one of our practitioners. There is a mauri that comes with rongoā practitioners. No amount of legislation can, nor will, regulate rongoā Māori.

Advertising of medicines was another area of concern. We have put in place strong controls to help manage those issues that were raised by submitters. I joined the Health Committee towards the end of the bill’s development and its journey. It was insightful and a privilege to sit there amongst committee members listening and capturing the kōrero and thinking from all sides of the table, whether there was agreement or not. Work on this bill started in 2003; clearly, it’s not a bill we can say was rushed through.

Big thanks to honourable Ministers involved, officials, submitters, committee members. I commend this to the House. Kia ora.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A lot has been said on this bill, so I’ll keep my contribution fairly short. The Minister of Health has said that this bill has been a long time in the making, and I do want to also acknowledge all of those who have worked very hard on this bill.

It was a real privilege to be on the Health Committee; I recently joined it. I want to commend the chair, Tracey McLellan, and also the deputy chair for their really good work on this bill.

The Minister talked about some lessons that were learnt from the COVID-19 experience. It was interesting to hear Mr Woodhouse trying to rewrite history on our world-leading response there. It was also interesting to hear Mr Woodhouse accidentally dropping the National Party’s slogan—I don’t know if anybody heard it, but it was: talk, but no action—because, of course, the National Party is the party of no action, and status quo. They would have done nothing in this regard. They would have left things the way they are, because they are the party of talk but no action. The new National Party slogan: talk, but no action. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Therapeutics Products Bill third reading. Isn’t it interesting listening to the last speaker sort of saying, well, “rewriting history”? Well, if only we could rewrite history and, in particular, the history of the last six years. But, in less than 90 days, Kiwis will be able to readjust the future of this country, and I am sure they will make a sensible decision.

This bill is a bill that National will be opposing, that Dr Shane Reti has articulated very clearly, I think, in terms of the key elements of this bill and why we believe that it is not fit for purpose. It is not only that we have provided critique—we have attempted to be productive in terms of making suggestions around improvements to this bill, to the Government, as one loyal Opposition should do. However, I guess, in the consistency that we have become accustomed to with this Government, they have not listened and, as a result, the Supplementary Order Papers by Dr Shane Reti—very sensible and pragmatic suggestions to improve this bill—have been declined and, as such, our position remains the same: that we will be opposing it. Quite simply, if we are in Government—to keep it very simple—we will repeal this bill and replace it with a better option.

So, in that context, let’s walk through, probably, the key five points of this bill and the areas in which we believe it is not fit for purpose. The overall industry and the natural health products industry sector is around $1 billion. I appreciate that Kiwis hear billions and billions being spent by this Government regularly, so, for those at home, just reminding: a billion dollars is a large amount of money, and this industry is a significant scale industry. The fact that this legislation is going to increase the degree of regulation and make that more complex and more bureaucratic is a significant issue for the New Zealand economy, and is one of the key elements in regards to why we do not support this bill.

We’ve made suggestions in regards to the way in which we see that that sector should be regulated in a more improved manner because the points are noted around the fact that it has been a long time—1981. What was I doing in 1981? Well, I’ll tell you what, I wasn’t doing too much because I was quite a young fella at that point, but I was here. I don’t remember 1981 but—

Tama Potaka: Great year—great year.

SIMON WATTS: What was that?

Tama Potaka: It was a great year.

SIMON WATTS: Great year, Tama? I was only two years old, just for the record. I don’t often let the House know how long one’s age is, but I’m sure it was a great year. But anyway, it was the Medicines Act’s year of 1981. It’s probably not the reason why people remember 1981, but is a reason—of the year of the Medicines Act—and that was a long time ago, so we do accept that there needs to be some changes in that regard. But the way in which the Government is proposing to do it is not appropriate.

The second aspect is in regards to that this legislation—and this seems ironic; I don’t know who’s bought a tube of toothpaste from the supermarket. We don’t like to talk about supermarkets in this House too much lately, do we? The supermarkets are the villains; the supermarkets are the reason why inflation is still sitting at 6 percent today, or domestic inflation is sitting at 6.6. It’s the supermarkets that are to blame; it’s not this Government’s policies! Oh, no, no, no, it’s not this Government’s policies; it’s the big bad supermarkets!

Let’s go back to the point around have you bought a cheaper super toothpaste from the supermarket? That’s good to see that. So toothpaste and shampoo. Shampoo, obviously, a key ingredient that is part of everyone’s daily life.

Tama Potaka: There is no—

SIMON WATTS: Tama Potaka, I’m looking at that haircut of yours. For most of us, it is a daily routine, but for some less than others. That’s going to be regulated under this bill. Are you serious? Like, is this the biggest issue that faces the country today? Is it toothpaste and shampoo being regulated? No, I don’t think it is. No, but this is what’s going to happen. That’s going to be regulated. It’s going to require more authorisations and all that, you know—

Joseph Mooney: How much is it going to cost?

SIMON WATTS: —and that’s just not practical, is it? It’s not sensible. What does it cost? Good question, Joseph Mooney, good question. Don’t know the answer. I’m sure we might hear from the last call from the Labour speaker following me—might cover that point.

The other aspect—point three—is around sunscreen, right? So Kiwis, we all need to make sure we slip, slop, slap, right? You know, yes, that’s very important in terms of the UV, but this bill will require market authorisation around sunscreen. Todd Muller, the member who brought a private member’s bill to this Parliament—which was supported across the House—in regards to making sure that if you sell sunscreen in the supermarket, what it says on the tube should be what it does, right? That’s pretty reasonable from a consumer point of view. The problem is, at the moment, it doesn’t. It can say something on the tube and actually not necessarily do that, which is a major issue when it comes to sunscreen.

This legislation, basically, will repeal that piece of legislation and take us back to the bad old days around, when you go into the supermarket and you buy a tube of sunscreen, it potentially will not do what it says on the tin. How ridiculous is that? I mean, it doesn’t take too much common sense to think “Really?” I mean, are we going back to the fact that we don’t know what we’re buying? Short answer is—for anyone that’s a little bit worried about that—yes, that’s what’s being proposed by this Government in this bill. Again, we’ve tried to be constructive around feedback to fix that, but it fell on deaf ears. Again, that’s consistent with this Government. They are very good at not listening—I can give them points for that, but the reality is they should have listened to that advice.

The other aspect, in the interests of time, is in regards to the advertising. One of the other prior members from the Government said we’ve done a lot about making sure that we sort of strengthen the rules and regulations around advertising for products and making sure that prescription medicines will be advertised directly to consumers. New Zealand is only one of two countries in the world where pharmaceutical companies can actually advertise prescription medicines to New Zealand consumers. The reason why other countries don’t do that is because it drives unintended consequences if people go “Geez, I love that drug, it looks like it might help me fix what I need to do.”, and they go into the GP and they go, “Hey, wouldn’t mind that drug I saw on TV last night.”, and they go, “Why can’t I have it?” It’s sort of like—well, the GP goes, “Well, I sort of know a little bit more about medicine than what you do and, with respect, that’s not what you need. You need this.”

So it creates this whole sort of culture which isn’t in the best interests, clinically, around individuals’ health. In our view—I mean, isn’t this interesting, right? You know, one would say maybe the Government are looking after their rich mates in the pharma industry, right? They’re looking after their rich mates in the pharma industry, whereas we’re standing up for hard-working Kiwis going, “You know what, we should not be allowing pharmaceutical industries to do major million-dollar advertising campaigns against consumers to try and sell their drugs because that is not appropriate, right?” That’s where we stand on this side of the House. But on that side of House, it’s open slather: spend what you like, get in there and try and promote these drugs to consumers, and that is not appropriate. So we’ve again said, “That’s a ridiculous idea, it’s not appropriate.” Again, that fell on deaf ears. You sort of get the thematic around this; the consistency around that.

The last aspect is around the transition period around medical devices, and there’s sort of an explosion out there in terms of different medical devices that are coming on to the market. If you think in the diabetes space, for example, around insulin pumps, or you think about other devices—the continuous glucose monitoring sensors that type 1 diabetics are using now—and all this other stuff. A lot of these pumps have artificial intelligence in them now so they talk to the sensors and they adjust the medication to make a better quality of life for those people that have a number of these chronic diseases, including cancer as well. But this legislation is going to bring in more bureaucracy into this process.

Interestingly enough, right—this should be no surprise—is that most of these products aren’t necessarily built or designed and made in New Zealand. Actually, a lot of them come from overseas. There’s been a bit of a rigour through the Food and Drug Administration or other international European on these products. You know, do we need to add more bureaucracy to say, actually, we need to recheck, recheck, recheck these things and draw out the process? Of course, our view is we don’t; we just need to get these products to consumers so they can use them. The Government’s view is, “No, no, let’s throw in a bit more bureaucracy into the process.”

So, looking at the time, I’m nearly out of runway but, hopefully, that gives you a bit of an overview in terms of why we think this is an inappropriate bill, why we oppose it, and why the fact that the National-led Government on 15 October will repeal and replace this bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and may I say that that contribution felt as long as the work it’s taken to get this bill done—over many generations, almost.

It’s a pleasure to take the final call on the Therapeutic Products Bill. It’s something that we’re really proud of. I want to start my contribution by acknowledging the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall for all of the work that she’s done. And she herself, in her earlier contribution, also wanted to acknowledge the work of the former Minister of Health, the Hon Andrew Little. I also would like to acknowledge all the officials who we saw firsthand putting in such a power of work—this bill is a detailed and meaty piece of work—and I’d like to acknowledge all of the people on the Health Committee for their camaraderie and their help.

The Medicines Act has served us well over an extended period of time, not so well in more recent times as it certainly hasn’t kept pace with international developments in healthcare. Healthcare is exciting, it’s innovative. It’s always going to change, and it’s really, really important that our legislation is there to scaffold that and support it. Consumer safety is always going to be a number one priority and we make no apologies for that. So this is a modern, fit for purpose regulation of medical devices and of cell, gene, and tissue therapies. It’s, importantly, flexible enough to support that innovation that we know is important and ensure that there’s an effective control over those fast-developing technologies.

As the Minister herself said earlier on, the bill is therefore a once-in-a-generation chance for a health system to make this change. We talked about the fact that there were changes at the second reading, and we know the Minister introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that exempts small-scale natural health products and manufacturers, removes the obligations that the bill might apply to rongoā practitioners and services, and sensibly and proportionately addresses some of those concerns around advertising.

I just want to touch on one of the really important changes that the select committee itself made, and that was in regard to the personal importation of prescription medicines, which my colleague Sarah Pallett spoke to earlier. That was something that people came to us with really genuine, serious concerns about. We heard it early. We made the necessary adjustments and we can certainly allay those concerns. People will be able to order and import prescription medicines for their own use, provided they have a prescription from New Zealand health practitioner. So we’re very proud of this bill, and I commend it to the House.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Kerekere.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 75, Noes 44.

Bills

Fuel Industry Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 27 June.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Very briefly. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Minister, I just want you to clarify: are there any additional costs that consumers are likely to face as a result of the obligations on market participants, and, if so, has there been any quantification of costs that consumers may or may not face?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): No.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 364 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

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.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 65, Noes 44.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

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

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I move, That the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

In 2019, the Commerce Commission released its fuel market study. The commission’s report indicated that fuel companies had been making persistently higher profits over the previous decade than could be expected in a competitive market, and there is limited competition in the wholesale markets, and this flows through to the retail markets and to consumers’ pockets. One of the commission’s key recommendations was to create greater transparency by requiring fuel companies to publish wholesale spot prices at fuel terminals. The passing of the Fuel Industry Act in 2020 saw the introduction of a terminal gate pricing regime for wholesale suppliers, to make entry easier at the wholesale level.

However, the commission also identified two possible risks to the success of the terminal gate pricing regime: (1) that fuel companies use the terminal gate pricing regime as a vehicle to coordinate prices, and (2) that in some areas, particularly where a terminal is isolated, a fuel company could exert market power at the terminal. As such, the commission recommended that a regulatory backstop be introduced to ensure against the failure of the terminal gate pricing regime. This Government is implementing just that recommendation through this bill.

The bill provides an incentive for wholesale engine fuel suppliers to offer competitive terminal gate prices. It does this by providing a process by which these prices could be regulated by the Commerce Commission after an inquiry and recommendation to the Minister. The Minister could then recommend to the Governor-General that an Order in Council be made declaring particular terminal gate prices subject to price regulation, and the Commerce Commission would be responsible for setting the form of the price regulation and enforcing it. This would deter the misuse of market power and ensure better competition in the wholesale market.

We do this because we expect this to flow through to consumers at the pump in the medium and the long term. This is a well calibrated process. It is not a return to the price regulation that we have seen in days past. This is a new power for the Commerce Commission, and if the market works as it should and in line with what we expect, then fuel companies should have every incentive to compete hard and to avoid being regulated.

After experiencing high pricing volatility in 2022, the regulatory backstop mechanism is a necessary measure to give consumers confidence that increases in fuel prices are not being driven by unreasonably high margins. This is about a Government that is standing up for and alongside consumers and ensuring that they are protected.

We have already seen that the Fuel Industry Act has contributed to more competition in New Zealand. The terminal gate pricing regime has supported the expansion into new areas by low-priced retailers such as Gull, NPD, and Waitomo. Gull has publicly stated that without the Act that our Government passed, it would not be able to competitively source fuel to operate at South Island outlets and provide that competitive tension. I can tell you, as a South Islander, this has made a huge difference in our part of the world, and that is because we had a Government that was willing to act on the side of consumers. This bill further supports these trends by providing strong incentives for fuel companies to ensure that terminal gate prices are competitive and provide insurance against anti-competitive behaviour that contributes to higher fuel prices and protects consumers from that.

This Government recognises the need for a more transparent fuel system that works for New Zealanders. Though this backstop mechanism is just that, a backstop, it is a clear signal to the fuel industry that the Government is not afraid to step in if prices are not consistent with what would be expected in a competitive market.

I want to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee again for their work and for their consideration of this bill. I believe that the changes that we have made to the bill as a result of the select committee process have resulted in a better and a more robust piece of legislation. I also want to thank all those who contributed to the preparation and passage of this bill, and I look forward to seeing competition in our fuel sector continue to evolve and for New Zealanders to feel the effects of improved transparency in wholesale pricing flowing through to prices at the pump. 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. It is really good to follow the Minister on this bill, it was almost like reassuring words before bed, too: all is well because the benevolent hand of the Government is there to control the market. Unlike Adam Smith in his seminal work right back in 1776—invisible hand of the market—but we no longer have “the invisible hand” of the market; we now have “the benevolent hand” of the Labour Government. I think this is absolutely hysterical. Today, we found out we have, you know, inflation at 6 percent, non-tradable inflation at 6.6 percent—so that actually directly points to the actions of the Government that have caused this inflation and non-tradable inflation being at such highs, and we’ve got a very confused Government trying to implement policies in the name of helping consumers, and actually having the reverse effect.

I’ll take you back, Madam Speaker and members of the House, to the Government removing the excise tax from fuel. The emissions trading scheme, the main plank and method of getting our emissions down, actually works by putting the price up according to what emissions you make. That all got too frightening for them, because the fuel prices went up and actually, consumers didn’t like it; what a surprise. So the Government stepped in and removed the excise tax to the tune of 29c a litre, and lo and behold, that made it cheaper for people to use their cars—and what if that’s less incentive for people to go to an electric vehicle and to alternative transport?

Anyway, that’s all run its course now, they’ve become very afraid of that, and on 1 July, 29c a litre went back on. We’ve just had the inflation figures to the end of June. What’s going to happen now? We’re going to have more inflation going out into the future, because they’ve stoked it along with a 29c increase in fuel. So it’s a very, very confused Government that doesn’t quite know what they’re doing; they’re running around in circles trying to come up with things that really just try and plug a hole in the dyke, if you like. But they’re actually causing more problems than they attempt to solve.

Terminal gate pricing that the Minister referred to: yeah, that’s moved things along, there’s no doubt about that. But to then come in and try and regulate the market when we found, in the committee of the whole House stage, trying to ask the Minister for a definition of the pricing principles; the pricing principles that the Commerce Commission would need to take into account. I could not get a definition: “We don’t know what those principles are.” If you don’t know what those principles are, how can they be applied? How do we know if they are being applied in a way that is actually fair and reasonable, and how do we know that we’re getting the best bang for our buck when we have what will it end up being a regulated market? We know that regulated markets do not work. We know for the gas market in the UK, the same sort of thing was tried and it led to higher prices and shortages. We’ve got huge issues when the Government’s hand gets involved in the market, and we can’t actually predict how that will play out. The way the market works is by price discovery, effectively: so companies operating in the market, they find the best price for them to operate. And if they’re too high, of course, someone else will come in and set up business and compete against them; thereby, innovation and innovative practices are being driven by the market forces and the Minister herself even mentioned Gull and Nelson Petroleum Distributors (NPD) and others who have set up in the market and are actually offering a different offering from the major fuel companies—the main fuel companies which I think everyone knows. But with those new entrants into the market, it has driven a whole lot of innovation. For example, when you go to the supermarket, you can get a little code on your receipt, which if you take it along to some fuel companies, you’ll get a discount off your fuel from your grocery docket. That’s great; that’s innovation; that lowers prices.

Then you’ve got operators like NPD and others that have very aggressive pricing strategies at times. I know my local NPD has 20c a litre off quite often, and flashing up on the sign when I drive past it—it’s quite close to my house. So it’s a very innovative market player; it’s grabbed a lot of market share by giving its customers what they want and what they need, which is the ability to buy fuel, at times at very low prices. So what is the problem here? We have heard from the Minister that there was a study that showed that there were unreasonable prices, but we don’t know what is unreasonable. And we know that in places where NPD—or what is known as, I’m sure you’ve heard of the Gull effect: when Gull comes to town, prices drop by about 30c a litre. So that is about competition. We have not heard, through any of the stages of this bill or select committee, why we wouldn’t just be looking to ensure that the conditions are right for Gull or players like them to expand out into other areas—and they are; they’re doing that anyway, they’re moving out into the market. These things take time, there’s a lot of capital to invest, and then on the other hand we’re getting the Government telling them “Well, actually, the days of fossil fuels are very much numbered”, so why would they invest?

So we end up with this really quite confused response from the Government—which I alluded to at the beginning of this speech—where the Government on the one hand removes excise tax because they panic and the public don’t like higher prices, then they bring it back in because they have to at some point. You know, it’s just really quite confused and they drive inflation along. And as I said, we are in a significant cost of living crisis, partly driven by the unwise and ill-thought-out actions of this Government. I am still very concerned—and we did try to get to the bottom of all of the mechanisms that are going to be used under this new legislation when it comes through, and there’s no doubt it will; the Government’s got the numbers, so it’s going to pass—how it’s actually going to work in practice. Despite a number of members in this House asking quite direct questions; asking for some of the details about how these things would work, we got little to no information from that questioning. It’s very concerning that we’re at this position. I think that we have a well-functioning market at the moment. We have a Government with a solution looking for a problem to apply it to and to actually appear to be doing something, when really, the best thing they could have done would be to just leave the market to solve the problem. And it isn’t actually a problem at this stage, I don’t believe—and certainly with the entrance of NPD and others, I think that that is the best way for us to go.

Price controls, we know, do not work. We know that pricing principles and price discovery has worked all around the world; it’s worked in every other market; it is working in the fuel industry market at the moment. There is no need for this legislation. We oppose it; we think it is another bureaucratic sand in the gears of the economy, adding costs needlessly to Kiwis going about their daily lives. We know that fossil fuels literally fuel our economy. We all get to and from work by it—almost all of the MPs from outside of Wellington fly here and fly back all from fossil fuels. This legislation is not going to do any good it all, it is just a needless waste of time, I do not support this bill.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. After that speech, I think it is quite challenging for us to sit here in this House and listen—especially to a member who otherwise, I don’t think, does much reading at all, whether that’s reading of the bill or reading of the news that about two hours ago announced that inflation has just reached 6 percent in this quarter.

So this is a bill that we are extremely proud of after the research that the Commerce Commission has done into the fuel market. This is a bill that the Commerce Commission had recommended in terms of making sure that Kiwis get a fair deal at the pump—our small economy of 5 million New Zealanders—when competition doesn’t happen the way it should, purely sometimes because of scale and other reasons as well. Sometimes because of actors in bad faith or other things—and also geographic area in the world as well, actually—we often don’t get the amount of competition that we deserve as New Zealanders. So I don’t agree with the member Stuart Smith, who’s just assumed his seat and who says that the market always solves itself. By nature, companies are there to try and look after their bottom line, so this is why we need to make sure that we have a Government that stands up for its people and that stands up for New Zealanders. So that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to participate in this debate. First of all, I’d like to say I concur with my colleague Stuart Smith, who had a wonderful contribution, I believe, in opposing this bill. But before I actually begin talking about this bill, I’d just like to give one piece of advice to the member who just sat down who has been chairing the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. In a debate, you don’t necessarily get up and accuse a member of not having actually done something when you haven’t listened to the debate, because one of the first things that Stuart Smith actually said was talking about the inflation rate, that it has reached 6 percent but the non-tradable rate was 6.6 percent. That was the first thing he actually talked about. So if the member was not listening properly, you do not actually get up and accuse the member of not having actually done the job or read the news. Or, if the member has no idea about how business operates, perhaps she should not be talking about business and the market, because she’s probably never owned a business before and doesn’t understand what it actually is to run a business.

One of the things that I find incredible about this Government is that often they believe that they’re doing the right thing, and that’s honourable, because we all, as members of Parliament, want to help communities, want to help New Zealanders, want to help the economy; we actually feel that we’re doing the right thing. But sometimes this Government seem to have the wrong end of the stick. They don’t actually understand that when the Government intervene and try and control prices, what they effectively do is actually, by trying to reduce the cost for consumers, it reduces competition, which, effectively, means that it distorts the demand and supply, which, effectively, will end up with costs being higher for consumers, because when the cost actually affects the businesses, businesses—what do they have to do? If the cost goes on the businesses, it costs businesses more to operate their business, they’re not going to wear it. Why should they? It costs more for them to run their business, to pay people, to actually employ people, to actually rent the premises, do their business. How is that actually going to affect? It’s going to basically go on to the consumers and it’s going to cost consumers more. This bill, effectively, does that.

The key intervention, which the Minister had actually talked about, in terms of the terminal gate pricing, which is the bill that we actually passed, the Fuel Industry Act of 2020—we actually supported that bill. The fact that the Minister says that it has had an impact in the way that terminal gate pricing actually works, that it actually allowed for more companies to participate, including new entrants to the market, and, you know, where prices are 10c to 30c cheaper in areas where Gull operates or the Timaru Oil Services operate, that is a wonderful thing. So why is the Government now trying to control prices if the market is operating the way that the bill that we passed in 2020, the Fuel Industry Act, is actually doing its job? This is a Government basically wanting to control the market. It’s like basically saying, “We know better than the business, we know better than you, the consumers, because we will dictate how much you actually pay for it.”

Perhaps I may not be very popular if I talk about the dentistry industry, because recently I went to get my teeth cleaned—you know, annual event for my family—and, you know, literally, it was a 20-minute session, a quick check-up, no X-rays and a quick dental hygienist operation cleaning my teeth. Only 20 minutes—apparently I do a really good job with the brushing—cost me $350. Twenty minutes—perhaps the Government could regulate that price. You know, it literally cost $1,050 for three members of my family—me, my son, and my mother—$1,050. I didn’t actually realise that that was the price. Inflation has cost that—inflation. Non-tradable rate at 6.6 percent, and it is the direct impact of this Government’s failed operations in setting the rules. This is the inflation overreach that creates higher prices for consumers. This Government has no idea how business actually operates. This is a bad bill, and we don’t support it.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s disappointing to hear the rhetoric from the other side of the House when we are looking here around something we want to promote: competition in this space around the fuel industry. I want to ensure that our wholesale engine-fuel markets are in a place—and when you have people, like the Gull, NPD, and Waitomo retailers, all speaking in favour of what this can actually do—the cost-saving retailers that they are—I think there is something to be listened to by those retailers who are actually supporting what we are doing on this side of the House.

It was a privilege to be part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that looked into this legislation, that explored it. And I think most of what’s been said has been said, so, therefore, I commend the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT won’t be supporting this bill; this bill is rubbish. Let’s have a look at the problem the Minister claims to be solving.

Well, there’s a risk, apparently, that fuel companies will charge excessive prices, wholesale prices, for fuel, even though fuel companies already publish their prices at the terminal—the wholesale prices—for anyone to see. Of course, if you’re a big fuel user—if you run a fleet of trucks, if you run dozens of diggers and bulldozers—you can go to a fuel company like an Exxon Mobil, like a Chevron, Caltex, or a British Petroleum, or an Ampol, or a Z—who all operate in New Zealand—and you can get a better deal than shown at the terminal where the prices are listed. The Minister doesn’t seem to understand that.

Now, let’s assume that the problem definition is just plain wrong and there’s no purpose for this bill. So then you’d say, “Well, what other purpose could a Labour Government have when they claim to want to have the power to set wholesale fuel prices because the poor consumer is suffering from excessive fuel prices? Why would a Labour Government want to take that power unto itself?” Maybe Dr Webb could offer a perspective. Maybe it’s because a Labour Government is actually hoping to convince consumers that the problem with inflation and the cost of living is not the Labour Government’s fault; it’s the bad, bad fuel companies’ fault. But the ACT Party says that’s a load of rubbish, just like this bill.

What has created the problem, though, potentially, with people’s concerns about fuel prices? Well, of course there was a Russian invasion of Ukraine which pushed up the price of fuel temporarily—that’s settled down. What else has caused a problem with the cost of living and fuel prices? Well, there was COVID, where shipping was disrupted for some time—that’s resolved itself. What is the greatest influence on retail fuel prices then; the prices consumers pay at the pump? Well, it’s actually the Government’s own fuel tax, the fuel excise duty.

Because even though the wholesale price of fuel—say, take a litre of regular 91—is about $1, maybe $1.10, and the fuel company’s wholesale margin is around 32c on that dollar. The Government takes $1.30 in fuel excise duty—$1.30; four times or more what the profits that the fuel companies are making.

So what is the problem here? Well, I don’t think Kiwis would mind paying a fuel excise duty—a fuel tax on petrol and diesel—if they felt they were getting value for money from that. Because people don’t mind paying taxes if that money goes to paying teachers and nurses and police more, and providing health services. We don’t mind paying taxes for those things.

But what we do really dislike paying taxes for is when successive Governments have failed to invest in the roading infrastructure and the road networks and public transport in places like where I live in West Auckland. They’ve failed to invest, including this Government, which announced to Auckland Light Rail, the first train arriving at a station in Mount Roskill in 2021. The business case already pushing towards $100 million in cost; they haven’t even completed the business case, let alone lay a single track.

Kiwis don’t mind paying for things if they feel they’re getting value for money. What this bill demonstrates is how cynical this Labour Government is in claiming that they’re going to somehow take control of the wholesale fuel prices if the Commerce Commission or the Minister decides that they’re unfair. They’re going to take control of them and they’re going to use a mechanism which gives the Governor-General the power to set a wholesale fuel price through regulation through an Order in Council.

Now, deeply cynical behaviour, but of course to be expected from this Labour Government. But what is the likely outcome from setting a wholesale fuel price; from telling businesses what they are allowed to sell their products for? Well, we have lots of examples of this in history, where Governments have attempted to set prices because, say, the price of some commodity has gone too high. What happens then? Well, the people who still have to pay to supply the product into the market simply decide not to supply it at the rate that Governments have mandated.

Can give you a classic example. We hear a claim often from parties on the left about why we need rent control. Well, you only have to look at where Governments set the price of rental accommodation. What happens? You look at a city like New York, where the price of rental accommodation is set by the city. What’s happened? There’s a shortage of rental accommodation, the quality of rental accommodation is significantly worse—

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

SIMON COURT: Madam Speaker—where Governments set prices that causes either a shortage of supply or a reduction in quality because fourth-form students, or year 10 students, who study economics—or I think it’s called business these days—would understand the price-quality triangle. There’s either going to be if you reduce the price, then there’s more supply comes into the market. If the Government sets the price, something else has to give: supply or quality. Basic economics, but clearly absent from consideration by the Minister of Energy and Resources, and this Labour Government.

So what would ACT do? What would ACT do? Well, how about if we want businesses to be confident to supply goods like fuel into the New Zealand market at good rates at a good wholesale price—that’s what this bill is about: it’s about bulk purchases of fuel, wanting to have access to some clarity about what the pricing regime might be between competing suppliers and being able to make a good decision about where they buy fuel from.

It’s not about, “Hey, look, you know, we rocked up to the terminal at Wiri in South Auckland—by the way, there’s only one terminal in Auckland—and there’s a number of prices on the gate and we’re not happy; we think that the company is making too much money. Could the Minister for Energy and Resources or the Commerce Commission look into it and the Governor-General set the price?” That would never happen because businesses who are rocking up to the fuel terminal to buy gas will already have a commercial arrangement with the fuel supplier, right?

So, I mean, the whole basis of this bill is rubbish. But what would ACT do? Well, firstly, we’d stop threatening businesses to strand their assets because they happen to be involved in supplying high-density liquid hydrocarbons—otherwise known as petrol and diesel—to 5 million consumers. We’d stop threatening to strand their assets with poor climate policy and gas transitions and transitions to a low-carbon economy; an emissions reduction plan which threatens to take businesses and private property rights off people.

Because why would any business invest in supply, distribution, and actually delivering a service to customers in a sovereign nation like New Zealand where the Government of that sovereign nation is threatening those very businesses’ existence and insisting it will put them out of business, like the climate Minister James Shaw did when he threatened that their energy assets and hydrocarbons would be stranded?

So what would it do? We’d get rid of that dumb climate policy. We’d scrap the zero carbon Act. There’d be no emissions reduction plans required from Government under ACT because the emissions trading scheme—which is another price that we pay on fuel in addition to fuel excise duties, in addition to GST; every consumer pays for their emissions under the emissions trading scheme—we would let the emissions trading scheme set a price on emissions so that none of this crazy, ineffective, terribly expensive climate policy is necessary.

ACT would also repeal this bill because a Government that involves ACT would not allow Government to set the price for any commodities, including fuel, that are supplied by the private sector. Now, Governments might negotiate to procure goods and services—to procure fuel for their own purpose; their own Government department—but they will not be setting the price for businesses and consumers. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party is supporting this bill. Based on the debate that I’ve just heard, I think it might be useful to just go back to the history of this because the previous speaker, Simon Court, was implying that this bill had just been dreamt up in the last year as a response to high cost of living. But in reality, in December 2018, the Government asked the Commerce Commission to undertake a study into factors affecting competition for the supply of retail, petrol, and diesel. Now, I would think people who care about functioning markets would understand that that is the purpose of the Commerce Commission—it’s to look into those areas where there might not be sufficient competition, and consumers, as a result, are paying higher prices than they should be, and that results in higher profits for those fuel companies. But it’s not an economically optimal situation.

So just to quote from the draft report, which, you know—I realise the member previous was elected in 2020, so he may not have been aware of the history of this. A draft report was released in August 2019, and then there was a full and final report. But the Commerce Commission chair said, “As a result of our study, we consider many fuel companies have been making persistently higher profits over the past decade than we would expect in a workably competitive market.” So anyone who’s taken fourth form economics, I think, understands that markets are not efficient in and of themselves. They need to have Government—which is all of us, which is all of the people working together to make sure that we’re creating the conditions in which consumers get treated fairly and there isn’t profiteering. And that’s, essentially, what this bill is about, it is preventing profiteering—so it’s for the benefit of New Zealanders.

Obviously, the ACT Party is in denial about profiteering, or as their founder, Roger Douglas, pointed out yesterday, the party now is all about profiteering, it’s all about the top 1 percent getting richer and richer. I mean, that’s their raison d’être. And you can, you know, tell that’s who funds them. So the goal of the ACT Party seems to be that consumers do get ripped off by big corporates who are able to make excess profits over and over again. They don’t believe the Government should step in and try to fix the situation so that we do have competitive markets, because they just believe that if you just leave things to the market—you know, with no intervention whatsoever—it’s a good thing if a small number of people get richer and richer and richer and make excess profits off selling a commodity that is actually slowly smothering the planet on which we live when we use it.

You know, we do know that fossil fuels are creating a blanket of pollution that is smothering the planet. And as a consequence of that, in the last week—I know the ACT Party are probably climate change deniers as well as profiteering deniers. In the last week, we’ve seen the hottest days on record. In the Northern Hemisphere, they had three of the hottest days ever recorded in human history in at least 10,000 years. Now, that is a very concerning situation because it does mean that climate change, global warming, global heating caused by the use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution—and, of course, land-use change, cutting down forests, etc.—

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has raised what I consider to be an imputation of improper motives against the ACT Party by using the term “climate change deniers”. I would ask the Speaker to consider whether that is in fact, in terms of Standing Order 120, offensive or disorderly.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Speaking to the point of order.

Simon Court: I’m still on my feet.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): He’s still giving his point of order. Then I’ll come to you.

Simon Court: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Because the imputation is that the ACT Party refuses to accept the reality that the climate is changing and that humans’ effect on the planet, because of our anthropological activities, has no effect on the climate. And that is quite incorrect. That is not our position and it’s not a debateable point. There is an imputation which is incorrect.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Speaking to the point of order. I believe that if you look at the Hansard, you’ll see I said “probably climate change deniers”, and I absolutely believe that that is a debateable point based on the content of his previous speech, where the speaker was saying they were going to get rid of all the climate legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will allow the member to continue on with her speech. This is actually a robust discussion, and when the ACT member was giving his speech earlier on, I could have stopped him at many points. I call on the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to make the point that it is really important that we have a plan to reduce fossil fuel use in a very rapid time frame. People all around the world will have been experiencing these extreme weather events—extreme flooding and storms here in New Zealand—but now the hottest days in over 10,000 years in recorded human history. There will be consequences if we don’t have a plan to rapidly phase out fossil fuel use.

At the same time, because this work started at the end of 2018, before COVID, before the inflation, before the invasion of Ukraine, it is still making the point that there is a lack of competition in the wholesale fuel market because the major fuel companies, as the Commerce Commission wrote—Z Energy, BP, and Mobil share joint infrastructure network, which includes coastal shipping operations, storage terminals, regional ports, and it did include the refinery before that closed. And they use that network to supply 90 percent of the nation’s fuel through their own branded retail sites or via other distributors. So it’s the combination of infrastructure sharing and restrictive supply relationships that gave the major fuel companies an advantage, and that resulted in higher profits over a sustained period of a decade that was—you know, has nothing to do with global energy prices spiking because of the invasion of Ukraine or to do with supply chain issues to do with COVID. So the purpose of this bill is to implement a recommendation of the Commerce Commission—that is, to ensure that consumers are not being fleeced.

We know, Aotearoa New Zealand, we’re a small country. We’re not as big and populous as other competitive markets. So we do have a problem getting competition in some of these areas, particularly where there’s limited infrastructure. And it wouldn’t benefit New Zealand to over-invest in the infrastructure either. So this is a sensible solution that the Commerce Commission recommended and, indeed, their recommendation around the transparency around a terminal gate pricing regime is based on an Australian equivalent. So when the National Party and the ACT Party try to pretend that this is some sort of outrageous thing, the truth is either they don’t know what’s going on in the world—which is entirely possible—or in comparable jurisdictions to us, like Australia where they have a similar terminal gate pricing regime, or whether they’re just playing politics on this bill because they think they can get a hit on the Government by dramatising and talking about the bill without giving the full context of the bill and the study into it and what the purpose of it is.

The previous member also, of course, raised the issue around fuel taxes. And I thought he made a really good point where he said people are happy to pay taxes when they can see what they’re getting out of it. And as we heard from the Minister of Transport yesterday, Waka Kotahi repaired over 60,000 potholes last year. They massively increased their maintenance and renewal programme thanks to the coalition Government with the Greens last term increasing the funding available for maintenance and funding of roads after a significant under-investment in maintenance and renewals from the previous National Government. That’s on the record—very easy to go out and claim that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! If the member would just come back to this bill, thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: But the point is that there’s a very good reason why we have fuel taxes where they are, and that’s because there is a cost to building and maintaining our road network and investing in our transport network. And to be fair, the fuel tax doesn’t even cover that. No, the fuel tax doesn’t even cover the cost of roads that Government is building and maintaining. So the reality is taxpayers are subsidising roads quite considerably and they aren’t necessarily the most efficient, and certainly not the most climate-friendly, way of solving our problems in the future. We need to invest in much better public transport, regional rail, and things right across the country.

But the Green Party supports this bill because it is a sensible recommendation from the Commerce Commission addressing a problem that was a longstanding problem with excess profits. And of course we should. I think New Zealanders would like to see a Government ensuring that they are protecting New Zealanders from profiteering and from climate change. And that’s why, of course, New Zealanders should vote Green at this election.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill. I’m just concerned that there are people across the House who have clearly demonstrated today that they didn’t get past year 10 economics, because in year 12, what you learn is you learn about market failure and how appropriate it is for the Government to intervene at that point. This bill really clearly helps the Government to intervene with this market failure. So when you have a lack of competition, there’s a lot of causes of that. One of the causes of that—for those who missed out on year 12 economics—is barriers to entry, and this bill helps to reduce those barriers to entry and improve the competitive environment. That’s one of the causes. One of the symptoms is prices, and this bill helps improve transparency, and when that doesn’t work, it gives us a really good, nimble, responsive regime to respond to that. Consumers want their purchasing power back. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Todd Muller for five minutes.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s great to see that the Green Party and the ACT Party are still having the debate to my left. The mischievous part of me listening to that conversation thinks, wouldn’t it be hilarious to have a grand coalition postOctober just to see their faces as they seek to carve out for the New Zealand populace their vision of the future as they drag the centre-left party left and the centre-right party right. Well, you know, we’re not Germany, so that won’t happen—as I said, too mischievous for a long Tuesday afternoon.

There is a clear philosophical difference when you sit and listen to this debate. I haven’t sat through the select committee. But on the one hand, you have an incumbent Government that looks at prices at the pump rising rapidly. We all understand a lot of that is driven by global forces, but as has already been outlined, there are significant taxes that get put on the top of that. Actually, getting close to three bucks a litre is getting really tough for a lot of families, so they create this sense that perhaps what’s sitting beneath this is a cabal of oil companies that should be smashed. And so the Commerce Commission gets sent on the way to do some sniffing, comes back with a view—some of which, I think, makes sense: there should be a bit more transparency with respect to the terminal gate price that gets adopted.

But that’s not good enough for this Labour Government; there needs to be a threat of regulation where a Minister can decide, in the future if the prices are still high—and it’s coming up to an election—to ask the commission to go and look again with the regulatory backstop of essentially a Government stepping into the market and saying this is what the price should be. And as has been articulated by many on this side of the House, the Government stepping in and trying to decide what a market price should be is just a recipe for, at the very least, inefficiency but, frankly, worse than that: a whole lot of waste and additional cost for New Zealand businesses and society.

And then when you look at the detail of the bill and actually test the thinking that sits behind here, as we have sought to do through this process—and I appreciate we’re in the third reading as opposed to clause by clause analysis, but this clause struck me as interesting, clause 29C, which says that the terminal gate prices will be regulated or may be regulated when it is agreed or assumed by the Minister that the prices are above what would be expected in a competitive market. There’s no confirmation of what that criteria would be. So what’s above? Is it 5c above what everybody else is doing? Is it 10c? There is no logic apart from a subjective assessment, which will be absolutely driven by a political determination by the Minister at the time. This is a political, sensitive issue. Therefore, let’s create a regulatory impost to give the impression we’re doing something but, at the same time, ignoring the fact that the great driver of wholesale prices is what’s happening globally and that the impact on retail prices is the function of the various road, excise, and GST taxes—and emissions trading scheme (ETS) taxes—that actually inflate the petrol price to be quite a punitive and tough cost for a lot of New Zealand families.

And that then sits at the core of the lack of logic in terms of the Government’s approach, because with the same breath, they will talk about the leadership they are seeking to take with respect to climate change action, but at the same time, they will water down ETS settings, will make sure that the price that arguably should be reflected at the price pump, reflecting the cost of carbon in that vehicle—they will dilute that because of political pressure. So there’s a lack of logic. There’s a lack of coherence. And, again, we would say there is a far better area of focus that the Government should be working on, which is sorting this economy and reducing the cost of living for New Zealanders.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to be taking the Māori Party slot on the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill, third reading. I was just reflecting on what people were saying this morning. But just reflecting on the reasons for this bill, if we reflect back to 2022, and the high price in volatility, there was some indication then that some regulatory backstop mechanism was necessary. So, hence, here we are, and I want to commend this bill to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, too, would like to commend this bill to the House. It talks about encouraging competition and having a regulatory backstop. In the end, the people that will benefit from greater competition are always consumers. As somebody who does own a business and has been very much in a position to see what competition does—and thrives—this is what we need and it will result in lower fuel prices. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. We are here under urgency, debating the third reading of a Government piece of legislation called the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill. Although I didn’t have an opportunity to sit on the select committee and hear submissions from interested parties, I have been listening very carefully to the debate this afternoon across the Parliament, and I want to pick up on a point that my colleague Todd Muller made about this bill. Innocuous as it might at first seem, it actually is a marker of a fundamental philosophical difference between members of the parliamentary left wing—the Government, the Green Party—and members on this side of the House: the ACT Party and the National Party who have a completely different approach to free enterprise, to markets, to capital, and to how to encourage an economy to thrive, grow, and to be contributing to the welfare and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.

So this is a piece of legislation that, listening to the Minister giving her speech leading off this debate, my colleague Stuart Smith said sounded like almost she was lulling the House into a sense of a sweet lullaby—almost a bedtime story—that this was a bill that was designed to be sweetness and light, and everything was calm, and lovely, and nice. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. This is a piece of legislation that, essentially, creates a regulated market intervention, of the sort that we know from experience all around the world does not work. The number of situations, both in history and current today, where Governments have sought, maybe with good intentions, maybe with the best of motives, to intervene in market drivers—simply doesn’t work. In fact, not only do interventions of this sort not work, they don’t create the level playing field or the benefits for consumers that the perpetrators of legislation like this seek. In fact, more often than not, perverse outcomes are generated by market regulatory intervention of this sort.

Now, it’s worthwhile going back just a little bit in the history, because there was a period of time, towards—about this time last year, actually, when fuel prices were dramatically increasing, and the Government realised that they had a massive cost of living crisis on their hands. So they intervened in the arrangements relating to our emissions trading scheme (ETS) to artificially change the impact of the ETS on fuel prices by removing the fuel excise tax—reducing it for a period of time. Now, they were able to sustain that for the best part of a year or so, and people who bought petrol at the pump received a financial benefit funded by all taxpayers using borrowed money, which only actually added to the inflationary pressures that the Government finds itself still in today. A fundamental misunderstanding about how economies work, and how intervention of this sort impacts on it.

So they created inflationary pressures within our economy already under pressure, under stress, and today we’ve seen the impacts of it with a non-tradable inflation rate of 6.6 percent. Remarkable—6.6 percent—

Hon Louise Upston: Ouch!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Ouch—my colleague Louise Upston says “Ouch!”, and she’s absolutely right because that hurts consumers. This piece of legislation, as feel-good as the Government may want it to be, hurts consumers, because intervening in a market in a regulated way ultimately will create perverse outcomes that will be detrimental to consumers, and nothing good will come from it.

So on this side of the House, we stand opposed to the legislation not only on the basis of principle but on the basis of practicality as well. What we don’t know from this piece of legislation are some of the very basic questions that need answering. So what does unreasonable pricing mean? Who decides what is unreasonable and what’s reasonable? Is that simply a creation of a Minister sitting on the Labour Party’s current front bench, or is that a reasonable test that is decided by market players? Or is that a reasonable test that is decided by consumers who are free to make decisions, for instance, whether they want to drive a fossil fuel driven vehicle or not? There are some, like myself, who choose not to. So petrol pump prices are actually quite irrelevant. One of the great things about driving an electric vehicle is that suddenly—suddenly—petrol pricing becomes utterly irrelevant to your life in every respect; it becomes utterly irrelevant. So there are a range of options for consumers to adopt and adapt to, should they wish. But no, here is a Government determined to act upon their philosophical base, which is to put their sticky fingers into the marketplace and then give it a good stir and hope that their intentions will result in what they think will happen.

Well, I’ve got news for them. I think that the opportunity for perverse outcomes is very high. So we come back to questions that need answering. So who decides the point at which this intervention will be made? Who decides what’s reasonable? Who decides what the pricing will be, and how is it going to work in practice? These are questions that are superficially addressed by Government members. They don’t seem to be addressed in any detail. I find it hilarious that Government members should stand up and then proceed to lecture members on this side of the House about the economy, about economics, and about how markets work, or they don’t work, because what we know for absolute truth is that the current Labour Government, like all socialist Governments around the world, have no understanding about how economies work. They have no understanding about how markets work, and cannot resist the opportunity to meddle in them.

So we think on this side of the House that this legislation, as well-meaning as I think Government sincerely believes it to be, but we think on this side of the House, that this is really a solution looking for a problem. A solution looking for a problem that the Government hasn’t identified, can’t control, and will not be able to resile from once it is imposed. So ultimately, our opposition to this legislation is not so much with the Government’s intent, because I think everybody has an intent to try and make things better for consumers. But by meddling in a regulated way, in a regulated marketplace, no good can come from that. No good can come from that at all.

So on this side of the House, we oppose this legislation. We don’t support it, and we think that the current Government should actually go back to school and learn a little bit about how economies work, learn a little bit about proper economics, and get on to a better understanding of what damage they’ve done to our economy, what damage continues to be done by this Government, and how a re-elected National-led Government in October is going to have to get the country back on track.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am one of many MPs that are deeply committed to addressing the cost of living challenges in front of many Kiwis at the moment. When we look at the basics of what people need, absolutely the cost of petrol at the pump is one of those priorities. I find it quite naïve that some people in this House think that Government shouldn’t be involved in addressing the market challenges—market challenges that were identified back in 2019, when the Commerce Commission published its retail engine fuel market study. This piece of legislation adopts the recommendation from that study to address the issues that were raised. And I think it’s responsible of a Government like ours to step in and address those. So this is taking action to that; it’s enabling and enacting those recommendations. So, with that, I commend it to the House.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill will ensure that Kiwis can continue the great tradition of coming together with family, friends, and their community to support their teams during the men’s Rugby World Cup—in particular, of course, the mighty All Blacks, but also, I hope, some other teams as well. For myself, I’ll be supporting the Georgian team, the Lelos—a great contender. The bill achieves this by allowing licence holders to extend their trading hours to televise live games from the tournament without applying for a special licence. We know hospitality businesses have had it tough over the past few years, and this bill will support them by changing the law to ensure that they can maximise the benefits of this highly anticipated tournament with the fans.

Businesses will now be able to remain open outside of normal trading hours when televising Rugby World Cup matches from France, which will happen outside of those normal trading hours, and it’ll mean businesses won’t have to go through the special licence process. These provisions in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 work well most of the time, but licence holders run into challenges with this process when it comes to televised Rugby World Cup tournaments.

This bill is a practical solution that provides a more expedient and flexible way for licence holders to extend their trading hours. Making this temporary change does not give a free pass or a cut out to anyone who wants to extend their hours. First, the bill sets eligibility criteria. Extended trading hours are only available to current on-licence and club licence holders whose licences haven’t been varied or suspended in the past year. Second, licence holders will need to take some action themselves to extend their trading hours by notifying police and local councils in writing at least seven days beforehand. And third, the bill regulates opening and closing times for the extended trading hours. Unless the first game of the night is within two hours of the usual closing time for the venue, they will need to close at the end of the usual day before reopening for the match.

This bill makes it clear that the extended trading hours will be treated in the same way as the premises’ usual trading hours. All requirements and conditions under the Act and licensing conditions on the individual premises continue to apply unless the bill explicitly overrides them. Licence holders are still liable for offences under the Act and all the usual police powers remain.

I do want to thank submitters for their input into the select committee process, and the Justice Committee for its very hard work on this bill. I’m pleased the committee has unanimously recommended that the bill be passed largely unchanged. The committee has recommended two minor changes to the bill. These changes were suggested by submitters with operational experience, and they improve the overall clarity of the bill. I welcome these changes as I think they’ll make it easier for licence holders to understand what they need to do and will improve the police’s ability to enforce those provisions. I note that most submitters in fact discussed broader themes within the alcohol regulation and suggested changes to the Act which fall outside of the scope of this bill. I appreciate those suggestions and they will inform the Minister of Justice’s future work.

But, for now, I look forward to—with rugby fans throughout Aotearoa—being able to back their team in France whilst also supporting our local hospitality businesses. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. At 2 p.m., the House will hold oral questions. This debate will resume after that. This sitting is suspended.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly my decision to wish the member a very happy birthday! But I particularly stand by the Government’s decision to introduce a new offence to prosecute ram raids: a new Youth Court pathway enabling 12- to 13-year-olds to be brought before the Youth Court for ram-raiding. We’re also extending the successful circuit breaker intervention programme, which has worked for nearly 75 percent of the young people referred to it. The measures introduced to date to combat youth offending have been working for most kids, but we recognise that we need more tools in the tool box to respond to the worst repeat offenders. Nobody wants to see any child or young person locked up, and that’s why these changes are part of a continuum of work focused on prevention, protection, and accountability that breaks the cycle.

Christopher Luxon: When does he expect inflation to return to 3 percent, like in the US and Canada?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a range of forecasts, but if you look at the Government agencies, most of them would be forecasting that in the second half of next year.

Christopher Luxon: Does he agree his rampant spending of an extra billion dollars of spending each and every week has contributed to inflation in New Zealand now being higher than all the major Asia-Pacific economies, including the US, Canada, Australia, Singapore, China, and Japan?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Actually, if the member looks at the current Government’s spending and the spending over the forecast period, Government spending as a proportion of GDP is declining—and, actually, the most recent Government spending numbers indicate that Government spending is down.

Christopher Luxon: Does he think spending $200 million on a light rail business case, $1.7 billion on consultants, or $51 million on a cancelled bike bridge are actually good value for money, or are they just more examples of wasteful spending driving up inflation?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if we just take one of those figures—the spending on consultants that the member has just mentioned—I would note that those consultants work on a range of different projects, many of which the National Party are arguing we should do more of.

Christopher Luxon: Why, with the country in a recession and inflation at record highs, did he waste months designing a wealth tax when he should have been designing an economic growth plan?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has an economic growth plan. I note, for example, the work that we have done to increase our international trade, including one of the most successful track records of any New Zealand Government in entering trade agreements around the world. Unlike the members opposite, we don’t just talk a big game on trade; we actually deliver results.

Christopher Luxon: Why has this fantastic economic growth plan led to New Zealand being the only country in a recession in the Asia-Pacific region?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The economy is 6 percent bigger than it was before the global pandemic. Members can take quarter-by-quarter figures if they want to, but, if you look at the totality of the period since COVID-19, our economic performance rates pretty well compared to the other economies that we would typically compare ourselves to.

Christopher Luxon: Why are we the only country in the Asia-Pacific region in a recession, then?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If you look at the most recent quarterly figures for economic growth, it factors in the severe effects of the cyclone. Without the cyclone, we would not be in recession.

Christopher Luxon: Wouldn’t it have been better, instead of spending millions of dollars and thousands of hours in the bureaucracy developing a wealth tax, for that resource to actually have been focused on stopping wasteful spending so that Kiwis can get to keep more of what they earn?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note once again that, when the member talks about wasteful spending, he fails to acknowledge what the increase in Government spending has been driven by—by population growth; by increased wages for our teachers, our doctors, and our nurses; and by the introduction of programmes that New Zealanders rely on. And I note that he still isn’t indicating how the National Party is going to make its promises add up. They keep promising to spend more money and cut money at the same time. It’s no wonder Nicola Willis fails to produce an alternative fiscal plan—because she simply can’t make it add up.

Christopher Luxon: Why haven’t we seen an 80 percent improvement in education or an 80 percent improvement in health or infrastructure or roading, given an 80 percent increase in Government spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is a ridiculous suggestion. The population has grown. Costs have increased. Teachers’ salaries have increased. The run-down nature of the education system that we’ve inherited has required a significant investment to bring it back up to a 21st century standard. Are we focused on improving educational outcomes? Yes, we are. Are we concerned about the disruption that our education system has experienced over the last three years? Yes, we are particularly concerned about that. Has that had an impact on kids’ engagement and kids’ learning? Yes, it has. Do we need to do more in those areas? Yes, we do. Are we doing more in those areas? Yes, we are.

Christopher Luxon: Why is it that he thinks the success of a Government should be measured on how much is spent rather than the results that are achieved?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t.

Christopher Luxon: Why is it that, when the books are looking dodgy, his Government’s only response is to whack Kiwis with new taxes instead of reining in wasteful spending?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject the member’s question. The Government has been very focused on balancing the books. We have to recognise that we’ve been dealing with some of the most challenging economic circumstances any Government has faced since the Great Depression, and we have managed to support New Zealanders through that very successfully. Is it a difficult economic environment at the moment? Yes, it is. Will we see New Zealanders through that? Yes, we will.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about supporting people impacted by the extreme weather events?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This morning, I was pleased to announce that the Government is providing support to displaced homeowners impacted by recent extreme weather events. The interim payment will be available from 4 September 2023, made weekly and directly to homeowners, and set at 100 percent of the average rent declared by accommodation supplement recipients in the recipient’s region. Having visited a few of the impacted areas and met informally with residents, I’m hopeful that this is the security and certainty they both need and deserve as they continue to plan and recover from the extreme weather events.

Anna Lorck: How much support will homeowners receive?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The amount will be scaled according to the homeowner’s location and household make-up. For example, a two-parent family with three children in Auckland could receive up to $610 per week through this programme. We based the settings for this support on the Canterbury Temporary Accommodation Assistance put in place following the earthquakes, but are making sure that we continue to work on an enduring solution, building on the experience in Canterbury.

Anna Lorck: What further announcements has the Minister made in addition to the Temporary Accommodation Assistance package?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yesterday, in Thames-Coromandel, I announced the social sector recovery plan. The plan helps to ensure people’s needs will continue to be met over the next two years through a suite of tangible actions. Some examples of where the funding is going to include personalised support and referral services for people impacted by land-zoning change; support for students who have missed school, so they can catch up on lost learning; education and training for providers to support whānau, rangatahi, and tamariki with anxiety and mental wellbeing; and support for volunteers and community workers suffering burnout.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that it’s unacceptable that the civil defence payment has not been updated in 20 years, and, if so, when will she commit to increasing it to adequately support families affected by severe weather events?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I have said to the member in the past, the civil defence payment is attached to hardship grants, and because they haven’t been lifted, neither has the amount that you can access through the civil defence payment. However, numerous families accessed the civil defence payment more than once. It was certainly based on their circumstances and need.

Anna Lorck: How else is the Government supporting regions impacted by the weather events?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Whilst in Thames-Coromandel yesterday, I announced a boost in support for local tourism and businesses. Government have committed $200,000 to support promotion efforts to help bring visitors back into a part of the country which was badly affected by Cyclone Gabrielle. We’re working alongside the council and local businesses to make sure New Zealanders know that the Coromandel is open for business over the coming summer.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his answer to my question yesterday, asking on which date the Prime Minister informed him he would rule out the introduction of a wealth tax, that “In the lead-up to the final Budget paper going to Cabinet, which I believe was on 11 April”; if so, has the Prime Minister asked him to develop any proposals for delivering income tax reduction since 11 April 2023?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Nicola Willis: Are the rumours correct—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Nicola Willis: —the last rumours were correct—that the wealth tax was ruled out for inclusion in this year’s Budget but the Prime Minister kept it under active consideration for future Budgets, stringing the finance Minister on in the false hope that his big tax dreams may yet come true, only to then shatter that hope by way of last week’s press release from Lithuania?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Storytime with Nicola.

SPEAKER: Order!

Nicola Willis: You strung him along.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Storytime with Nicola.

SPEAKER: When you’re ready, because I’m going to make a ruling.

Chris Bishop: Were you going to say that to him, too?

SPEAKER: Chris Bishop can stand, withdraw, and apologise. And you are lucky to be staying in the House.

Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: This week, there’s been a number of questions that have been asked—and answered—with a narrative before they’re asked which are bound to receive disorderly behaviour towards. We witnessed that one right there. I’m going to leave it up to the Minister to decide whether he wants to address any part of that, make any statement about it, or not answer at all.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member and I spent all of our time listening to and believing the rumours that circulate around this building, she’d be the Leader of the Opposition by now!

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement last week that ultimately the decision was made not to go ahead with a wealth tax “given the significance of the change in difficult and highly uncertain economic conditions”, and, if so, what are the economic conditions in which he believes New Zealand should introduce a wealth tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Nicola Willis: What are the economic conditions in which he believes New Zealand should introduce a wealth tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is a hypothetical question. What I do know is that the economic conditions that New Zealand is in right now are not the ones where a programme of unfunded tax cuts that would proportionately benefit the wealthiest New Zealanders are a good thing to do, as the member would propose.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it the case that a wealth tax remains firmly on his table, he’s just waiting for the economic conditions which will provide him a handy excuse—and this despite the pages and pages of warnings from taxpayer-funded advisers that introducing a wealth tax would completely undermine the innovation and entrepreneurship needed for a strong economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, that has been ruled out by the Prime Minister.

Question No. 4—Sport and Recreation

4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What support has the Government given to the hosting of the FIFA Women’s World Cup?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): The Government has invested $55 million to ensure a successful co-hosting of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 alongside Australia. Of this, around $25 million has been provided to support upgrades at sporting facilities across Aotearoa New Zealand. A further $10 million has been set aside to support a leverage and legacy programme, which includes around 50 activities and projects across the country. New Zealand Football has also received funding to help capitalise on the increase of interest in football off the back of the tournament to grow the game here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Sarah Pallett: How has the funding supported the upgrades of facilities at event venues and trading grounds?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the upgrades have happened in 30 sporting facilities across the country. They include pitch, lighting, and facility enhancements; unisex changing spaces; and event infrastructure. These upgrades are critical to ensure the success of the tournament, but will also benefit local communities, football clubs, and many different sporting codes that use these facilities for years to come.

Sarah Pallett: What support has been provided to leverage the event to create a long-term legacy for New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the decision to invest in this event aligns with the overall Government’s Strategy for Women and Girls in Sport and Active Recreation, which aims to grow female participation, create new female leaders, and raise the visibility of women’s sport. The $10 million leverage and legacy programme I mentioned is critical to supporting these outcomes. It includes a broad range of projects that drive benefits for Aotearoa New Zealand in education, sport, tourism, international relations, community development, business, health, culture, and conservation. Just one example is the GirlBoss programme, which is a collaboration between GirlBoss New Zealand and the Ministry of Education to use sport and the event as a platform to encourage young women to explore career pathways in psychology, sports science, advanced medicine, surgery, and other related fields.

Sarah Pallett: How does the Government’s support for the FIFA World Cup align with the Government’s women and girls sport strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In 2018, the Government launched New Zealand’s first ever women and girls in sport strategy, with three themes of participation, leadership, and valuing and visibility. I am proud of the strides that we’ve made in promoting women’s sport across New Zealand in the world. The FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2023 is the third of three World Cups that we have hosted for women—the ICC Cricket World Cup and the Rugby World Cup—along with the International Working Group World Conference on Women in Sport. By creating a platform such as this, we encourage and inspire women and girls to be involved in sport, and these types of events will play a key role in advancing the outcomes of the strategy. I’m looking forward to watching the Football Ferns take on Norway in the opening match at Eden Park tomorrow night, and I’m sure all members in the House will join me in wishing the team all the best.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will we be able to go? Will the House be sitting?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is a group of wāhine toa who every New Zealander should be proud of. Mr Brownlee, I’ll give you special leave to join me to go and support the Football Ferns.

Question No. 5—Land Information

5. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Land Information: Does he think it is acceptable that the Public Works Act continues to allow compulsory acquisition of Māori land; if not, when will Māori land be fully protected?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Land Information): To the first part of the question: yes. However, I would note to the member that compulsory acquisition of land under the Public Works Act is only ever the final step in a lengthy acquisition process. For Māori land specifically, the Crown recognises the special significance of Māori freehold land and always looks to employ methods other than compulsory acquisition. Compulsory acquisition is a tool to be used when the situation requires it, and without compulsory acquisition significant infrastructure like roads, railways, and schools simply would not happen.

Teanau Tuiono: What work, if any, has LINZ done on preventing compulsory acquisition on Māori land?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There’s been considerable work under way to consider the issues of Māori land, the views of Māori landowners, and to ensure that acquisition of Māori land does not occur when it is not necessary. We are aware of the issue, we’re working through it very carefully. But I’ll remind the member again: it only ever occurs if a greater good of a public asset is required for all New Zealanders.

Teanau Tuiono: How much Māori land has been compulsorily acquired since the Public Works Act was passed in 1981?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m afraid I don’t have that total area. I’m quite happy to answer that question, if you’d like to send it to me in written form.

Teanau Tuiono: Why are there no central records of Māori land taken through compulsory acquisition?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m sure there are. It’s just that I don’t have the information with me here now.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that in recent years a transmission line was put through in the Northland area on private land, that those that were subject to compulsory acquisition asserted it should go through Māori land instead, that the Crown supported the original position and the court upheld the fact that it shouldn’t go through Māori land, thereby showing that the Crown is actively protecting Māori interests?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I will confirm that and say that the Government is very sensitive to the complex issue of Māori land and the ownership of that. Should acquisition ever occur, it’s only at the end of a very long process involving extensive consultation with all landowners, particularly if they’re Māori landowners.

Teanau Tuiono: Will he direct LINZ to pick up the work programme signalled by Minister Mahuta in late 2019 to address issues with public works acquisitions of Māori land?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I know there’s been a lot of cross-agency discussion on this issue and I know that that work that was undertaken has progressed. At this stage, the one thing that Government has been concerned about is to ensure that the rights of Māori land owners is not overruled. But, at the end of the day, should acquisition of any of that land occur, it’s only for significant public assets and infrastructure that we all need to exist as a country.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he have confidence that all surplus land previously taken for public works is being returned to Māori land owners without financial disadvantage under current processes?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I am aware that the offer-back process is a very robust, open, and transparent one. I have no doubt that everyone is doing their very best to ensure the rights of all landowners, particularly Māori, are upheld through that process. It’s complex, sometimes lengthy, but I have no reason to believe that there are any injustices being imposed upon any Māori land owners.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What responsibility, if any, does he take for inflation having been above the Reserve Bank’s 3 percent target every quarter since June 2021?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just as in the period from the December 2017 quarter to the March 2021 quarter, when inflation sat within the Reserve Bank’s 1 to 3 percent target range, I accept that responsibility for managing that target range sits with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. I also accept responsibility for the Government’s fiscal decisions throughout the largest shock to the New Zealand economy since World War II. This has seen our economy at least 6 percent larger than it was before COVID, unemployment at record lows, and debt lower than many other countries we compare ourselves to. I would note that today’s inflation data reflects a continuation of the downward trend which has seen the annual inflation rate fall over successive quarters from its peak of 7.3 percent in June 2022.

David Seymour: How does the Minister explain to New Zealanders that tradeable inflation—things bought and sold overseas—is 5.2 percent, but non-tradeable inflation—buying and selling things within New Zealand—remains at 6.6 percent, the same as it was a year ago?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two things that I would explain that with. The first of those is that while I know the member wants to conflate non-tradeables with domestic, it doesn’t always exactly work. For example, the biggest increase we’ve seen in this particular quarter of data is in the construction sector. In the construction sector, 90 percent of the goods used in house-building are either imported or made from imported goods. Secondly, the weather events in the country have undoubtedly led to increases, particularly in food prices.

David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that non-tradeable inflation, excluding the purchase of new housing and, therefore, construction goods, is 6.3 percent higher than overall inflation, and, therefore, his excuse he’s trotted out so many times that non-tradeables are high because of construction goods simply ain’t true?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am aware of the definition, as the member is. I stand by my answer and I’d also continue to point out to the member that the period of time that we are dealing with here is one in which the weather events in New Zealand have had a significant impact across the economy, and I note that I’m not the only one saying that—as the member and I have previously discussed—but it’s also the planet on which Sharon Zollner lives.

David Seymour: Does the finance Minister believe that him borrowing and spending a net $121 billion of extra debt in the six years he’s been finance Minister might have just contributed a bit to local inflation, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, I stand by the financial and fiscal decisions the Government has made in the face of the biggest shock to the New Zealand economy since World War II. In this House, consistently over the last few years, members from all sides have called for there to be more spending to support New Zealanders through what has been a very, very challenging time. I’m sure the member will enjoy his role as a professor of hindsight economics; we don’t get to live in that role.

David Seymour: What would the finance Minister say to a family of four who are paying $110 a week more for groceries than they were when he became the Minister of Finance, and who are getting a little bit tired of his smart-arse remarks and excuses blaming everyone else?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to that family is that I recognise that for them, and many New Zealanders, these are incredibly difficult times. That is the reason why this Government has stepped up consistently to support families through lifting the family tax credit, through lifting childcare assistance rates, through lifting benefits, and through supporting New Zealanders through this period of time. What I’d also say to that family is that the alternative in an ACT Party - led economic policy would see them much, much worse off.

David Seymour: Does he really believe that if that family had two people on the average wage with them being $4,400 a year better off thanks to paying less tax while not a single front-line service is reduced is worse off—really?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, I do believe that because they would be entering into an era where, unfortunately, as the member’s former idol would say, there would be a political party in charge that “represents only the wealthy” and has been captured by a “small libertarian element who did not want public super or public healthcare at all”. I can hardly believe I’m quoting Roger Douglas in the House, but that’s what he said.

Question No. 7—Trade and Export Growth

7. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has he made about prospects for New Zealand’s trade?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): It was my privilege to travel to Brussels with the Prime Minister last week to officially sign New Zealand’s free-trade agreement with the European Union. This is a groundbreaking free-trade agreement that delivers our exporters unprecedented access to a market of 450 million people and an economy worth around $27 trillion. We expect that the European Union - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (EU-NZ FTA) will increase our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year by 2035. I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank the negotiating team, and all the officials who worked so hard to help us secure this fantastic deal for New Zealand.

Ibrahim Omer: How will the EU-NZ FTA benefit New Zealand business?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’ll try and summarise it briefly: once the FTA enters into force, 91 percent of New Zealand’s goods exports to the EU will be duty free, and that rises to 97 percent after just seven years. From day one, Kiwi exporters will save $100 million in tariff reductions, the highest immediate tariff savings ever delivered by a New Zealand free-trade agreement. This Government understands that trade is key to our economy and we’re committed to securing high-quality agreements like the EU-NZ FTA, which will cut costs for exporters, boost opportunities for small businesses, and create and protect jobs for Kiwi families.

Ibrahim Omer: How does the EU-NZ FTA support New Zealand’s primary sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, the EU-NZ FTA brings new opportunities and huge benefits for our world-leading primary sector exporters. Our horticultural sector will see $46 million in tariffs slashed from day one; our fish and seafood producers will see immediate removal of $20 million in tariffs; major honey exporting regions like Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and Coromandel will benefit from the phased removal of 17 percent tariff on honey over three years, and for mānuka honey that will be eliminated from day one. Our dairy and red meat sectors will see the opportunity for over $600 million in additional export revenue to the EU per year, once fully implemented, with quotas, that, if filled, could see New Zealand provide 60 percent of the EU’s butter imports, and 96 percent of the EU’s sheep meat imports. This Government understands the role that export earnings play in the success of our primary industries, and the EU-NZ FTA delivers new opportunities for our primary producers.

Ibrahim Omer: How does the EU-NZ FTA support the Government’s Trade Recovery Strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This Government recognises that trade is crucial to our economic success, and we know that one in four New Zealanders’ jobs depend upon trade. That’s why, as part of our Trade Recovery Strategy, we’re committed to opening as many doors as possible for Kiwi exporters. Since 2017, since this Government came in, this Government has secured seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—

Hon David Parker: How many did they do?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Parker—Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the EU - NZ FTA, the United Kingdom - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, and China and Singapore trade upgrades. Labour’s record on trade is historic, and we have delivered time and time again for our exporters and our economy.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How does she explain Health NZ statements that emergency department wait-time data could be “two or three [quarterly] reports away”, and have emergency department wait times increased or decreased this year to date?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question, the statement from Dr Richard Sullivan, interim national medical lead for Te Whatu Ora, was that the publication of emergency department (ED) admissions data will be delayed—not emergency department wait times. To answer the second part of this question about emergency department wait times, Te Whatu Ora recently published its clinical performance metrics for the reporting period January to March 2023. Overall, the proportion of emergency department stays under six hours decreased by 9 percent for the period from January to March 2022, to January to March 2023. ED presentations also increased by 9 percent during the same period. Te Whatu Ora does not yet have validated data available for the April to June 2023 quarter.

Dr Shane Reti: Will all 12 of the health performance indicators be reported going forward, and, if not, which will not be reported?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Indeed, the approach outlined following the publication of the report into these matters is that all 12 will be. However, there is a delay in the data for ED admissions because there is variation—as is gone into in great length in that report—in the way in which the admissions are coded.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the delay in ED admissions and ED wait times?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: If the member had read the last quarterly report, he would be aware that data on the shorter stays in ED figure—commonly called the ED wait times—has been published.

Dr Shane Reti: Has she or her office had any involvement in preventing ED wait times from being publicly reported, and, if so, what involvement?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Throughout this discussion about the importance of this data, I have maintained that it is incredibly important that this data is available and that this report was undertaken in order to make sure that high-quality data is available, and I back the team to make sure they have the right data before it is published.

Dr Shane Reti: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked if her or her office had any involvement in preventing the publication of ED wait time data.

SPEAKER: Does the member want to ask the question again?

Dr Shane Reti: Certainly. Has she or her office had any involvement in preventing ED wait times from being publicly reported, and, if so, what involvement?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have, at the time that—no—at the reports that—the role of my office has to be—has been to request that Te Whatu Ora publish the correct data.

SPEAKER: I’ll give the member an additional question, if he wishes to take it.

Dr Shane Reti: Has she issued any instructions to officials to withhold ED wait time data, and, if so, when?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The member raised concerns publicly about errors in emergency department data. I asked Te Whatu Ora to ensure they publish the correct data.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I could see you thinking very carefully about that answer, and I suggest to you that it still wasn’t addressed. Dr Reti asked not whether data should be published when it is accurate, but whether the Minister or her office had an involvement in the delay of that data.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Consistently, you have never required a yes or no answer to such a question. On three occasions, the Minister made quite clear what her involvement was in that process.

SPEAKER: The member is correct; I was thinking really carefully about it. In hindsight, I probably should have offered another question. I think it hasn’t been addressed, so I’m going to ask the member to ask it again.

Dr Shane Reti: Has she at any time offered instructions to her office to withhold the public reporting of ED wait time data, and, if so, when?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There was a protracted period of time where there were concerns about the accuracy of ED data that Te Whatu Ora held, and consistently throughout that, I maintained a position that the correct data should not be released—sorry, the correct data should be released.

SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Order! Be quiet. [Interruption] Quiet!

Question No. 9—Tourism

9. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Tourism: What recent announcements has the Government made about increased capacity for international tourism in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): Great news: I was recently in China where, alongside the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, we announced new China to New Zealand direct airline connections, which will significantly increase the capacity of incoming tourists every month. We’re actively working to attract visitors globally, including from China, that match our tourism objectives and who will positively contribute to New Zealand’s economic recovery.

Naisi Chen: What new air routes have been announced?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The new China Southern Airlines itinerary includes the reinstatement of the Guangzhou-Christchurch connection and the introduction of three additional services between Guangzhou and Auckland. The increased capacity will bring approximately 7,000 seats per month. These additional routes add to the direct air connections between our two countries, which are expected to grow to at least 80 percent of pre-COVID levels by September 2023.

Naisi Chen: How is this announcement expected to help drive the economic recovery?

Hon PEENI HENARE: International visitors spent $3.2 billion in New Zealand in the first quarter of 2023, up from $1.8 billion in the December 2022 quarter. This $3.2 billion makes international tourism the second-highest export earner for the quarter, behind dairy exports. For this reason, China remains an important tourist market to New Zealand. With borders open and tourists returning to our shores, this announcement will make visiting from China even easier and will help drive our economic recovery.

Naisi Chen: Why is it important to strengthen the reconnection with China?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Research shows that the Chinese visitors post-pandemic are seeking more open spaces, wildlife, and more immersive experiences. Chinese visitors are increasingly seeking to explore New Zealand through road trips, camping, campervan holidays, and in smaller, more tailored tour groups. There is an increased willingness to spend more for high-quality travel, accommodation, and experiences, which will contribute positively to New Zealand’s economic recovery. Equally, research shows that Chinese visitors are interested in participating in Māori cultural experiences, which Te Matatini champions Te Whānau-a-Apanui successfully promoted as a culture lead for our trade mission to China.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes; in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can she explain why she told Parliament yesterday that Cabinet agreed to make a new offence for using a young person to commit a crime, punishable by 10 years in prison, when that was the same mistake the Prime Minister made on Monday, which he had to correct 90 minutes later, since Cabinet actually agreed to make it an aggravating factor for sentencing?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I was referring to Cabinet’s consideration of the two options as part of the package that we considered on Monday. To the latter point, ultimately, the Prime Minister has accepted responsibility and acknowledged the mistake that was made with respect to the announcement of those materials. The fact remains we’re creating a new aggravating factor that would apply when an adult, whether or not connected to an organised crime group, commissions a person under 18 to carry out an offence.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is the Government so muddled about its justice policies three months before an election?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: We’re not.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she still stand by her tweet on 18 June: “locking people up and throwing away the key is exactly what gangs want. They want NZers to pay for their university of crime.”; if so, how did it inform her announcement today that certain crimes need tougher consequences?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes, I do stand by that tweet and, in particular, in the full context it was made. I particularly stand by the component that says that the National Party’s law and order policy lacks any evidential foundation.

Question No. 11—Arts, Culture and Heritage

11. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What reports has she seen about how Kiwis around Aotearoa marked Te Rā Aro ki a Matariki 2023?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Te Rā Aro ki a Matariki 2023, the first distinctly New Zealand public holiday, was celebrated last Friday for the second time, and it was exciting to see how people of all backgrounds embraced it and got involved with their local community. This year’s theme was “Matariki Kāinga Hokia - Matariki calls you home”, and this could be clearly seen from the events organised by local marae, hapū, and iwi, family fun gatherings organised by councils, and individual whānau and family coming together. As the Minister, I was honoured to attend the live nationally broadcasted traditional hautapu ceremony at Mount Ngongotahā in Rotorua alongside my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare. The broadcast also featured pre-recorded events from around the country showcasing other tribal variations, such as puanga. I was hugely appreciative of the efforts of Ngāti Whakauē made to host us for the hautapu. They shared their aroha for Matariki with all New Zealanders and helped to increase awareness and education on its significance. As I said on Friday, when I think about Matariki, it’s not necessarily about following rules or regimented traditions but rather about embracing the values and principles of Matariki: remembrance, celebrating the present, and looking to the future. Those values can be as simple and universal as aroha and te taiao, appreciating the people, and respecting our environment.

Arena Williams: What reports has she seen about the success of the Matariki Ahunga Nui Fund for 2023?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Celebrations across Aotearoa have been significantly enhanced through over $3 million of the Matariki Ahunga Nui Fund, which saw 120 successful applicants receive funding to host events and wānanga in 2023. The fund is inclusive of all unique iwi variations of Matariki that exist, such as puanga, and is inclusive of different iwi having distinct approaches to calculating and acknowledging the timing of the Māori New Year. For 2023, the contestable funding was designed to support Māori communities in leading and delivering Te Kāhui o Matariki - focused initiatives that regenerate mātauranga Matariki in line with the celebration of the public holiday. I have been advised that there were many thoughtful and high-quality applications which demonstrated the deep aroha for Matariki, and so much so that the fund was heavily oversubscribed—receiving a total of 321 applications. This is a real sign of the widespread desire to continue to tautoko and celebrate the public holiday.

Arena Williams: What evidence has she seen of positive impact of Te Rā Aro ki a Matariki as a public holiday for Aotearoa?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: While many of us already have Matariki traditions through Te Rā Aro ki a Matariki, this has been shared and embraced right across the country. In 2022, it is estimated that the benefit of Matariki to domestic tourism was up to $160 million, and we anticipate it being similar in 2023. As Kiwis, we’re out and about across the motu, visiting whānau and friends and visiting other rohe—certainly what I saw in Rotorua. The indications from initial social media monitoring are that people were keen to find out about Matariki events near them, with the event pages on matariki.com increasing in views from 6,621 in 2022 to 10,375 in 2023 for the same period, and there were over 15,000 more overall visits or clicks to the website in June and July compared to the same period last year.

Arena Williams: How is the Government supporting Matariki in the years ahead?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: As part of Budget 2023, this Government announced a further investment of $18 million over four years to build on the initial momentum from the inaugural public holiday and to see expanded public awareness and understanding of Matariki. We know that cultural identity has benefits for all New Zealanders as a way of coming together, celebrating our rich history, culture, language, practices, and ceremonies, and as noted by Dr Rangi Mātāmua, Chief Adviser - Mātauranga Matariki, traditions don’t just happen; they need commitment and participation to thrive. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is demonstrating that necessary commitment and is always looking to create new ways to uplift and enhance wellbeing for all. Mānawatia a Matariki!

Question No. 12—Education

12. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context that they were given and taken.

Erica Stanford: How could she possibly believe that leaving chemistry, physics, and biology out of the draft science curriculum was a good idea, leaving the ministry to work on this curriculum for months without her intervention when teachers are now saying it’s embarrassing and will lead to an “appalling” decline in student achievement?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The member is wrong. The final curriculum will include chemistry, physics, biology, and other core science topics. That is not in question.

Erica Stanford: Can she name any other country that doesn’t mention the words “chemistry”, “biology”, and “physics” in their science curriculum?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I refer the member to my first answer.

Voting

Corrections

SPEAKER: Members, I have a number of corrections to votes—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. When the House was in committee on the Therapeutic Products Bill, the result of the vote on the question that Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to Schedule 1 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 be agreed to was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 42, Noes 71. The correct result is Ayes 41, Noes 71.

Also in the vote on the question that Schedule 4 as amended stand part, the vote was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 72, Noes 41. The correct result is Ayes 74, Noes 41.

When the House was in committee on the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill, the result of the vote on the question that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 65, Noes 44. The correct result is Ayes 75, Noes 44. The record will be corrected.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Point of order. Kia ora. I wish to correct a vote that was placed in my name for the third reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill.

SPEAKER: So you’re seeking leave for that?

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Yes, I seek leave of the House to correct that.

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

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: I wish to record my vote as one vote in opposition to the third reading of the bill.

SPEAKER: Thank you. The report will be corrected.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, in this House, in justice areas, there are many areas where different MPs from different parties disagree very strongly about policies. An example today was the Prime Minister talking about ram raids and saying, “It’s society’s fault that these ram raids are happening.” We disagree with that strongly. We believe that personal responsibility needs to be restored in this country and that we need to end the culture of excuses for crime that we see in our communities. So there’s much that we disagree on, and that’s why we fight so hard and will be fighting over the next three months to have the privilege to lead the next Government.

But when it comes to World Cups and Rugby World Cups, in particular, and allowing New Zealanders to come together and celebrate and enjoy hospitality during the time of the World Cup, we do—with the exception of the Greens, I think—come together as a House and agree, because it is important. New Zealanders love their rugby, they love their World Cups, they love going down to the local place to get a bacon butty and a beer, if required, in very late hours, to watch the game, to watch the Kiwis—well, the All Blacks—succeed and to restore the World Cup to us. And so, when it comes to the legislation that enables that to happen, we’re all for it. And so this is what the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill seeks to achieve.

It is a little bit surprising that we have to come up with urgent legislation every time and that we haven’t been able to come up with something that works every time there is a World Cup, but perhaps the priorities of the Government have been elsewhere. It would have been good if they’d focused on dealing with, well, I could name a lot of priorities that the Government—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The clock hasn’t started.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, the clock hasn’t started. Well, that’s all right, I can go for as long as we need to on this bill, Madam Speaker, if we need to. But I think the point I want to make is that when we’re out on the campaign trail, people do often make the point, “Wouldn’t it be great if you politicians could work together on issues that affect us, in unison?” And we do that from time to time on issues such as this, where we all agree that New Zealanders do enjoy Rugby World Cups, they do want to be able to go, without an enormous amount of rigmarole and fuss and bureaucracy, to the local restaurant or pub late in the night—it might be three in the morning, might be four in the morning when the All Blacks are playing or, heaven forbid, the South Africans or Australians are playing—and watch the game. So this legislation was required—and I can go into the details of it, but I don’t think anybody’s particularly interested in the details of it.

But I do make the point that we do disagree on a lot of stuff also, and that’s fitting and appropriate because that’s what Parliament is all about: testing ideas, putting forward proposals, making priorities. The Government’s priorities in justice have been clear: they want to reduce the prison population, irrespective of what’s going on. We disagree with that priority. We have different priorities. We want to reduce the number of victims of crime; that’s our fundamental priority in justice.

But when it comes to the issue of sale and supply of alcohol, we have a shared vision. We have a shared vision that New Zealanders, together, should celebrate the Rugby World Cup, enjoy it, enjoy some hospitality, as I say, and if that involves a beer, well, why not? Why not?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about logical consistency?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Greens are wowsers. They don’t enjoy any of this. They’ll try and stop us, but we enjoy a beer while we’re watching the rugby.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What could go with a bacon butty?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And I enjoy a bacon butty as well, although bacon has a lot of salt and I’m trying to cut back on my salt, but that’s by the by. Some kind of sausage would be even worse. But I’m off topic. The purpose of this bill is to make eligible on-licence and club licence holders able to extend their trading hours to televise games for the Rugby World Cup coming up. It makes sense and I don’t think I need to say anything further about it, but we support this bill and we commend it to the House. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was very entertaining; I did enjoy that contribution from the Hon Paul Goldsmith. I won’t match his contribution by telling you what snacks I enjoy while I’m watching sport.

I thought I might speak to the select committee report very briefly. There are two changes that we made at the Justice Committee, and we didn’t have many submissions but they were really to point. We had 10 submissions and we heard from three submitters.

The first change we made was changing the term “outside area” to “open area”. This is new section 45E(1)(c), in clause 4 of the bill, which restricts the use of outdoor areas, and you can imagine why our first discussion was whether that was valid, given that entities were still subject to having a code or an agreement which restricted noise. We got over that hurdle and then went to look at what the meaning of “outside area” was, and, as it wasn’t defined in the Act, we then looked to a resolution. There was an interesting drafting question, which was whether a piece of legislation that’s only intended to stand for a period of time should define a term like this. We decided that it shouldn’t and we should learn from existing terminology, which led us to adopt the term “open area” instead. So that was a fascinating discussion that we had on that term.

Then the second change was—and, again, this came up from what we heard from submitters. They spoke to us about non-compliance with the notices that entities were supposed to make visible in terms of the extended hours that they intended to operate. So we proposed inserting new section 45F, in clause 4, to ensure that there was no confusion about liability in those cases.

There was another set of issues that was raised with the select committee, which was deemed to be outside the scope of the bill. I will speak to those issues as well, perhaps in the third reading, because I do think they’re relevant to the bigger areas of alcohol harm that we must, as a House, grapple with. But, in this instance, I think for our part the select committee as a whole, in terms of all the participants there, believe that this was a valid carve-out area, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): There are 51 days until the All Blacks and France run out on to the field of Stade de France for what is going to be a cracking good game at the start of a cracking tournament, I hope. One of the features, I think, of the 2023 World Cup is that for the first time in 10 tournaments, six, seven, or eight teams could well lift the trophy at the end of it. I think world rugby has tried to grow the game to the point where it is a truly global sport, and while it means that the All Blacks perhaps aren’t always the dominant force that they have been in the past, we get a much richer tournament as a consequence.

So I’ll be somewhere watching the All Blacks and France on 8 September, but also watching those many other teams who will be vying for the trophy. Now, if that is in a pub somewhere near the Octagon—or in the Octagon—on that morning, the greater likelihood is not that I’ll be holding an Emerson’s pilsner but that I’ll have a long black and a bacon butty. But if it is the prerogative of those patrons and me and anybody else to actually have a beer with their breakfast—or a champagne, or whatever other beverage might suit them—then this bill is going to enable that.

Now, what was interesting about the select committee process was that I think we have now become so used to the idea that this an appropriate, safe, and good thing to do that there were only 10 submissions, and I acknowledge those who submitted in opposition to it on the basis that alcohol remains potentially harmful for a small number of members of our community. I agree with that, and it’s incumbent on this House to manage that risk where it occurs. Overwhelmingly, it’s not going to be in a pub at 8 o’clock in the morning, watching the All Blacks play France, Ireland play Namibia, or any of the many other contests that we’re going to have, so I just want to acknowledge that.

Just a technical matter: we are doing this under urgency, and I note that there could be a potential issue that might need to be addressed in the committee of the whole House at clause 4, inserting new section 45D(3). This is the provision where if a pub closes or its licence requires it to close within two hours of kick-off, it is nevertheless entitled to stay open for that period rather than close and re-open. But the wording of that is, “However, if the first or only game to be televised is to start no more than 2 hours after the end of the last period of permitted trading hours for the premises, the premises can stay open after that period, and until that game starts.” One reading of that is that it then has to close, which is actually the opposite of what we want to occur. Now, if one reads it in concert with new section 45D(4), inserted by clause 4, it then says, “The premises can be open during each game televised.”—I just think there’s rather sloppy wording in new section 45D(3), which may need the word “starts” to be changed to “30 minutes after the game ends”, which is actually the intent of the bill overall.

That little technical issue notwithstanding, I think, as Mr Goldsmith says, we continue to have to do these things quickly and under urgency—and there’s another milestone in 87 days, after which a more sensible Government may actually make a permanent change to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, in order that we don’t have to keep doing this every time we have major global events.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise in support of this bill. As some members of the House may be aware from my previous contributions in this matter, rugby and sport in general are not my strong suits. I am aware that this one involves the round ball—or is it the pointy ball? It’s one of them, but it’s very important. Rugby is extremely important, and I am very supportive of this bill.

It has been a really interesting process to work through, and I do want to thank the submitters. We had some really engaged, sensible submissions from people from the industry and from hospitality, as well as some people who raised issues around the need not to encourage problem drinking. But we will, I am sure, be addressing that in the third reading, and I look forward to talking about that. But suffice it to say at this point that we are assured that in the previous runs of this arrangement—in previous World Cups—there is no sign that it increased problem drinking or criminal behaviour.

I have now, since this reading and since the last time I addressed this House on the matter, a personal reason to support this bill further, which is that my husband and his two best friends from childhood have decided that they will be journeying to France, to Toulouse, to watch the game. So I will be watching particularly, myself, not only for the wonder that is rugby but also in the hope that I will catch a glimpse of Thomas. I commend this bill to the House.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you very much. The draw for this tournament was held on 14 December 2020 at the Palais Brongniart in Paris, and the actual match schedule itself was released on Friday, 26 February 2023—48 matches in total. ACT went to work, and by 18 March, the day after St Patrick’s Day this year, we presented the Government with this bill. All they had to do was put “2023” on the title and get it into select committee.

Now, this is a bill that just needed to be fast-tracked, and now we have a matter of days before the police and publicans have to bring this together at an implementation level. Passing this under urgency is completely ridiculous. This should have been sorted the day ACT brought its bill in, and it either shows a contempt for the process in this House or it shows a contempt for the hospitality industry in New Zealand—and I would wager that that’s not a priority for this Government. ACT has always supported publicans, bars, and anybody who’s got a lounge where, from a rugby club, you can go and just enjoy yourselves and be free to do what you want.

Now, the chairperson of the Justice Committee called for submissions and there weren’t too many of them, and that sort of reinforces my point. But the bill does amend the liquor licence Act, and I can see already the agenda is coming through where it’s all about 2024, now, and rejigging the alcohol bills. So the fun police will be coming out in force for that one and they will be interfering once again.

Now, the licence for trading hours is pretty aggressive, and the extensions to the bill in terms of trading hours will show that you go in, you’ll have a fast event, and you’ll be chucked out on to the street at all hours. It sort of defies what hospitality is about. But the games will be played in a different time zone and many will be broadcast outside traditional trading hours, and that is the way it is.

Now, there is a role for the Parliament in this. As I’m heading towards retirement, I thought that myself and Sir Ian McKelvie designate, who could put on the Fred Dagg show, could come over with David Clark, who could cycle on his bike around the Champs-Élysées and the Pyrenees, and we could do a live broadcast from there and represent the nation and Parliament in a fair fashion, and really entertain the people back home in a live broadcast feed. But that way, not to pass. I would promise not to take two planes to Paris, because we only need to travel on a commercial airline and it will be 10 times less expensive than going to—and we can go via China, as well, to Europe. So therefore, I would not need two planes; I would only need one, and maybe two seats for my partner and I.

The bill itself is pretty tight now. The committee has done a good job of actually putting a fence around this. I have concerns about the implementation between the police force and the publicans, and I would hate to see anybody punished who didn’t display this properly, or who had to take the commercial decision that because either Ireland or the All Blacks were knocked out, they didn’t want to show any more games, or they were playing this on spec with regards to what they could show and what they couldn’t. Because a Sky licence is very expensive on a commercial basis, and to maximise the value of that, people have to make real commercial decisions. Therein lies another problem: the Government doesn’t understand what real commercial decisions actually mean at a local, micro level.

Implementing permanent legislation for this type of event, it makes sense over the long term. But, you know, we’ve got to embrace the fact that we trust publicans; we trust people who actually have to perform a duty of care for their citizens when they go and entertain them with alcohol, whether it’s a sports event or whether it’s something else. You know, we need to get to this basic level of trust where business can rebuild itself after what’s been a horrendous COVID scenario, what’s been a horrendous time with inflation. To get a dollar out of somebody’s pocket for a pint of beer, given the fact that it’s going up so much in terms of duties, is a hard task. Even with this legislation, they’ll be challenged to actually make money out of this situation.

So we recommend and support this legislation. We think the document now is in a state where, after a few questions at the committee of the whole House session, we should get there. ACT does support this and has always supported the industry to have this benefit, which should have been done in a much timelier fashion. We must, must get sensible about lawmaking under urgency, because this is just ridiculous. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Just to be really clear about what it is that we’re talking about when we’re talking about this legislation in front of the House today—as many have alluded to, obviously, the Rugby World Cup, which is the context of these changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—what we’re talking about is not increasing people’s ability to access watching that game; what we’re talking about is increasing people’s ability to access alcohol sales throughout the period of those games. Currently, the law as it’s set doesn’t prevent venues which would otherwise serve alcohol from opening at the time that the games are being played. It does, however, prevent them from serving alcohol during those times.

So I kind of foreshadowed what my contribution would be from members of the National Party in speaking earlier, but I think it’s actually really important to ground this contribution in the second reading and the regulatory impact statement (RIS) on this legislation. I’d refer members there to page 2, where it says, and I’ll just quote from it, “Alcohol is a harmful drug that contributes to a wide range of health, social, and justice-related harms and subsequent costs for society. The evidence-base also clearly connects increases in alcohol-related harm with both extended training hours and sports events. At the same time, the men’s RWC likely presents a significant commercial opportunity for on-licensed and club-licensed premises, as well as being a highlight on the calendar for rugby fans.”

Inherent in that is an admission of the fact, very explicitly, that there is a clear evidence base that increases in alcohol-related harm are connected to extended trading hours and sporting events. So the evidence base that the National Party was saying doesn’t exist actually does exist in the very regulatory impact statement as tabled to underpin this legislation.

But what we see in that advice from officials is pretty explicit trade-offs being made against harm and kind of commercial imperative. To that effect, I think it’s really important that we unpack one of the points as made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was saying that, you know, people have choices. They can decide whether it is that they may or may not want to have a beer with that 7 a.m. game, that that in and of itself doesn’t necessarily contribute towards harm. And I guess that is kind of the point, because, sure, that one drink in and of itself does not; the point is that alcohol harm, however, does not occur in a vacuum.

So just to zoom out a little bit and to look at the context, alcohol is Aotearoa New Zealand’s favourite drug—80 percent of New Zealanders consume it, and approximately a quarter of us do so to really harmful ends. We actually have some of the best research in the world with regard to the association of alcohol to mental ill-health, and particularly, at the most awful end of that, to suicidality. Some research out of the University of Otago, I believe it was—Dr Rose Crossin made that incredibly clear just a few months ago when releasing that research at the point in time that this House was actually debating the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill.

To that effect, we have to be really clear about when it is that we are enabling those commercial interests to override the potential for evidence-based interventions to reduce that harm. I don’t think anybody in this House could potentially accuse me of being a prohibitionist when it comes to any given substance, but the reality is that—

Dr James McDowall: Tell us more about it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —when we’re looking at regulating substances—I’d love to tell the ACT Party about it, because I’d love to tell them about logical consistency when it comes to substances. At one end of the extreme, you have complete criminal prohibition, and at the other end of the extreme you have a complete legal free market. At both ends of that spectrum, you have the maximisation of harm, because you have either corporate entities or criminal entities that are incentivised to exploit vulnerable communities in order to make a quick buck by selling as much of their product as is possible. So, Dr James McDowall from the ACT Party, what I would prefer is that we move away from those extremes into the space of what is called sensible, evidence-based regulation, and that is the logical consistency that the Greens have constantly been banging on about. Whether it is tobacco, whether it is cannabis, whether it is alcohol, we have the opportunity to be grown-ups in this country and create a level of consistency between, for example, the dog of legislation that is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

So the reason that the Greens do not support this legislation is just that fundamental lack of logical consistency, but it’s secondly the fact that the special licence provisions are actually probably working pretty well as intended to under the primary legislation at present. There’s actually not that much evidence that it’s not, and we see reflected in the RIS that this is just about simplifying that process.

Secondly, it’s that, actually, to a certain extent, I do agree with members of the ACT Party who are going to say that if we’re having to pass this under urgency every single time a world cup swings around—it’s not like that’s unpredictable—then maybe we should look at creating a framework that actually pre-empts this stuff in the first place, so that we’re not being the fastest lawmakers in the West, as that comes with, obviously, a range of downstream impacts.

Just finally, if I can just make an appeal to evidence-based law when it comes to substances, particularly when it comes to alcohol in this country, because, as the Hon Paul Goldsmith was alluding to, there’s a grand coalition that is breaking out amongst the Labour and the National parties, and it’s not just on youth justice and locking up the kids and throwing away the key; it is, in fact, on alcohol and it is, you know, as they both decided to also vote down my Alcohol Harm Minimisation Bill, although I will acknowledge those within the Labour Party who worked really hard and saw the Government take up that first part of the legislation with regards to, particularly, local alcohol policies.

There’s a lot to be desired in this debate today. I really, really hope that we take this opportunity and this moment to reflect on how we genuinely can produce evidence-based policies, evidence-based legislation, evidence-based law to reduce alcohol harm in this country, because it doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it happens as a result of us allowing through our laws to continue to see alcohol companies wield the level of power that they do, which sees all of us be inclined to have a drink on a good day, a bad day, or even just a day, and the associations that that has to mental ill-health, to family harm, to sexual violence, and everything else. We have an opportunity to do a lot better, and unfortunately, this legislation just ain’t it.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Good on the member before me, Chlöe Swarbrick. That was a great speech. But this legislation presents a good case for why, in some circumstances, the Government should act quickly to enable shopkeepers, to enable business people, to enable pubs, and to enable sports clubs to just make it easier for people to have fun and enjoy alcohol while they are watching the game. And in these cases where we make special legislation around Rugby World Cups, it’s because there is in Schedule 4 in this bill—which members of the House will be looking at now—a schedule of when the games will be, because this will all be going on in France at funny times of the day for New Zealand, which our licences don’t allow for it. There are practical reasons why we need to make law to enable people to enjoy these games in the middle of the night when these places wouldn’t usually be open and when they would need to be asking for many, many licences in one go. Is it appropriate for us to do this every time? Well, that’s a question that I hope members of the House will engage in in the third reading.

We had some great contributions in the first reading of this bill around the need for progressive change and a rewriting of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. And may I allude to the work of the Justice Committee in hearing from submitters who also called for that and from the advisers, who worked very, very carefully and very, very hard on this bill to give us some advice about further change that is needed in this area. But on this bill, I would say it’s a good one. We should pass it. It makes sense. Let’s get on with it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ian McKelvie—five minute call.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s not often that peace breaks out across the House, but not only has peace broken out across the House but I find myself agreeing with the youngest member of the House, which is very unusual.

But her point she made about the alcohol—and, in fact, Arena Williams made the same point, I think is the crux of the matter here, because we shouldn’t have to come back to Parliament every time we want to alter a little piece of legislation to enable people to have, I think in the words of one speaker, fun. I find it extraordinary. And proof of that is that in the last couple of weeks I’ve sat up all night to watch the last day of the Ashes Test, and I sat up all night to watch the last day of Wimbledon as well. And the reason I sat up all night to watch the last day of Wimbledon was because it was the most extraordinary game of tennis I’d ever seen, but also I had to sit through a select committee the next morning and it didn’t really matter whether I was concentrating or not—ha, ha! So it was a hardship.

But I think the point really is that this bill has come back to the House simply because we don’t have our alcohol laws, and many other laws, in place in a manner that enables both our society and our business operators to operate in a manner that not only is sensible from a community perspective, sensible from a patron or client’s perspective, but sensible from a New Zealand perspective. And I think the real issue here is that we need to be able to trust those people who are entrusted with, I guess, managing the alcohol laws and then consequently of operating within them. We need to better trust them to make decisions that are in the best interests of our community, and the sooner we get to do that, the better.

I think all other issues of this bill have been touched on pretty strongly. I think that it’s eminently sensible that we should have to do this. But I think it is disappointing that this is the third time this particular issue has come up in the House—and it will come up again in four years’ time if we don’t sort it out, or three years’ time or whenever the next World Cup is. You could argue that there are many, many other events that these special circumstances should apply to as well. Properly constructed legislation with some decent—I think one member used the words “scientific basis” to the research and stuff behind it would actually make quite a big difference. I’m not going to talk for any longer, but I think it’s a bill worthy of support and it would be nice to see some changes made to that that mean we don’t have to bring it back to the House again. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Paul Eagle—five-minute call. Thank you.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to be talking about the—well, anything rugby, but the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

Look, I agree. If we can sing the same song across the House about alcohol, wow, great—but we can’t. We’ve got some issues here that have been well covered, and that’s everything from games being broadcast live outside of the usual trading hours through to during eligibility for licensed premises to be open. So the hospo sector comes to us each time and says, “Look, we have to do something.”, and this is why we’re here in the House to do this, this afternoon.

And just for those—and I was thinking of my colleague the member for Whangārei about rugby, and I just so happen to have a New Zealand Rugby magazine. Not that I was intending to read this in the House, but it is issue 223, the June/July 2023 edition. I’ll give this to the member and we can educate her about rugby and the Rugby World Cup of 2023 in France. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand up and support this bill, first and foremost. Unlike every one of the National members who have spoken on this, who said that they were going to sit down for a cup of tea and a butty, I’m going to be going to the pub, I’m going to be there with my mates, and I’m going to have a beer while watching rugby. It’s something I’ve always done. Like the vast majority of Kiwis, I enjoy it. And, unlike the Green member, the vast majority of people that I know, the vast majority of Kiwis that I know, actually drink alcohol sensibly. So to say that you don’t want to have this bill in place because there are people who have issues with alcohol just misses the point completely, Chlöe. And the thing that I would argue: it astounds me that you, as the MP for Auckland Central, can stand up in this House and say that you do not support a bill that the vast majority of your people, your constituents, certainly your businesses in the electorate, would support 100 percent.

This is a good bill. It’s a practical bill. It’s a pragmatic bill. It speaks to the vast majority of Kiwis who drink sensibly, who enjoy rugby, who want to go out with their mates and have a really good time. And I celebrate that because I’ll be one of them. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this short but sensible bill which will help folks enjoy the Rugby World Cup, which is in, I think, only 51 days’ time—the opening match when France versus New Zealand kicks off at Stade de France. So not long to go.

Look, the key issue here is that Wellington is 10 hours ahead of New Zealand. So the time the games will be played in France will not be the same time that people would be normally out and about on occasions. And so this bill addresses that point so that premises can have extended trading hours so they can open their doors, folks can get together, enjoying the sociability that comes with watching a great rugby game, and have a few drinks, which is the sort of traditional Kiwi way. It’s not just the Kiwi way, to be fair, but the traditional way to enjoy watching a rugby game for many people in this country and around the world. So this little bill makes it easier.

This has been reported back from the Justice Committee. I was not on the Justice Committee. I note that they proposed a few minor amendments, but they were happy with the legislation design and didn’t think there was anything that needed to be brought to the attention of the House in that respect.

I think I’ll take this opportunity as well just to note that we’re a country that loves sport, and tomorrow night the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 kicks off right here in New Zealand. We have our very first game right here in New Zealand, and that’s going to be quite exciting. It’s the world’s largest global women’s event and the fact that it’s being hosted in New Zealand and Australia is something that’s quite phenomenal and something that I’m looking forward to seeing. About a billion people are estimated to watch this on TV and they will, no doubt, have the same thing. Our timing schedule won’t be the same as theirs and they’ll be wanting to get together and watch the games that are happening right here in New Zealand.

So this is a great thing that brings people together both in New Zealand and around the world, and this is a little bill that helps make it happen. So with that, I’ll commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to echo the words of the previous member, Joseph Mooney: we are a country that loves our sport. I’m a big sports fan myself. I grew up playing sport—actually, I grew up playing rugby, but never got over 70 kilograms, so there was never any future for me in that game. So I switched to football—and very passionate about football. And I also acknowledge, as the member was saying, the women’s world cup—how honoured we are to have that here in New Zealand. I encourage people to go out and buy your tickets.

In terms of this bill, it’s very much a common-sense bill. We’ve heard that from previous speakers. It’s something that we regularly do. I’d be interested to see, you know, if we can look to expand at times around other sports, rather than just rugby. I mean, I remember growing up in rural New Zealand, and it was basically rugby in the winter if you’re a guy; if you’re a woman or a girl, you play netball. Then, in summer, it was cricket. That was literally it, really. Not many other options. We have a lot more diversity in our sport these days, which is a good thing. It just encourages more people to be active.

In terms of my family, we’ve got a bit of a rugby history. Actually, my grandfather had three goals in life. He grew up in Collingwood, just by Nelson. Three goals: one was to milk 300 cows, one was to produce 100,000 pounds of butterfat in a calendar year, and the third was to be president of the New Zealand Rugby Union. Pretty lofty goals for someone from a small town in Collingwood, and he achieved all three. He was president in 1984. So I’d like to acknowledge my grandfather Murray Strange—my late grandfather—and commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 13

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Main amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): I don’t think it’s necessary to take too much of the time of the committee as members have already canvassed in the previous stages of the bill. This is a piece of legislation that has previously passed through this House. I remember well, when I was Minister of Justice, shepherding an identical piece of legislation through the House for this tournament in a different part of the world. So there is nothing that is new here and, therefore, I think members can be reassured, the public can be reassured, that the House has provided very close examination of this legislation on previous occasions.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I’d just refer to, for clarity—I agree with the Minister—in Part 1, clause 45B(2), seven days’ written notice. Are those business days or calendar days?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Madam Chair, sorry, I didn’t quite get the part of the bill that the member was referring to.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Yeah, sorry, if you go to page 3, clause 45C(2), it says: “the licensee has given the territorial authority and the Police at least 7 days’ written notice—”. The question I have is: are those business days or are those calendar days?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I go any further, can I just acknowledge that member’s contribution to the House. I’ve always enjoyed his contributions, not only his Irish lilt but his Irish wit, but also his astute examination of the subject matters on which he has spoken, including, obviously, this as well. So I can confirm to the member that in the primary legislation, which this legislation amends, the reference to “days” is to working days.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Madam Chair, I seek leave for the debate to be taken as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Just in the context of the legislation in front of us and, obviously, in seeking leave, that was about attempting to try and weave together both Parts 1 and 2 with regard to the main amendments and related amendments—those are the trading hours—but also then speaking to the extended trading hours as outlined in Part 1. I was just wondering if the Minister perhaps could reflect on those points that I was making earlier with regards to the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and then perhaps unpack some of the evidence or research behind it here just for his benefit but also for the benefit of those who may be following along at home. On page 2 of the RIS, he’ll find in the second paragraph—and I quote from here—“Alcohol is a harmful drug that contributes to a wide range of health, social, and justice-related harms and subsequent costs for society. The evidence-base also clearly connects increases in alcohol harm related with both extended trading hours and sporting events.” Obviously, as alluded to before, it then goes on to say, “At the same time, the men’s Rugby World Cup likely presents a significant commercial opportunity for on-licensed and club-licensed premises, as well as being a highlight on the calendar of rugby fans.” So to that effect, I was wondering if the Minister could just make it kind of explicit to the House that the trade-off here was knowing full well that the evidence makes it clear that there is a connection between alcohol-related harm and extended trading hours, but that it was chosen here that that commerciality was far more important.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before the Minister—if he cares to, I just need to get the procedure right. My fault, I should have done it before. So I’ll just put the question: it is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her question. And, look, she is correct: the medical evidence on alcohol, and the prevalence of alcohol in our communities and in people’s diets, effectively, is that it does pose a risk. It is the most commonly consumed drug—and it is a drug—and it is a cause of many cancers, particularly abdominal and oesophageal and like cancers. So we know that there is a risk of it.

In terms of social harms, we know it is a source of some social harms as well. I think where the presence of alcohol or the availability of alcohol, even on a commercial basis, at venues for events like this, I am confident, means there is a much more constructive and positive social environment in which the consumption of alcohol takes place. This particular law makes the extra availability of alcohol confined to a particular event that has significant social effects for pretty much the whole of the country and many of those who are visiting here at the time. I think there is some consequence, as a result of those factors, that means that the risk of harm is somewhat reduced as a consequence.

But the member is correct both on the earlier comments, and I think underlying her question is that alcohol poses a continuing risk regardless.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I appreciate the Minister’s reflection, particularly on what in drug law reform lingo would be called “safe consumption spaces”, and the ability to have a, kind of, duty of care, and impose responsibility with regards to the sale and supply. Again, I just, for the benefit of other members, make it really clear that I’m not standing here as a prohibitionist or a wowser; I don’t think anybody can accuse me of that, but what we’re standing for is an evidence-based, logically consistent approach to substances in this country which reduces harm.

So just to add the final point, as was raised in other components of speaking on this bill, I have a question for the Minister about whether—as, actually, many other members spoke to—there was consideration of actually longer-term changes to the legislation, given that we’ve had to do this several times now in the context of pretty urgent legislation in front of the House. Because it seems to me that that speaks to, at the very least, a fundamental flaw in how the majority of the House seems to interpret the legislation at present, especially when it comes to major sporting events.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member. I want to just acknowledge—no, look, we know you’re not a prohibitionist, but have always been an ardent advocate for the right health outcomes for our communities. So I want to acknowledge you and your leadership in this area. With respect to the way that we’ve approached this—there has been a bespoke approach each World Cup, depending on what’s happening. We’ve considered whether or not we do some more substantive amendment that enables us just to be able to kind of flick on a switch—turn it off. If the FIFA Women’s World Cup had been at a different time and a different jurisdiction, perhaps we would have sought something like this as well to, you know, give parity to sports and gender.

I think that’s something, I guess—as the member would be well aware, we are looking at a whole range of bespoke amendments. Something that sits probably well with me with this particular piece of legislation, in alignment with the ideological approach that we’re taking in other areas, is that this is something I asked quite extensive questions of, about how the experience had gone in previous occasions. The response that I received was that this was a really well-regulated, had been probably de minimis harm approach, and can change. So in terms of those types of issues, that was where I garnered some confidence from the advice that I’ve received. That said, as you’ll be well aware, there is more work to be done across the board when it comes to the impacts of alcohol harm and how we’re providing for licensing in communities, and we’re really committed to that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I thank the Minister—just one question; I won’t delay the committee any further. I do note that the legislation as it is requires premises to close for the sale of alcohol 30 minutes after the end of a game. I’m just thinking of the context of a great All Blacks victory. Are you sure half an hour is right and not quarter of an hour or one hour in terms of limiting the celebration factor? I’d like you to just elaborate a little bit on the appropriateness of that time.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you to the member for the comment. How long is enough time for celebrating? I can say that my personal experience was with some of your colleagues over in the UK after the Black Caps won the semi-final. We were all over in the UK, and I think it took a little longer than 30 minutes.

Ian McKelvie: Who—your colleagues?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I think Mr McKelvie was there as well! Yes, sometimes celebrations can go on but we took advice and this was indeed the experience that has occurred under previous bills—that that was deemed an appropriate amount of time by police in terms of them being able to police the issue and to ensure that the festivities could occur but, again, keep a mindful eye on the least-harm approach. Go the All Blacks!

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I just wanted to ask the Minister, with this mechanism—and this is for clarity, and maybe it’s been covered elsewhere. With regards to restrictions at a local alcohol policy level as well as district licensing committee rules and determinations, is this seven-day mechanism and connectivity with the police force—can that lead to any problems at a local level, or has it all been thought through?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): That’s a really useful question for the committee to consider. The information and advice that we’ve received is that, given the contained nature and the period of time by which these provisions are required—so it would look different if we were to approach it on the status quo basis by which licensing occurs now, because the member may or may not know that there are provisions that local government can utilise within particular patches. I think where we as a Government landed was that it was best to take a universal approach to ensure that all New Zealanders have the same opportunity, I guess, to celebrate when our lads come back victorious. But in terms of whether we’d consider this type of approach in a broader sense or for some broader, more significant reform, I wouldn’t take it as an indication that that’s necessarily the politic of where we are going. It’s just the way that we’ve approached these things in the past.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I just thought it worthwhile addressing some of the allegations made about me as the Auckland Central MP earlier. My engagements with the police in the electorate have demonstrated very clearly that it is an area where there is quite a concentration of alcohol harm. So on the point of, particularly, police engagement and noting of course that they are one of the kind of core State organs that are responsible for responding to alcohol harm, I was just wondering if the Minister could possibly step us through the engagement with the police with regard to the drafting of this leg.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes. Well, look, I’ll give a high-level response then I might come back for a second bite at the cherry. So police have been engaged, essentially, at all stages. The officials from the ministry—they looked at the examples from the previous World Cups where we’ve used this type of bespoke legislative route. They engaged with them at the outset to see whether there was anything that could be done better or whether there were any changes that they thought would be useful. One of those changes which did come through that process was—a lot of people applied for these licences and then they didn’t actually utilise them. But it meant that a lot of energy from the police force was spent running around trying to check a range of premises, but they weren’t in operation. So that’s one of the changes that we’ve made to this bill, comparatively to the last.

The feedback that I’ve also received is that when the previous World Cups have been on, they felt that this was very clear to measure and clear to monitor, and they felt like they could input the resources required to undertake the policing. I might just check this, but I understand I don’t think that we saw any kind of particular rise or incidence of rises as a consequence of this legislation. I’ll just clarify that. Yes. So at all stages, essentially, police have been engaged.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question—sorry, you’re moving the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023)—

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’m seeking leave to present a legislative statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —be now read a third time?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The Rugby World Cup is one of the most significant sporting events in our calendar, and the Government is backing our communities and hospitality businesses to get behind the tournament in France later this year and, of course, behind our mighty All Blacks. There are just 52 days until the boys in black kick off their campaign against tournament hosts France.

This bill makes it easier for New Zealanders to come together and safely enjoy the tournament together while supporting our team. It also gives responsible Kiwi businesses the certainty and flexibility they need to host fans across the country for the tournament’s televised matches. Business will now be able to remain open outside of normal trading hours when televising live Rugby World Cup matches in France which happen outside of the normal trading hours. It will mean businesses won’t have to go through the usual special licence process. These temporary changes do not mean any business can just slice through the licensing defences. The bill sets clear eligibility criteria and extended trading hours are only available to current on-licence and club licence holders whose licences have not been varied or suspended in the last year.

By passing this bill now, business will have time to plan before the tournament kicks off on 9 September. These changes will make it easier for family, for friends, for communities to come together and enjoy the tournament. Importantly, though, the bill includes provisions to ensure that these amendments align well with the object of the Act. The bill requires licence holders to give timely notice to police and territorial authorities if they wish to open for matches. Licence holders will also be required to let police know if they change their plans and no longer wish to open. This will ensure that police can deploy their front-line staff more effectively. Furthermore, requirements for better record-keeping will help measure the impact of the changes and inform future work in this area.

We all know it’s been a pretty tough few years for hospitality businesses, and the Government is making sensible, practical changes to the law to ensure that they maximise the benefits of this highly anticipated tournament with fans whilst making it easier for communities to come together. The bill strikes an appropriate balance between providing licence holders with the certainty and flexibility they need and supporting communities to cheer on the team, celebrate a fantastic tournament, and support local hospitality businesses whilst also minimising any potential harm.

I’d like to acknowledge those members of the Justice Committee for their work on the bill, the chair, Vanushi Walters, and all of those that contributed to that process. I’d like to acknowledge those that provided their submissions to the select committee. And I guess, if I could say, the committee and this House have shown some quick, good hands to ensure that the bill is ready for kick-off come 9 September, and following the re-election of a Chris Hipkins - led Labour Government, I look forward to watching the All Blacks run it straight in the grand final on 29 October and watching old Sam Cane and Fossie leading the All Blacks to a record fourth men’s World Cup victory title. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to speak in favour of this bill, which seeks to do a very simple thing, which is to say that when the Rugby World Cup’s on in France and games are being played in the middle of the night or early in the morning, people can have the opportunity or the choice to go to a local pub or restaurant or club and get together with a whole bunch of people and watch a big screen and have a bacon butty, or whatever it is, and a beer and a glass of wine and watch the show. It shouldn’t be difficult to understand, and I don’t think it sort of traverses the great depths of drug policy or any requirements of that—it’s just a simple thing that New Zealanders want to do and expect to be able to do. The laws that we have around liquor licensing, however, make that difficult to achieve and cumbersome. And so this legislation is being passed, like previous pieces of legislation in previous Rugby World Cups, to ensure that this can happen in a relatively straightforward way. On that basis, we support it, because we acknowledge that people like to do this sort of thing and communities are drawn together when people—

Chlöe Swarbrick: What about the 635,000 people who used cannabis last year?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —can enjoy a whole lot of things. I’m getting heckled by a member of the Greens who is opposed to this legislation, and I’ll let her explain why she is such.

Look, we can have a long debate about liquor licensing law, and there’s another piece of legislation in the House—that we’ll be debating possibly later today or tomorrow—where we don’t think the Government has got the right balance and has made things very difficult and very hazardous for people who are running small businesses and who could find their small businesses shut down, effectively, overnight, through what we think is a very arbitrary process.

So there’s not a consistent approach to dealing with these matters across the House in a bipartisan way. But, in this instance, this is a relatively straightforward thing and we support it. We’re not going to, I suppose, extend it into a great sort of political battle, because it isn’t. The only battle that people are interested in, in relation to this, is the battle on the playing field, and we, of course, hope that the All Blacks will do well. But we’re looking forward to a great contest and a great competition, and it’s always a special time, every three years, where our hopes and dreams as a nation are built up, and sometimes we succeed, and sometimes we don’t. But we certainly hope that we’ll see an All Blacks victory alongside a National Government victory in October. And that’ll be a good time for all. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make a brief contribution. I just wanted to respond to the issue of consistency which a few members have raised in terms of this bill versus the bill that we will be talking about, in terms of community engagement. I do think we’re taking a consistent response—we’re having a consistent response. One is about setting policy and guidance for permanent situations. The other is about when we make exceptions to that policy, and there are exceptions made to many different policies for a number of different reasons. Research tends to guide and should guide our permanent policy, but there can be public interest reasons, business reasons, and others which might justify an exception from time to time.

I did reference in my second reading speech that there were a number of submitters who spoke to issues outside the scope of the bill that I do think are important. One was reviewing the special licensing regime, which all members agreed should happen. The second was implementing a permanent legislative solution for similar events, and the committee as a whole recommended that that be the case. But I do think interesting arguments have been made about the utility of having a discussion up in front of us every couple of years. And I, as many people in the House will know, am a proponent for clauses which allow a piece of legislation or a clause within legislation to sunset or end to ensure that Parliament’s mind is turned to a particular area. So should we move to a more standardised regime? I do think that members ought to consider changing circumstances. What we saw with submitters this time around were submitters who raised issues of compliance with the law that did lead to us tweaking some of the provisions in the bill. So that rehashing of those issues is really valuable. And with that, I commend the bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve sort of been around the traps a bit on this bill today, haven’t we? I suppose I seem to get to speak on quite a number of alcohol bills in the House. I’m not sure whether that’s because of my experience or just because it happens. But I was thinking, as we were talking about this bill, that for me to go and watch one of these games at whatever hour of the morning and to have a few beers and then get home again would be quite a mission, because I’ve got to leave home and drive past the police transport station at Sanson to get to the local pub. Getting back would be pretty, I think, dangerous for me. So my point is that there’s a large number of people in New Zealand who are never going to be affected by this piece of legislation. It’s got absolutely no relevance at all to someone who lives in rural New Zealand, a distance from the place that I live.

And, of course, I go back to 6 o’clock closing, and if we think we’re going to alter the habits of people or their drinking by changing alcohol laws, we’re totally misguided, because all that happened at 6 o’clock closing was you took a couple of packs of cards with you and you went off down the road to the nearest house or the nearest local place after you left the pub. And that’s what’s going to happen if we start fiddling around with alcohol laws, trying to tighten them up and make things more difficult. So if you go back to that point, of course, the changes we might make to tighten these things up are not going to work. The only way I think we’re going to manage the alcohol laws better—and Michael Woodhouse, to some extent, in his second reading speech, touched on this—is by putting the onus completely on the operators to perform in a manner that, I guess, enables them to comply with the law, enables their patrons to comply with the law, and enables their patrons to have a bit of fun.

I also go back to the days of Sam Strahan and Ian Kirkpatrick and those sort of people playing rugby. They would have never dreamed of a bar opening up for them to play rugby in front of at half past four in the morning or whatever time they might have played in England in those days, and it would have been in the Northern Hemisphere. So the times have changed dramatically.

I also think that the real reason for enabling these establishments to open at these unusual hours is because their primary mode of business is not going to be selling alcohol; it’s going to be selling food and—as Michael Woodhouse referred to—a coffee and things like that. So I think the reasons for this bill being put in place are very good but will never apply to many of us.

I want to comment on a couple of other things that were said in the course of the second reading too. Emily Henderson interestingly raised as an issue that she didn’t know whether it was a round ball or a pointed ball, I think she said. Well, of course, rugby started with a round ball and finished up with a pointed ball. So she was right on both cases in that case. And the other thing I was sort of interested in as well was Damien Smith talking about riding a bike down the Champs Elysées. Well, the last time I was there, there was no way to ride a bike round there. You might get to that roundabout and you’d be cleaned out for sure. So nobody’s going to ride a bike down there to watch the rugby—or anything else. Well I’m not anyway.

So I think that the Justice Committee did a very good job in a short time with this bill. There wasn’t much to do to it, but I do think it’s appropriate that we put this bill through the House. And, again, I make the plea for us to have a revisit—and, again, as Paul Goldsmith referred to, there’s another bill, which will probably be in the House tonight, which attempts to make further alterations to alcohol laws in New Zealand, which might or might not be useful, but they certainly will be, I think, very concerning for the industry.

So it is a challenging issue for this Parliament. I think we’ve done well with this bill, and I think that to support those hospitality businesses in what’s been an extraordinarily difficult few years for them, if this bill helps them, then I think it’s done a good job. So that’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise in support of this bill, in this third reading. I would just like to acknowledge that I have been somewhat schooled by my rugby-loving colleagues, and it has been pointed out to me that I am taking this event—the Rugby World Cup—far too lightly. I would like to say I was raised by—

Hon Louise Upston: Go, Nash!

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: And Mr Eagle, also, has been educational. I would like to, therefore, restore a little family honour and say that I was raised by a staunch rugby-playing father, and weekend afternoons—I can’t remember if they were Saturday or Sunday, because it’s rugby—were spent in front of the television watching games. We were deeply engaged, even in the Springbok Tour protests—and we were the protestors—my dad still came home and watched the games. So it is a massively important thing that we enable Kiwis to watch our national game, which is not just the FIFA world cup.

I therefore commend this bill to the House. It is a bill we worked on carefully, despite my facetiousness in this moment. It is a bill where submitters came and made sensible suggestions, and we took them up. It is a bill where we considered the potential alcohol harm, and the strong advice to us after repeated questioning was that, no, there is no proof that this small bit of permission is going to make any difference or create any further harm. And I stand here as a teetotal, non-sporting person, and I commend this bill to the House.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s encouraging in the third reading to understand that the police will be keeping records of scale and demand, which will be good for the future event management of these plans.

One of the questions I do have, however, is that under new section 45F in clause 4, the compliance in the last Rugby World Cup of people displaying the correct notifications was abysmal, and we would suggest, from the ACT Party, that potentially the police force trusts enough the hospitality owners to actually potentially take photographs and send them to the police officer in the station so that they can concentrate on crime and other activities. One of my concerns is that during these events, the opportunity to go and burgle someone’s house is high, so we’d rather have them out on the beat.

In terms of the legislative scrutiny and proposed amendments, I think it all stacks up now. I think it’s non-problematic. One of the things that I do believe, which was slightly discouraging, was the Labour Party’s view in terms of sliding in the whole concept of wider alcoholic reform at this moment in time around this piece of legislation. That’s another agenda, that’s another conversation, and that’s another philosophy, I guess, in terms of how you compare it to other legislation like for smoke-free New Zealand, and it smacked of an agenda that—with the Green Party—potentially, these special licences and the use of sport sponsorship and other related activities may be coming to a close.

So, in terms of wider alcoholic reforms, I think they should have been parked. I think we should have just concentrated on this bill. We shouldn’t have passed it under urgency, but we do get to the point where we’re glad that we can bring it through the House today and let the industry get on with its work.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I agree with at least one thing that the member Damien Smith just said, which is that this should not be being passed under urgency. That, of course, has been one of the primary points that the Greens have been making throughout the readings today.

We’ve obviously canvassed this a lot over the past kind of hour and a bit. There’s three key reasons that the Greens are standing in opposition to this today—and I note that we’re not the only party doing so; Te Paati Māori is as well, of course, which we hold the proxies for. The first point is to note that the special licences process, as outlined in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, works. There’s not next to any evidence that anyone has surfaced throughout this debate that shows that it hasn’t. I totally take on board the point around streamlining that process, but that is, again, a different argument.

The second is that if we are going to continue having this ad hoc approach under urgency, then there is a real need to look at this in context and say perhaps this heralds the need for a permanent change worthy and due of proper scrutiny of the House—hopefully not occurring under urgency—if we are to continue to deploy at least three times this kind of amendment under urgency in relation to these massive sporting events, which are not unpredictable by their very nature.

And of course the third thing is that, unlike members of the Opposition in particular, who have consistently said—as the Hon Paul Goldsmith did just before—that this is just a simple thing that New Zealanders like to do and that we don’t need to have an in-depth debate about drug harm, I disagree. Because what I feel continues to happen is that we chip away at pieces of law for one-off events like this and we sweep under the rug the broader, macro context of what it is that we’re dealing with when we’re dealing with these substances and the opportunity that we have to put in place evidence-based drug harm reduction. I do need to raise it, because, again, it was the point that was hammered home by the Hon Paul Goldsmith, that this is just a simple thing that New Zealanders like to do. It’d be remiss of me not to make a parallel to another substance, which is just a simple thing that New Zealanders like to do, which actually registers, based on national metrics, outed again—I believe it was either the University of Canterbury or the University of Otago looking at the drug harm in this country—that alcohol is the most harmful substance on a macro scale, and cannabis sits substantially below that.

To that effect, to the Hon Paul Goldsmith and members of the Opposition, if it’s just about being a simple thing that New Zealanders like to do, well, 635,000 New Zealanders consumed cannabis last year alone—that’s approximately 15 percent of the population. And we heard throughout the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill debate—obviously, the referendum—that members of the Opposition didn’t want to see people locked up for that personal use. Well, 180 New Zealanders were sentenced to prison for cannabis possession last year alone. So if we want to talk about logical consistency, then we need to apply that logical consistency to drug harm in this country, because this stuff does not happen in a vacuum.

We obviously heard from the member of the ACT Party, Damien Smith; I wrote it down here that “Talking about drug harm is part of another agenda.” No, again, this stuff does not happen in a vacuum and we’ve got to be grown-ups—in this space, least of all—to look evidence in the face and to say that we can do better and create better laws and regulations that reflect evidence. To respond to the point that was raised by Dr Emily Henderson, that “we need to enable Kiwis to watch our national game”, again I’d say that this bill actually doesn’t enable Kiwis to watch our national game. It enables Kiwis to drink while watching our national game, in licensed premises.

The basis of this bill is about enabling greater access to alcohol, and that’s kind of the basis of it. These premises can still open, if they choose not to serve that alcohol, to serve a coffee or a bacon butty, as the Hon Paul Goldsmith was talking about—those will still be on the table for ya if this law was not passed.

But, once again, for the reasons I’ve outlined throughout all of the readings of this legislation, the Greens just can’t in good faith and on an evidentially consistent basis support this legislation happening in an ad hoc manner. Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. The speeches around the House I’ve listened to carefully; the work of the select committee as well. It was really useful for me in crystallising my thoughts around this bill, which is a good bill. It’s a simple bill, and, like the member before me, Chlöe Swarbrick, who drew on the comments of the Hon Paul Goldsmith, I will too. He did put it very succinctly when he said this was about enabling things New Zealanders want to do and expect to be able to do. This bill is about balancing those things like going to the pub to watch the game, against things that New Zealanders expect to do, like sleeping, if you’re a neighbour of a pub that’s open early in the morning, or using your town centre the next morning after a game has been on late at night, or using the public playground when you live next to an area where people go to drink after a game. This is exactly that. This is about striking a balance between what we as New Zealanders expect from the Government to regulate something which is fun, but make sure that it’s fun for everyone. I think this bill does that.

But that is why the Labour members of the committee spent a lot of time speaking with the submitters who chose to submit to us on this and the advisers who mounted swathes of evidence around the need for further reform in this area, when we asked them about the reform that was needed to make a logically consistent piece of legislation. In our committee report, if anyone cares to read it, we recorded those comments around the need for recommendation as part of further reform for the Government to consider suggesting amendment of the principal Act to provide stricter controls on advertising, sponsorship, or promotion of alcohol, including in relation to sports, because that will end up giving us a piece of legislation which makes sure that alcohol is fun for everyone and continues to be fun for everyone. That’s the goal here. This bill does that, but there’s more work to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Five minutes—the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I strongly support the comments of Arena Williams about balance, and I also want to acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick’s comments. Chlöe Swarbrick is nothing if not consistent and clear in her view about the risks and the inconsistencies between how we regulate for alcohol as opposed to other mind-altering substances, and so I commend the consistency even though I don’t agree with it. I heard Chlöe Swarbrick say, “The purpose is to enable people to drink”, and that’s one way we could describe this. My view—and this is based out of, well, some years of experience of being at licensed premises during sporting events—is that it actually enables people to gather. They can gather anywhere, that’s true; they can gather at the local Scout hall. But our licensed premises are good, safe, effective places where people can go and enjoy the sports and recreation activities they love, when they are broadcast. They are free to—she’s right, they don’t need to drink; many of them don’t. They could open and not offer alcohol; some of them do just that. But as Ms Arena Williams said, this is about striking the balance between enabling people to enjoy themselves in licensed premises while at the same time acknowledging that the licence holders have serious obligations for host responsibility. And those obligations will be greater when those games are at 1 or 2 in the morning because they may have patrons who have already been drinking for a time and will need to be vigilant that they don’t put their licences at risk by their failure to control and moderate excess. And I would encourage those listening who are going to take advantage of this legislation to do just that.

My last comment—and I trust you’ll indulge me, Mr Speaker—is slightly wide of the mark, because we are 51 days away from the Rugby World Cup but we are 27 hours away from the kick off in the FIFA Women’s World Cup. Thankfully, there’s no change to licences and no need for change to licences because in Australia and New Zealand they are in much more civil hours. But I just want to encourage people to support our New Zealand women’s team, support the tournament, and I’m absolutely confident that it’s going to be a spectacular showcase for New Zealand. All the best to the New Zealand women’s team.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t on the Justice Committee that considered this, but it’s been a pleasure to hear, during these readings of this particular bill, of the attention that was given to this bill, which is quite a discrete area that it covers. It’s mainly due to, as the last member, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, referred to, the time difference between where the Rugby World Cup is being held and the time that it will be in New Zealand. So quite a practical bill that looks to allow our really important hospitality industry to be able to support one of our national teams, fighting in the World Cup, which I’m sure the All Blacks will be successful in.

And I just want to note that although this bill is about the ability to provide alcohol at those licensed venues, it is also about them continuing to trade in the way that they normally would. Having worked as a hospitality worker in the past, I know that simply changing your business model to one which only provides a certain section of the beverages you usually produce is actually quite difficult for those businesses to actually adapt to.

So I think this is a very practical bill. I do note the comments that other members have made about the nature of alcohol—the fact that it does cause a lot of damage within our society. And I don’t think any member of the House would deny that. This is not a bill, though, that looks into those wider societal issues. And I agree with other members when they say that that’s perhaps a topic for another day.

But I do want to commend the Minister of Justice and the Justice Committee and members of the House for supporting this bill. I think that we can sometimes underestimate the importance of sport and supporting our national teams. But we’ve seen, I think, in recent events—including the Women’s Rugby World Cup, where our Black Ferns team was so successful—how important those can be for the nature of how the nation is feeling and also to empower our women and girls, and also our boys as well, to aspire to greatness within sport. I commend it to the House.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a very short call, being number 10 in a long line-up of previous speeches. But just really to reiterate that this is a particular piece of legislation that fixes something that was previously fixed. It is similar to temporary changes that were made in 2015 and 2019, but with some added amendments, as the chair of the Justice Committee spoke to—some added amendments based on experience and feedback from the Police and other stakeholders.

Now, I was juggling a couple of other commitments during this debate and I’m not sure if it was pointed out yet, but I do remember that my colleague, the now Hon Kieran McAnulty, pointed out in the 2019 debate something else that is very important in this piece of legislation. So in the back of the bill there is a schedule of games for the World Cup. It’s not easy to find, so all people have to do is go to the back of the bill and there’s all the games listed there. In bold are the New Zealand games, and also any of the semi-finals and finals. So that’s just an interesting piece of information people might want to put in their back pocket. But it’s a good bill, I was pleased to be part of that select committee that worked on it, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on the third and final call of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. This has been traversed a number of times before, and I did get an opportunity to speak briefly at the second reading of this bill, but this is to enable those eligible licensees, who have bars etc., to extend trading hours for the purpose of televising games played as part of the men’s Rugby World Cup 2023 without applying for a special licence. Taking into account the fact that Wellington is 10 hours ahead of France and games that are being played—for example, the opening match of France versus New Zealand on Friday, 8 September this year—will be able to be watched by people in New Zealand and they don’t just have to be at home, in the early hours; they can be out with others in their community, enjoying it in a responsible environment with the responsibilities that come with being a responsible host. And this is a good bill, which will enable New Zealanders to engage in their passion, which is watching rugby and other sports, and do it in a social environment. And with that, it comes with having a few beverages, normally, for many New Zealanders, and this will provide an opportunity for that to be done in a responsible fashion. So that’s a good little bill that will make that possible and, like I say, take into account the differences in time between where the games are being played and, in this case, where they are being watched.

And Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker, now. Welcome, Madam Speaker. It might be timely; I’ll just segue from rugby to soccer briefly, with the Speaker’s indulgence, because it is tomorrow night that there will be the very first game in the FIFA Women’s World Cup, Australia and New Zealand, 2023. It’s the first time it has been held in the southern hemisphere, the first to be co-hosted by two confederations—we have New Zealand and Australia—and the first to feature 32 teams, which was quite an exceptional moment in history. And that kicks off tomorrow night with the very first game in Auckland, which is pretty exciting. The world’s best female footballers will showcase their skills, their talent, their passion for the game and their passion for sport. It’s the world’s largest global women’s sporting event, and it’s predicted that more than one billion people will watch the tournament.

So it’s a great opportunity for New Zealand to be showcased on the international stage as well and also inspire future generations, inspire future boys, inspire future girls, future women, to get involved in sport and to create new heroes—new people who future generations will look back to and say, “That was someone who inspired me to do something exciting with my life.” So that’s about to kick off, which is hugely exciting. And I should say it rounds out an amazing two years where New Zealand has been at the heart of women’s sport internationally. We also hosted the Women’s Rugby World Cup, the ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup, and we also had the International Working Group World Conference on Women & Sport. So these are huge milestones in raising the value and visibility—also recognising and celebrating the value and visibility—of women’s sports, the growing female participation in sport and, like I said, creating new female sporting heroes and leaders.

Maybe I’ll just touch on a very personal note for me personally. It’s always been a matter of pride in my family, personally at least, that one of my grandfathers, Frank Mooney Snr, played 14 tests for New Zealand between 1949 and 1953 and subsequently became a national selector. He actually made his debut for Wellington, as it happens, in 1941-1942, but his selection as the first choice wicket keeper for the 1949 tour of England was a surprise. In fact, dockside workers indeed went on strike, preferring their local representative, but he went on to enjoy a successful trip, playing in three tests and scoring 100 against Marylebone Cricket Club at Lord’s. He then played against England at home in 1951, West Indies in 1951-1952, and South Africa in 1952 and 1953—well enough to keep the rest of his rivals out of the reckoning. And so my point is just we look back at people who’ve done well in sports, and we celebrate as a matter of pride. What we’re doing here with our celebration of rugby and soccer is celebrating these future heroes who inspire future generations. It’s something for them to look back on as well. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise and take the final call on this bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge all of the officials and the members who have efficiently and effectively shepherded this balanced bill through the House. I just want to reflect, for a moment, that this is a reflection that it isn’t an unusual experience for a New Zealander to be participating and cheering on a team globally at really odd hours. I can remember I was in Canada in 1987 for the very first World Cup, up in the middle of the night with a Canadian family who had no idea about the game at that stage—it was quite a lonely experience—and I was in France in the 1990s, in Les Deux Alpes in a ski resort where I was working, and I was up watching the America’s Cup, and, again, a fairly lonely experience in that landlocked place.

So it’s wonderful that this bill means that we can stand together in solidarity in odd hours, and so I’m really pleased to be able to support this. I feel pretty confident in suggesting that I can speak on behalf of everybody in this House in wishing our fabulous All Black squad all the best—they’re off to France, so bon voyage. They’re leaving home, so kia kaha, kia ū, kia mārama nui. I guess all that’s left to be said is “Bring it home.”

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

Ayes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 13

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 116, Noes 13.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Business Payment Practices Bill.

Bills

Business Payment Practices Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 June.

Part 3 Compliance, enforcement, and offences (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Business Payment Practices Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 3, the debate on clauses 25 to 45. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and my apologies, as I was somewhat thrown. I was thinking we hadn’t actually got to Part 3, but we are, and before I go into some of my questions on Part 3, I just have to reflect on the fact that the interlude of collegiality in an otherwise acrimonious urgency motion has now ended. There was pretty much strong support for the previous bill—and why wouldn’t there be, when it was sensible and the right thing to do?

This is not. This bill is poorly planned and badly designed, and it will fail to deliver what it’s intended to do. In fact, it’s unnecessary to deliver what it’s intended to do, and, for that reason, the National caucus will continue to oppose it.

Part 3 of this bill is, I think, emblematic of that inasmuch as it is punitive in its compliance, enforcement, and offences regime. So let’s just cover off what we are doing here: we are putting in place a requirement for a significant number of medium and large organisations to report on their payment practices, and their failure to do so, or to do so in the manner and at the time set out in the bill, could lead them to incur the wrath of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and to have some quite serious infringements ruled against them.

Now, we are opposed to this because there are other ways to do this. In fact, that was the advice that was given to the select committee, which was indeed that, firstly, the case for the problem hadn’t really been made and, secondly, this is not the solution. So to have an infringement regime for the failure to do something that most organisations simply do not need to do or could do in another way, or may inadvertently not realise it has to do, because the cycle of this actually means that organisations could—depending on their size and the nature of their debtor’s ledger, it could actually lead them to inadvertently not report at a time when they do.

Now, I note that there is a compliance notice regime, so the registrar, in its monitoring of compliance with the Act, has a choice to issue a compliance notice rather than go through an infringement regime, and I think that’s appropriate. But what’s not appropriate is that this be in place at all. So it would be helpful if the Minister could remind the committee, as we commence the balance of this review of the bill, why it’s felt that the information is needed to be collected in this way and by this law, when a simple $33 search of a credit agency register could deliver exactly the same result.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Mr Chair, thank you. Look, I feel like we are going over ground that we covered quite extensively the last time this bill was traversed, and the answer I provided to that same question we’ve received now is that a credit check in terms of a company’s financial viability is quite different to how quickly they pay their bills. Those are two separate things.

So while someone might be well solvent and have a great credit check, and you can find that out well and good for $33, what you cannot find out is how quickly that large company pays their bills. We know from good research provided by Xero that Xero has taken an index analysis and used really good data from the clients they have to demonstrate that big business, more often than not, uses smaller businesses as a credit facility, and what this bill does is hold that up to the light. It makes it transparent and it enables small-business owners to know who pays their bills on time.

I have heard firsthand from a number of small-business owners that they often are very close to missing a wage round or to missing paying a lease when they are required to do so because larger companies hold out to the very last minute in order to pay what is quite rightly due to those small-business owners. So I feel that this bill only goes part of the way in terms of balancing up that ledger to enable the small fish who swim within our economy to at least understand which of those big fish they should choose to do business with.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister is correct in so far as a $33 cheque may not reveal the actual days to pay, because that isn’t part of the credit check, but what it would reveal very clearly is whether or not creditors have had to take action against that organisation. That is a much, much larger signal to the market about the reliability of the company that one might be doing business with.

The second thing to say is that the Minister’s answer suggests that there is a high level of correlation between the size of the organisation and their propensity to pay. This was examined by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and the officials did not have data to confirm that size is not always—in fact, in my experience, it can be quite the opposite, that the larger firms are much better at paying. The one large organisation that actually has an occasionally poor track record of payment is the Crown. And if the Government wanted to ensure better cash-flow for small businesses dealing with the largest organisation in the country—that is, Crown entities—then perhaps it should put its weight behind increasing the expectations on the Crown to do a better job of paying its bills on time.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Minister, good to see you, thank you for your contribution. Clause 31, Part 3, deals with the infringement notices aspects and the related offenses in regard to those points. And, in particular, clause 33 is in regard to the terms and the nature of when these infringement notices will be issued. I guess my point around this is, in regards to the points made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, in terms of the—while the intent of the bill is trying to target is, using the Minister’s language of the, “big fish”, how in which those infringement offences, in terms of the amounts that have been landed upon, have been determined. If the Minister could provide some clarity around that, and, in particular, dealing with the fact that, as, again, the Hon Michael Woodhouse has noted around the Crown in particular being one of the biggest examples of potentially a failure to meet obligations around payment on a timely basis. What, if any, forecasts have been undertaken in regards to how much infringement notices, or the value of those, will potentially be issued under this legislation, and whether any forecasting in that nature has been undertaken?

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was just looking at here, where it talks about—just following on from what my colleague Simon Watts was saying before—around infringement notices, and looking for a bit more detail around that and the fees and seeing where that is set out. Noting in clause 37, there, it says the fees “must be paid into a Crown … Account.”

I was wondering whether the Minister had any more details around that; around when they must be paid. What is the time period? What is the amount of the fees? It would be quite good practice if, in here—and this is something that the Minister and the officials may want to consider as in this part here, “Payment of infringement fees”—you could then connect that up to the Schedule that listed what the fees are and what the payment dates are and what penalties may be applied if those times are not met.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended 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.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Miscellaneous

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 4, the debate on clauses 46 to 48. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 4 is the Melissalla—“Miscellaneous Provisions”—the “Melissallaneous Provisions” of this bill

Chlöe Swarbrick: Melissa Lee!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s a new girl’s name! And the first of those is “Exemptions”. Now, the Minister, in the passage of this bill, will be given pretty broad powers, which don’t have too much guidance on why the Minister might actually exercise it. It says at clause 46(1) that the Minister may exempt classes of entities from the requirements of this Act if the Minister is “satisfied that there is good reason for granting the exemption that outweighs the interests of the public in having the obligation met.”

So I have two questions for the Minister. The first is if she could give an example, perhaps, of what good reasons there might be for granting exemptions that outweigh the interests of the public, particularly given the very strident purpose of this bill as stated by the Government, that this is so necessary.

The second question in relation to clause 46 is: can she give a commitment that those exemptions will not apply to Crown entities who have—in my view, I can’t think of any good reason why a Crown entity would be granted an exemption from the obligations of this Act as distinct from other organisations. So there’s my opening bat—what’s an example of good reasons for granting the exemptions, and, indeed, why do we need the exemptions regime at all? And secondly, can she rule out that the Crown will not be exempted from those obligations?

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to refer to Supplementary Order Paper 365 in the name of Andrew Bayly, who is proposing the addition of new clause 48A, which is part of Part 4 of the “Miscellaneous” section that we’re currently discussing. And this Supplementary Order Paper is—well, I think it’s quite a sensible recommendation from Mr Andrew Bayly. And that’s not to say that his normal recommendations are not sensible; it’s just more reinforcing the fact that this is particularly sensible. But what is proposed here is the addition of a review of the Act clause in which the Minister must, within one year of the commencement of this Act, and then subsequently in two-yearly intervals, arrange for an independent review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act. And as has been highlighted, I think, throughout the passing of this bill to date, there are and remain a number of concerns in terms of the bill’s operation and effectiveness. And while I acknowledge the Government’s desire to pass this into law—and actually will, by majority—I think the inclusion of the ability for the bill to have a formal review around those components noted is something that on this side of the House, if anything, would add some value.

And in regards to 48A(2), the aspects in relation to what that review would consider include the interrelationship around some of the interrelated Government policy aspects; we talk about electronic invoicing and also payment terms and other aspects that relate to the interrelationship with small-business suppliers. I think it’s important with any independent review process that this is undertaken in a timely manner and reports back to the Minister. And so we’re suggesting under new clause 48A(3) that this would occur within a six-month period, which seems, again, quite pragmatic.

And lastly, of course, in terms of full disclosure, ensuring that the Minister presents a copy of that report back to this House as soon as practical thereafter.

And I think, overall, the value that will be created through the addition of this new clause in this bill will, in effect, put the belts and braces review mechanism in place. Some may say, “Well, you know, end of the day, Government can do that anyway” but I think in this case, because it has quite an impact in regards to the overall operation in payment terms—it’s in the detail. I think having this in there, and regular review is important. I think it’s also important to acknowledge that the way in which payments to businesses occur is being enhanced continuously by the use of technology. And, you know, the good old days of getting an invoice in the mail and writing a cheque and sending the cheque off by mail are well gone. But, you know, one can envisage, even within a couple of years from now, potentially, where we are at in regards to making payments to businesses—and, no doubt, in many cases, already across our economy—that, actually, this may potentially be a point where it’s completely automated and even occur on a real-time basis. So the need for such legislation could quite quickly become redundant because of technology.

So I ask that the Minister to consider Supplementary Order Paper 365 on the basis on which it has been presented, as being constructive and helpful, and I would appreciate any comments in regards to that and, of course, we’ll take that on board and work with the Government. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take a call briefly to add my commendation to the committee for the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of my colleague and friend Andrew Bayly, Supplementary Order Paper 365. The reason this is really important is twofold. One is that we are trying to create a reporting regime and a review regime that enables the public and the House to test whether or not the purpose of the Act is being achieved. But I would also add that clause 3, the purpose clause, is actually pretty amorphous.

It says “The purpose of the Act is to (a) improve transparency … and (b) to enable members of the public … to access information about … [these] payment practices”. Well, actually, I would have thought that the Government, in believing that this was necessary and appropriate, would say that the purpose of the Act is to improve payment timeliness, ultimately, and to reduce the number of late payments and defaults and credit problems for the businesses affected by them. So transparency is important, but it’s only a means to an end and the bill doesn’t even set out that end as its purpose.

So Supplementary Order Paper 365, I think, is extremely important. And I think that the Minister, if she sees the merits of it, should instruct her officials to make sure that data is collected—regardless of whether this Act is going to be reviewed in the manner in which Mr Bayly would like it to be—that data is actually collected; not that measures transparency, because we’ll know that by the number of people that have to comply, but that collects data to monitor payment timeliness. Because one of the reasons the National Party is opposed to this bill is that we still haven’t established the case for it being necessary.

The best data is actually the payment timeliness in this country is better than in other countries, but also that those other countries who put similar legislation in place did not see an improvement in that key metric: payment timeliness. And I think we should all agree that if legislation doesn’t work, we should either amend it or repeal it. But the only way to be able to do that is to collect information useful for making that decision. The bill doesn’t have that in its reporting requirements, and Mr Bayly’s SOP will add that. If the Minister isn’t satisfied with a one-year review, I think perhaps it could be longer and it says that subsequent intervals of not more than two years. I think that’s probably a better duration, but review it we must to ensure whether or not we’re wrong in our belief that we’re wasting the House’s time and the time, effort, and money of businesses that will need to comply with it. If that’s the case, then a review will reveal that. But at the moment, that option, that requirement, isn’t in the bill and it should be.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to add a couple of comments around that in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) put forward by Andrew Bayly. It’s been noted around how it should be more focused on the reporting times, and I want to agree with that. But, I think, when we’re putting forward—as we are with this bill—something that is going to put time and cost impediments on businesses, it’s really important that we do have that regular review mechanism in place, or something in there like the SOP would allow for, because we are putting further compliance and time costs on business and we need to know how successful the new legislation has been, and is the cost of it better than the benefit or does the benefit outweigh the costs? So that’s important for us to know. And it also gives us the opportunity then to test what the different users, notably businesses going into it—to look at someone else’s payment times and what their feedback is on this. And I don’t think it’s just a set and forget thing where we say, you know, “This is all perfect and it’s going to be wonderful.” I think having that mechanism in there to review gives us the opportunity to go back out to market and then get that feedback and, you know, look to sharpen or perhaps focus some areas of this going forward.

So I would like to see that side of the Chamber really consider that, and the Minister for Small Business and the officials consider it, because, ultimately, we want this, if it is implemented, to be something that works in the best interests of the people that are using it—also to test how many people do use it. It has been noted—and I noted it when I spoke earlier in the Chamber on this—that you’re reporting on this two times a year. It’s not always going to be up to date. It’s not going to be real time. It may be 5½ months out of date when someone goes in there to check on that. So, yeah, I just wanted to put my voice to the support of that Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do feel like some of these questions are a little bit circular, but I will play ball. We’ve, I think, been through some of these issues before.

In terms of what feedback, whenever I speak to small-business owner, either groups—there is strong demand for this bill. So the feedback I get when out speaking with, whether it be businesses at chambers of commerce or other groups that come together and represent small-business owners, the feedback I get from those small businesses is that this legislation is long overdue and they are eagerly waiting for it to be enacted.

In terms of some of the other questions I’ve received, the issue of the Supplementary Order Paper put forward in the name of Andrew Bayly, which specifically asks for a review in the first year and then subsequent every two years thereafter—so, presently, what occurs is officials report to the Minister on a six-monthly basis. So providing that in legislation, I would particularly argue that—for a party that’s all for removing bureaucracy and red tape and unnecessary, I guess, hoops to jump through—that providing that in legislation is actually adding to cost within the Public Service, unnecessarily, when there’s already a six-month reporting regime that’s built in as part of keeping the Minister informed of what’s going on.

That is already done to parliamentarians through the normal reporting regimes and available to those members on all sides of the House through the select committee process as well, and annual reviews. So I would argue that putting it in statute is onerous and heavy in compliance, and it would tie up the bureaucracy in simply reporting, not getting the work done.

In terms of the issue raised under Part 4, “Miscellaneous”, clause 46, “Exemptions”. So this was the point raised in relation to the ability of, “The Minister may exempt … a class of entities from [some or] all of [the] obligations under the Act.”, having regard, obviously, “to the purpose of the Act” and being “satisfied that there [are] good [reasons] … [that] the exemption is not broader than … reasonably necessary”.

So while I’ve asked for some examples, it’s interesting that I’ll provide you with some examples, as requested, of what those exemptions may well be. It’s interesting to note that there’s not been one of these, to date, where such of those actually would happen.

So here are some hypothetical examples where you would have a class of entities where, to disclose, would be unnecessarily onerous—so if it goes, if it’s able to be shown. Another area of an example would be that entities must disclose their payment practices as part of another regime already. So if they’re already doing so in a similar jurisdiction such as Australia, then that would not be required. Finally, another example would be entities that make limited business-to-business payments. So if, in their regular course of business, they’re not doing that type of payment, then that potentially may not be an exemption as specified under clause 46 of Part 4 of the Act.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Let’s move now to clause 47, “Regulations”, Part 4 of this bill. This regulations section actually relates to a question that I’ve asked previously in regards to the rates at which infringement offences and the amount for the prescribed fees or fines and what they have been set at, and clause 47(1)(b) refers to “prescribing fees for infringement offences … must not exceed $3,000”, and then 47(1)(c) then says that the “maximum fines for infringement offences under this Act … must not exceed $9,000”.

I think the context for the question around the amounts that have been noted here is relevant in the context of again going back to the Minister’s comments around ensuring that there are appropriate consequences here for, in the Minister’s words, “the big fish” or the big businesses. I’m interested in whether the Minister remains confident that a $3,000 fine, or even a $9,000 fine is actually going to be of the level that is going to be appropriate to actually change the behaviour of, say, a large Government department that pays millions and millions of dollars—maybe the New Zealand Police, potentially, if you look at their accounts payable department, and think about the amount of invoices that they pay to a number of small suppliers. And I’m sure they always pay those invoices on time, pay them accurately, of course—no doubt they do—

Hon David Bennett: Especially overpay.

SIMON WATTS: —or maybe they don’t but, again, you know, is the Minister confident those amounts are appropriate?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that in the Minister for Small Business’ response to my commendation of Mr Bayly’s Supplementary Order Paper, the Minister said that it was unnecessary because there was an obligation on the registrar to report to her every six months. I wonder if she could, for my benefit—and I apologise if it’s obvious—point out the clause in the bill that provides for that requirement.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 365 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 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.

Part 4 agreed to.

Part 5 Amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is a debate on clauses 49 to 52, “Amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Normally, the parts amending other Acts are reasonably perfunctory and belts and braces, but there is a particular clause in this part that troubles me greatly as a chartered accountant and a former Minister of Revenue, and that is clause 52, Schedule 7 amended, inserting new section 25B. This is an amendment to the Tax Administration Act. Now, the Tax Administration Act sets out the very strict requirements for the collection of revenue on behalf of the Crown, and the commissioner’s powers and obligations in respect of, among other things, confidentiality and sensitive information. As a lapsed accountant, I recall doing the tax returns, would you believe, for people who were on the wrong side of the law. It was pre - prostitution law reform, and I would do tax returns for people in that industry, and they were confident that they were able to fulfil their revenue obligations without anybody knowing the nature of their earnings and how they were gained.

Section 18 says that a revenue officer must keep confidential all sensitive revenue information, and must not disclose the information unless the disclosure is a permitted disclosure that meets the requirements of sections 18D to 18J, which are obviously then laid out. As a former Minister, not even the Minister gets to see that information. I remember asking for information as Minister of Immigration about non-payment of student loans for people who are overseas, and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue said, “Sorry Minister—can’t have it”. That obviously was because she was complying with the law.

So we now have this amendment which says it doesn’t matter about section 18 of the Tax Administration Act. Section 18 does not prevent the commissioner disclosing to the Registrar of Business Payment Practices information for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the requirements of the Business Payment Practices Act—this Act that we are passing. So for all of the things that we could provide in exception to section 18 of the Tax Administration Act, this, I would suggest, is well down the list of reasons why we should breach that important confidentiality obligation on the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

So my questions are these: why do we need this power? What is the information that is being held by the IRD that is so important to the Registrar of Business Payment Practices that he or she would need to breach—well not breach, but, well, yeah, breach a longstanding convention on the sensitivity of revenue information? What is the sort of information that the registrar is seeking? Because clearly, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have asked for this clause to be put in. Is it about payment timeliness for tax obligations? Is it about whether somebody files and pays their GST on time, or their income tax or their PAYE? Is that appropriate in the circumstances, given the very strong convention that we have had over a long period of time of the confidentially of the very sensitive information that Inland Revenue holds?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you, Madam Chair. To be clear: no one’s personal tax information is being shared. All that is happening is that Inland Revenue will help the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to be able to identify which entities fall in scope of this regime. So these are New Zealand’s largest corporate entities. Disclosures about corporate revenue are not as sensitive as disclosures about individual taxpayers’ personal affairs, as the member referred to in his personal experience. Through working with Inland Revenue to identify which reporting entities are, in fact, in the scope of this regime, MBIE will be able to then notify them of their pending obligation to make disclosures. In essence, it’s to ensure that they are not unpleasantly surprised when the bill’s transitional period comes to an end.

So just to be clear: this clause is required to give IRD the authority they need to share that information.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for that answer, which comforts me not one bit, because we are, remember, talking about organisations with quite high levels of turnover—$33 million, I think, at the start, and then it goes up even higher than that. All of those organisations will have tax agents, tax accountants, and lawyers who would be able to advise them on all of their obligations. But what we are talking about now is the breach of that strong convention under the Tax Administration Act that information be disclosed to a third party—the Minister says, to assist them in their obligations.

Well, they don’t get that sort of information on other issues—I’m talking about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment here. They don’t get that information that revenue might hold for their compliance on other issues—number of staff, number of people who might be working under the table or on visa conditions that are different. All of these things could be information held by Inland Revenue, but, somehow, their turnover information—which is only one metric in the qualification under this bill—can be got from other sources. And the Minister says, “Well, we think we’re helping the business”; I think this reflects a lack of trust in businesses to understand and comply with the expectations under this bill, and that’s rather unfortunate.

But the most unfortunate thing about this clause is that it breaches that strong convention: Inland Revenue is a sealed unit for almost all pieces of information, and the idea that we would so flippantly breach that convention for this bill, I think, is a bit sad.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is in relation to clause 54 of Part 5 of the bill, and this clause is amending section 48 of the—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Financial Reporting Act?

SIMON WATTS: —Financial Reporting Act—thank you—2013.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: We put that in, don’t you know?

SIMON WATTS: Yeah! Interestingly in regards to that. So my question in regards to this is that under the Financial Reporting Act, there is section 48(2), which requires that specific legislation—this clause is putting this, the Business Payment Practices Act, within that financial reporting legislation—then requires, under section 48(2) of that Act, that the first review of the numbers occur eight years after the bill is put into play. And then section 48(3) of that Act says: in every six years subsequent to that.

I guess my question to the Minister, in regards to the decision for this bill to be put under that, is: what is the rationale and specific points and reason why this bill is deemed to be appropriate to fall within that guise? I note that the questions that I raised around clause 47, in the prior section, in regards to the amount of infringement fees, went unanswered. But I guess maybe this is an opportunity. I was just doing a bit of the back-of-a-packet exercise and, God forbid, if inflation continues at 6 percent over the next eight years, $100 today, in eight years’ time, at 6 percent inflation, is $160. Just a little bit of—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Compounding, it would be even more.

SIMON WATTS: Compounding interest there. I thought you’d appreciate that, the Hon Michael Woodhouse—a little bit of accountancy late in the day on a Wednesday. But, anyway, it’s quite a lot of money, quite a lot of growth. Eight years is a long time. A little bit of context on that clause would be appreciated, Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I ask my questions, I’ll just summarise the discussions the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee had about when this bill should come in to effect, because, as it was introduced and referred to the committee, it had, effectively, the ability to come into effect on the day after it received Royal assent. There were concerns expressed by submitters that the reporting entities did need time to prepare. So with the exception of some of the set up requirements that the registrar needs to do, the bill itself, according to clause 2, substantively won’t come into effect until six months after the day on which it receives Royal assent, which is, in my view, the minimum amount of time that the reporting entities will need in order to develop systems for compliance.

My question—noting that the External Reporting Board’s conventions for the introduction, for example, of new accounting measures is that there be a 12- to 24-month lead-in to changes of that nature—is: is the Minister confident that the reporting entities, who are subject to infringements if they don’t comply, will have sufficient time to comply? And secondly, what has she done to have that confidence; and has she ascertained that, given the submissions that the select committee heard, six months will indeed be enough time for them to prepare?

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Business Payment Practices Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): I present a legislative statement on the Business Payment Practices Bill.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Business Payment Practices Bill be now read a third time.

Timely payments for goods and services delivered is crucial for the financial health of any business, and especially for New Zealand’s small businesses. But since taking on the small-business portfolio, I’ve heard from so many small-business owners that the long-payment terms that some large firms impose are hurting their cash flow, increasing their stress, and also stopping their business growth.

Larger firms are often in a position to take it or leave it in terms of payment. This puts them at an advantage, at the expense of some of their smaller suppliers, and that’s not fair. When this happens, these small suppliers often feel unable to ask for more reasonable terms for fear of losing that income. The perception of a power imbalance is often too great for small-business owners to risk upsetting their large customer. If a small business relies on a large payer for a lot of their revenue, they will indeed be anxious to not rock the boat, as their livelihood may well be at stake. Poor payment practices by some large firms are preventing significant segments of our business community from realising their full potential. The effects can run throughout supply chains and have consequences for the far broader economy through, for example, a high cost of capital or unnecessary insolvencies, and we know that in New Zealand, the vast majority of our business activity—98 percent of our businesses—are small businesses.

In its report in 2019, the Small Business Council reported that among all issues facing small businesses, it considered timely payment a top priority. The council said that problems with payment practices are difficult to deal with effectively with our current tools and that, in fact, a new approach was needed. The bill being debated here today and receiving its third reading will deliver that change. It will provide transparency so that people can see for themselves whether large firms are offering good payment terms or not. Small businesses will have better information to inform their decision making when engaging new customers. Large businesses who care about their reputation will want to ensure that their payment practices stand up to public scrutiny.

The bill requires entities with more than $33 million in revenue and $10 million in third-party expenditure to disclose information about their payment practices twice a year. The Government needs to lead by example, so the bill will apply to Government entities just as much as the private sector. Disclosed information will include information related to payment times and reporting entities’ payment terms. This information will be publicly available on a searchable register administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The register will be free for users and easy to access. This bill provides for the appointment of a registrar who will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the register and its associated compliance, and also its enforcement function.

The bill also provides for infringement penalties and criminal offences for contraventions of its obligations. The bill’s penalties would, of course, only apply to the most wilful and problematic offending. The primary compliance lever will be reporting entities’ desire to enhance their reputations as good business operators who offer fair payment terms. Reporting entities that offer good payment terms will want to make this known, and the transparency this regime requires will enable them to do exactly that. Favourable comparisons will be made against reporting entities that don’t offer good payment terms. They will now need to defend this approach in the face of full public scrutiny.

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee carefully considered the bill and recommended some really good changes to make this bill more effective, and I’ll briefly go over some of those changes. I’d also like to thank members from both sides of the House for their work on the bill.

The changes include having more clarity in what counts as payment information and also more specificity around which entities the new transparency regime will apply to, measures to minimise compliance cost, and a range of technical improvements. The select committee made two other changes to help ensure implementation runs smoothly. The first was to provide a six-month transitional period before reporting entities must start collecting information. The second was that initially, only reporting entities with $100 million of annual revenue will need to report. Many of these companies will already be doing the same reporting requirements by the Australian requirements, so they will be well placed to extend this transparency to their New Zealand operations.

Parliament then made more changes to the bill at its committee of the whole House stage. These changes have no effect on the intent or the broad parameters, but none the less they will help ensure that it operates effectively, is clear, and is internally consistent. Those changes include inserting a provision in the bill that allows regulations to define “invoice”, making it clear what fields public users of the register must be able to be searched upon, making it clear that companies must be able to report separately on invoices in dispute only if and when they are required to report on late invoices, making sure that the use of the term “working days” was consistent when talking about appeal and review periods throughout the bill, and enabling the regulations to specify the kinds of transactions that need to be reported back on.

The most notable change at the committee of the whole House stage was that to increase the bill’s transitional period from six to 10 months. The bill’s regulations won’t be gazetted immediately after the bill passes, and it is the regulations that spell out exactly what information must be disclosed. Adding more time to the bill’s transitional period ensures that the reporting entities don’t lose some of that transitional period while they wait for those regulations to be finalised.

MBIE officials are developing draft regulations now, and to this end they have consulted widely with stakeholders and subject matter experts in New Zealand and in Australia, where a similar regime now operates. I am confident that the regulations will achieve the right balance of ensuring useful information is made available to small businesses and the wider public while minimising compliance cost for reporting entities and enabling the smoothest possible implementation.

This bill has been long talked about, and small businesses are eager to see this enacted. I’m proud and pleased to commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, to the long list of bills passed by this Government that I’ve described as a well-meaning waste of time, we can add the Business Payment Practices Bill. We’ve had Rachel Boyack’s Plain Language Bill, Duncan Webb’s directors’ duties bill. I can think of a few others but the list is getting long and I don’t know how we’re going to deal with the repeal of all of this. I think once we get to Government we’re going to have to have some kind of omnibus bill, the “Well-meaning Waste of Time Repeal Bill” or some such.

Chris Penk: “Back on Track Bill”.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The “Back on Track Bill”—I like that. But repeal it we will, because however well-meaning the Minister is, she has just burdened business with more compliance cost for little or no benefit. Why do I say that? Well, the purpose of the bill makes it clear: the bill isn’t to improve payment practices; it’s to create transparency. Now, the collection, collation, and reporting of this data will in and of itself not change behaviour. And there’s something about the Kiwi psyche I found when I was advising small business many, many years ago—one of the things that we taught small businesses was good credit practice, good credit management practice, credit control. There’s something about New Zealanders that makes them reluctant to ask for the money that’s due them, to actually pick up the phone and say, “Guess what! That invoice is late, is there a reason why you haven’t paid?” And anyone who’s worked in an accounting office knows that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

And indeed, when we look at the case for change, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) couldn’t make it. We actually have pretty good payment practices in this country, particularly if you remove Crown entities from the equation. When you remove disputed payments from the equation, bills are paid pretty well on time. Now, there are always ratbags and rogues in business as there are in society. Might they be quivering in their boots tonight when this bill is passed? I doubt it. I doubt it very much because, as I say, it is a well-meaning waste of time. And how do we know this? It’s because other jurisdictions have actually tried and failed—by a legislative vehicle—to improve payment practices. The committee heard of the efforts by the Australian and United Kingdom Governments to do just that, in 2017 and 2020 respectively, and there was no discernible improvement in payment terms. In fact, in certain sectors in Australia they’re reporting worse payment terms. There we go: the Government gets involved and it gets worse, not better. Where have we heard that before? And, indeed, MBIE didn’t even know the scale of the problem. Now we may, if the right data is collected and reported in the right way, have some kind of transparency on that. But as I say, rogue payers are not going to be quivering in their shoes tonight.

We also believe that the threshold for compliance with this regime is too low: $33 million is not a lot of money. We’ve got it in other jurisdictions much, much higher than that. And so small business is really facing another example of more compliance costs. I say small businesses, I think in turnover that would probably make them medium businesses, but it certainly doesn’t make them large. They are faced with more compliance costs being imposed on them for very little benefit. But as I say, hope is coming. It’s only a few short months away before a Government that understands business, that understands that every time Government writes a law there is a cost attached and it’s an external cost not on the Crown alone but on the businesses, who have to pay twice because they pay for their own compliance costs and then they pay for the registrar through their taxes. Already overburdened with regulation, this is an unnecessary addition to that. So we will continue to oppose it and then repeal it.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been a real privilege to be able to chair the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee during the process of this bill. I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversations we’ve had in teasing out some of the real details that the Minister has covered in her speech—the ones about the payment threshold, the conversations around which payments that we need to be excluding, and the kinds of businesses that we want to capture. And I’m very comfortable in the place that we’ve landed, which is to make sure that those businesses we capture—with over $33 million with a payment threshold of $10 million. It’s actually something that really captures the businesses who have already a very well-established accounting department within their companies who will already know their own business payment practices, also relating to the stats on late and overdue payments and also around the payment terms that smaller businesses, when they become their suppliers and engage with them, want to know. And also society, including us, including media, will be able to actually have an overview in transparency so that we can all make sure that New Zealand truly becomes the best place in the world for small and medium businesses.

I started my very own business at 21 years old as a sole practitioner doing events management and, when we became the supplier to big events companies, we made sure that we had to pay our other staffers as well. Those were all university students, and that was hard being the small player, the small fish in the pond. And so by having gone through that, we know now who to engage with and where we need to be careful, and it doesn’t waste my own time in trying to get to those phone calls that the Hon Michael Woodhouse has just mentioned. This is efficiency for the whole economy. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, the Business Payment Practices Bill is a bill, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has very clearly stated, that is destined to end up on the cutting room floor, on the scrap heap. It is a great shame, isn’t it, when one thinks about all of the opportunities that we have in this House to deal with some of the most significant issues that our country faces, that the Government of the day decides to pass a piece of legislation under urgency—under urgency, of course—which is going to result in pretty much not much happening.

That is the reality of the Business Payment Practices Bill, a bill which has already been tried and tested in overseas jurisdictions. We heard earlier the fact that this, in a similar bill as this bill, has already been implemented in both Australia and the United Kingdom, in 2017 and in 2020. And what was the outcome? What were the learnings that we can derive from that experience? Well, quite simply, we can derive the learnings from those two jurisdictions that the implementation of legislation such as this makes absolutely no difference.

And for those that are watching at home at 5.35 p.m., getting ready to watch the news tonight, reflecting on—

Hon David Bennett: They’ll be watching The Chase.

SIMON WATTS: —is my Government dealing with—ha, ha!—my number one issue around cost of living, or crime, or other factors? No. Rest assured, your Government is dealing with issues and matters that aren’t going to make any impact. So that is a shame.

The other aspect of this bill is that when officials inputted and provided advice, and I acknowledge the select committee who did a valiant job in trying to, you know—

Hon David Bennett: They’re in the paper.

SIMON WATTS: —improve—ha, ha!—a bill that was destined to failure, make it better. For some of the members, I’m sure they did try hard, but it hasn’t made much difference. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) actually said that—quite a simple question is: how big is the problem we’re trying to fix? How big is this issue? A pretty reasonable question, isn’t it? Well, you know what? You know what? The—the—officials—

Hon Willie Jackson: Can you get to the point?

SIMON WATTS: Thank you, the Hon Willie Jackson, for helping me on that. The officials from MBIE said to us that they cannot measure or see or are able to quantify the scale of the problem that actually needs to be fixed. And not only are we standing here this evening passing a bill under urgency that’s going to make absolutely no impact but the officials, who do a really great job in many circumstances, said to the Government, “By the way, we can’t even quantify the problem you’re trying to fix.” So with those two elements alone, you would probably think “Well, maybe let’s not bother doing this.” But, no, there is more to come.

The other aspect of the bill is in regards to the $33 million threshold which triggers this bill coming into play. And we’ve heard from the Hon Michael Woodhouse in regards to the fact that the similar Australia legislation is set at $100 million. I was just doing again a bit of a packet exercise on the $33 million, under current inflation rates at 6 percent today. They’re saying inflation’s dropping—

Hon David Bennett: Tumbled—tumbleweed.

SIMON WATTS: —tumbled down like a tumbleweed. What a load of bollocks—what a load of bollocks, isn’t it? I mean, 6 percent. Wow! Hurray! You know, that’s double where we should be. But anyway, the point I’m making, is that $33 million, with a bit of inflation, that’s $35 million in one year, right? So that’s the scale of the inflationary impact. That $33 million—what is that? It’s about $650 grand a week, give or take—you know, about 90 bucks—90 grand a day, if you’re doing a seven-day business.

Hon David Bennett: They’re only four days—four days over that side.

SIMON WATTS: A four-day week—anyway, that’s the scale. Aussies, even though the bill didn’t work in Australia, they still at least set the threshold at A$100 million. But anyway—we’ve pushed back on that, tried to be constructive, but, consistently with the Government, that hasn’t been listened to.

The other aspect of the bill which has been highlighted in the committee of the whole House today was the reality that, actually, if you really want to get to the heart—and the Minister used the words “This bill needs to deal with the big fish.” The “big fish” were the words that the Minister used. The big fish! Let’s get out there—let’s get out there—you know, whatever we’re going to do, and let’s deal with those big fish. Well, the big fish are the departments that report to these Ministers, all right? They are the big fish, you know, and if you think about—let’s think about the police, OK, the New Zealand Police department, and maybe the Minister has a little bit of experience with that department. I don’t know—maybe; maybe not. Half a billion dollars in 2022 was their operating expenditure budget, all right? So I’m not talking about staffing. Staffing’s $1.5 billion for the police, but half a billion bucks spent on suppliers and they’d be big and small, no doubt, but there’ll be a lot of small ones, you know, providing those torches or batons or what other—what’s that, sorry?

Hon David Bennett: Repairs of cars from potholes.

SIMON WATTS: Repairs of cars that are getting—

Glen Bennett: Who’s giving the speech?

SIMON WATTS: It’s always useful for the Hon David Bennett to contribute into this with the wealth of knowledge. I appreciate that. But the guts is half a billion bucks of spend, and the only thing that these Ministers need to do to get them sorted is to send an expectation to their Government departments to pay on time. They can write a little letter on the laptops—yeah—and go “Dear, Department A. Please ensure that you pay your bills on time. Kind regards, Minister ABC.” Just do that. I mean, I’ll tell you what. Instead of spending $5 million to $10 million of taxpayer money, which is how much this bill is going to cost in terms of MBIE system costs, the Ministers could write a little letter to every Government department and say, “You know what? Just pay your bills on time.” And that in itself would deal with the big fish that the Minister refers to that are the ones that need to get themselves in order.

We know that the Government departments are the slowest payers and they are the ones that could easily—this could be solved with literally printing a letter. I’m quite happy to draft the letter for the Ministers myself, if that would help, because that is all they need to do to set the expectations. But they’re not going to do that. They’re going to pass a bill like this under urgency, a complete waste of time, and it’s not going to work.

The other aspect that—and it’s good to see we’ve got a little bit more time, because we can go on for a little bit more. But the other aspect is in regards to the IT programme, right? So we talked about the fact that the MBIE officials—the question was: how much is this all going to cost? How much is this all going to cost the taxpayer? And the costs coming back, in regards to trying to do all of the compliance. We talked about all the information-gathering powers, right, and the changes to the Income Tax Act as well, which I think was another revelation by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. Always an eye for detail, but he picked up that and I don’t think the Government wanted to talk about that little bit of more information-gathering powers. But I’m surprised I didn’t read it in the New Zealand Herald in the letters to the editor from the Hon David Parker this morning. Did everyone see that?

Hon Members: No.

SIMON WATTS: The Minister is writing to the Herald to do letters to the editor now as a way in which he communicates. But I didn’t see it in his contribution to the Herald in the letters to the editor this morning about the fact that there’s more changes in this bill relating to the Income Tax Act, but maybe that might be coming tomorrow—

Hon David Bennett: They’re still holding it.

SIMON WATTS: —because there’s only a certain word count you’re allowed in the letters to the editor, the Hon David Bennett. But anyway, five to 10 million bucks, $5 million to $10 million of taxpayer money coming out of the pockets of hard-working Kiwis is going to be splashed up against the wall on this completely hopeless and useless bill. And that is just another example of wastage of taxpayer money by this Government.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s a very well-plastered wall full of splashes.

SIMON WATTS: And, you know, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee is noting, you can get a lot down your way for 10 million bucks and it would be a lot better purpose than this bill in our communities out there, by letting that money go to those that need it most.

So I think I’ve traversed the bill adequately. I think it’s pretty clear that National will be strongly opposing this bill. A complete waste of time. It’s on the list. It’s on the long list of urgent bills that will be repealed in round about 100 days. So there is hope. But we will not be supporting this bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’d like to thank the Hon David Bennett for that 10-minute speech that he just gave! It was reflective and thoughtful; I appreciated all those quips and moments. I don’t think the Hon David Bennett sat on the committee, but obviously he has a lot of information to share with us in this House, and I appreciated that speech, very thoughtful—almost like an autocue machine running in the background. What’s the voice version of that in the back of your ear?

But in all seriousness, I want to say that, as has been mentioned, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) make up 97 percent—almost 550,000 companies and businesses throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. And when companies are slow payers, this creates stress, this creates uncertainty, and when small businesses can be on a financial knife-edge, like some of those small and medium businesses are, that is make or break time, not only for them as a business but also the stress and the mental health and those type of things that are challenged there.

So I was on the committee. I support this piece of legislation, and I’m glad that we as Government are making true on announcements we’ve made and what we’re going to do. We’ve heard some barbs across the floor this afternoon around what we are or aren’t doing, but when I reflect on SMEs here, I think that what we’ve been doing for new business grows funds and supports small and medium sized enterprises to grow, putting money into that. We fully funded the Regional Strategies Partnership Fund, unleashing the regional economy and meeting what opportunities we have. I experienced that in my own electorate of New Plymouth. We’ve put money into the tourism industry programme that supports SMEs; also into the Industry Transformation Plans, which is working with industries, with workers, and with iwi, ensuring that our SMEs are fit for purpose, are supported, are not only—can I mention also the investment in our gaming and tech sector. We’re doing so much, and therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to an oral question.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are none.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In response to question No. 8 today, I said that the role of my office was to request that Te Whatu Ora publish the correct data. I have since been advised by my office that Te Whatu Ora reported a provisional date for the data to be released on 5 July, and a staff member said that it should not be released that week due to other announcements. Upon learning this information, I have told my staff that they should not have given that direction, and it is my expectation that it does not happen again. The final date that the data was released was determined by Te Whatu Ora based on when the information was ready.

Bills

Business Payment Practices Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Business Payment Practices Bill. It will be a short call and, unlike Simon Watts, I will be unable to drag it out, because there’s really not a lot to say. [Looks around at nearby empty seats] And I haven’t got the support around me that he had, either.

I’m not sure who Minister Andersen—

Hon David Bennett: Oh, that’s a bit cutting!

CHRIS BAILLIE: —at the moment—Minister Andersen talks to, as far as business owners go. Because I talk to business owners all the time, and they’re hurting. They’re the ones that managed to survive COVID and get through and, of course, survive the Government’s attacks on them. And every business owner that I speak to knows—well, not one of them has ever mentioned late-paying invoices as being a big issue. So I’m just not sure who she actually talks to. And the fact that, as is mentioned, the same scheme in Australia, in the UK, has been tried and failed—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) can’t find a reason for it. So, really, it’s, like was mentioned, the Plain Language Bill, the health and safety at work amendment bill—to name a few—as a solution looking for a problem. Small businesses have ways of dealing with late payments, and, generally, it’s a phone call. A phone call, it works wonders. I have to do it myself every now and then. And, either way, few businesses who have to do that are dealing with these companies that are the late payers.

The Government is tinkering around the edges. It’s trying to convince the party faithful, gullible enough to actually believe that they care about small business. And while they do that, we slowly watch them destroy them, sending good people to Australia. With the minimum wage up 44 percent, productivity up 7 percent—

Angela Roberts: Woo!

CHRIS BAILLIE: Whoever just said, “Woo!” just doesn’t understand business, because it is unsustainable. The “stat” holidays—$450 million. I hope everyone over in the opposition said thank you to all the businesses on Matariki, because it’s businesses that were able to allow that statutory holiday.

Angela Roberts: It’s good for businesses.

CHRIS BAILLIE: Anyone who says it’s good for business has never owned a business, obviously. And we’re told on Matariki that those businesses aren’t allowed to make a big profit because you’re not allowed to commercialise Matariki—unlike Easter and Easter eggs; and Christmas, we’ve got Santa. Not Matariki. So it makes it even more difficult.

We’ve got an extra sick leave, $2 billion extra sick leave to cost to businesses. And this Government thinks that late-paying invoices is the big issue. And then we’ve got the lunacy of the compulsory union awards, or fair pay agreements, that are already starting to create a headache for business owners and their staff—the business owners that treat these staff really well and the staff who don’t want a bar of these things, and they are being forced by union bullies. I won’t even start to look at this Government’s record on crime and how that affects businesses. I know of businesses in a large New Zealand town who—the owners aren’t even reporting robberies or ram raids.

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

CHRIS BAILLIE: Yes, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you.

CHRIS BAILLIE: This is a cynical attempt to trick the voters, to make them think that this Government cares about small business. As the National speakers have said, it will be repealed after 14 October. And the public and business owners will know that ACT have their backs. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare.

Hon David Bennett: This will be good economics.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I have just heard from a member of the House from the Opposition who has made a name for himself by yelling out “socialism” every opportunity that he has, who’s asked me to explain economics. Well, sir, let’s talk about economics. Let’s talk about what it is that we’re trying to achieve out of our economy, because this is actually one of my favourite yarns. It’s what is the economy and what is it that we’re trying to achieve out of the rules, the regulations, the legislation that we put in place?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member can have that discussion with the member of the Opposition at a different time, but come back to this bill. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a shame to return to this bill, but, none the less, it is a good bill. It is a good bill—a simple bill—which interestingly enough has been the point of members of the Opposition and the ACT Party member, Chris Baillie, who just resumed his seat. It is a simple bill, because it doesn’t purport to fix all of the issues in the economy, the unfairness, the inequity, and otherwise. It is not an inherently transformational piece of legislation, but it doesn’t pretend to be that. It does what it says on the tin, which is to provide greater transparency and, therefore, some consumer choice for small businesses or small-business consumers who may be choosing who they engage in business with.

We’ve traversed this substantially at all of the other readings throughout this bill’s progression, and in the words of Jeanette Fitzsimons, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” And, in fact, when we have that data, that information, and those details, we can make better, informed decisions about the kind of business that we want to do in this country. As far as the Greens are concerned, that is good for the economy. So the Greens are proud to support this bill. Of course, it’s not transformative, but let’s do that in the election, hey?

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a small-business owner for 20 years, I rise proudly to speak and support this bill. I know how important it is for small businesses to be able to be paid on time, and this will make a significant difference. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): This bill is as simplistic in its approach to trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist as the speeches we’ve had from members of the Government. The reason for that is, ultimately, there are two problems. If this is such an important thing, why does this legislation not cover Government agencies and Government departments?

Angela Roberts: It does!

Hon TODD McCLAY: It doesn’t to the degree that it’s imposing a cost upon businesses within New Zealand. Because that’s the point: this will impose a cost that’s trying to solve a problem that really doesn’t exist. It’s a Government that continually stands up in public and says, “We have got the big issues at heart.” This has nothing to do with bread and butter.

Here’s the worst part; the second problem of this. This House, when it goes into urgency, should be dealing with issues that are urgent to New Zealanders. Six years after this crowd came to Government, they’re coming here to pass this piece of legislation because they say it is one of the most urgent things they have to do in the last few weeks of this Parliament and here’s here.

Now, there are problems, actually, with people not paying their bills in New Zealand—no question about that. If this legislation had been amended earlier in the committee or in the committee of the whole House stage to deal with New Zealanders that can’t pay their bills, I don’t know. For instance, the rents that have gone up so much, or their food in supermarkets that costs so very, very much. It would be a worthwhile use of Parliament’s time anyway, particularly in urgency. But in this case, it doesn’t deal with those things at all.

All it does is look for a problem. It’s a solution that’s looking for a problem, and we’ve heard from so many speakers in the debate so far that actually, while submitters came forward and said if there is an issue, there are better ways to deal with it, once again, we have a Government that doesn’t listen to New Zealanders, doesn’t listen to experts, and puts its head down and says, “We know best.”

Well, it feels to me that, actually, when Governments run out of things to do that are important—they run out of ideas—they start coming up with solutions to problems that don’t exist, and they try to justify that speech after speech. Now, if this was important legislation—if it was fixing great challenges, if actually there was a real solution in this to a real problem that everyday New Zealanders were facing—then those members wouldn’t be taking a minute or two in their 10-minute speeches to rush this through; they would be explaining it to New Zealanders, justifying it, making the case—80 days, plus or minus, out from election—of why this is important, why it’s in the House now, why it’s in urgency, and why they should be voted back in as a result of that. But we’re not hearing that. We’re hearing the Opposition members turning up and taking full calls, talking about what the real problems are and what the solutions should be.

The waste of money that comes about as a result of this; significant waste of money. Because when you look at it and it says it appoints people to look into this and to report to the Government, it’s another cost, if not upon business, upon the taxpayer, because of more Government resource that’s going after bad problems and not solving solutions. It is deeply, deeply disappointing that when, if there are issues in public where we have people, businesses, that struggle because of late payments, that, actually, this will do next to nothing to help them.

This was canvassed in the first reading, it was presented by many submissions in the committee, and it’s been raised again and again and again in this House. To be using Parliament’s time in urgency for this, again—rather than the many, many urgent issues that exist in New Zealand today—is not only a travesty, it does a great injustice to New Zealanders who have faith in this Government and this Parliament to actually deliver on the things that are important, and this is a clear issue where it won’t.

Businesses earning more than $33 million of revenue, or $10 million in third-party expenditure, for two or more consecutive accounting periods must disclose their payments. Well, it doesn’t actually do anything about it rather than a cost and another disclosure. We’ve had so many pieces of legislation that say, on the one hand, we’re going to stop measuring the things that are important to New Zealanders—like, I don’t know, what’s happening in A & E or emergency departments, or whether or not a hospital is delivering, or whether or not kids really can learn to read and write. We don’t want to measure that as a Government in case somebody holds us to account, but we’re happy to impose costs upon businesses in New Zealand so that they must measure and they must report so that we can have a look, and if there is a problem, maybe one day come back and pass another piece of legislation that actually won’t make a little bit of difference for the lives of any New Zealanders.

This is a Government that wilfully has borrowed, we are told, and spent—run up our debt to almost $97 billion. The taxpayer is going to have to work hard to find ways to pay that back. But that’s not good enough for this Government, not just borrowing taxpayer money and spending it and running up debt; they now want to impose costs upon businesses at a time when, actually, we should be helping those businesses—

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

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It’s really disappointing—so many of us have been involved with small businesses throughout our lives and we know the impact, the precarious nature, the constant conversation about cash flow. It’s really disappointing to hear, time and time again, how out of touch the other side of the House is, when they constantly say that the problem doesn’t exist and it’s not important. It’s not this Government that decided that; it is in response to 2019—the Small Business Council saying that of issues facing small businesses, timely payment was a top priority. It is really disappointing to hear, time and time again, how out of touch the Opposition is.

What we are doing is ensuring some transparency, and those who believe in the market know that perfect information is something that is required, all right? We back you, small businesses. This Government delivers for small businesses. We aren’t out of touch. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 7 p.m. I repeat, 7 p.m., not 7.30, when I resume the Chair. Ka kite anō.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members, when the House broke for the dinner break, we were considering the third reading of the Business Payment Practices Bill.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and talk on this very important bill, which is before the House. It’s great that it’s come to the third reading and great that we’ve been able to shepherd it through. Thank you to everybody that’s put in a lot of time and a lot of effort to get to this point.

This is all about making sure that small businesses know good players to play with. We are doing something that is going to make sure that we’re improving that information, that transparency around business-to-business practices here in New Zealand, to make sure that things are done in a good old, fair dinkum, Kiwi kind of way. For that reason, we on this side of the House are completely supportive of it. We know the benefits that it’s going to bring to those people that are in business, especially the small businesses. And if there’s something that we’ve learnt during COVID-19, it’s that actually we have a lot of small businesses here in New Zealand. Ninety seven percent of the country are made up of small businesses, and we need to do everything that we can to ensure that small-business owners have absolute confidence about who they are interacting with, who they’re transacting with, and making sure that they are in the best possible position to be able to contribute to the economy. When we support them, they support other New Zealanders and the whole economy works. For that reason. I support it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call—

Andrew Bayly: Andrew Bayly.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Andrew Bayly. Apologies, Andrew; I do know you perfectly well.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): That’s all right, Madam Speaker. I know. We’ve just had a nice dinner—

Glen Bennett: Unforgettable [sings].

ANDREW BAYLY: —together. Ha, ha! This is one of these bills that the Minister is rapidly trying to get through the House before the end of this session. Actually, it’s five weeks and one day before this House comes to a close. And this is one of those bills that a Minister wants to be able to stand up and say, “I did it, I did it, I did it. Well, I did it.” Even though we know that it’s absolutely a waste of time, because when we sat in the room and listened to all the submissions, even the officials have acknowledged they do not know the scale of the problem; they have not been able to quantify it. But, hey, this is one for the Minister to talk up. I think it’s probably the only thing that this Minister for Small Business has actually done for small business, and what a catalogue of issues and impositions they have placed on small businesses over the last few years.

At the very same dinner that the Speaker and I have just attended, I just listened to a very well-known business owner, promoter, and founder of a large company talk about the misery of being a businessman in New Zealand at the moment, where there’s an avalanche of regulation that has come on. And, of course, this is just another example of that. But, of course, you know, if you’re a small-business owner in New Zealand, you’ve had the issue about lack of talent: you can’t get people; you’ve had an unsupportive Government who’ve locked people out of the country and don’t happen to allow immigration; they are taking apart the vocational training organisations in New Zealand. So we’ve had that. We’ve had all their imposition of costs, because this Government only sees small businesses as a cash cow to fund their whole range of useless projects in the main. We’ve seen all of the issues around how to actually just ruin the lives of mums and dads who mostly run and own these businesses alongside their employees. We’ve seen how more difficult it is to employ people, and we’ve seen the rapid escalation of costs imposed on them. And many of them are now at a stage that they are up to here, and let’s hope there is a change in October, because there will be many small businesses—as this owner just pointed out at the dinner—who are now contemplating selling their businesses because of the environment that the Labour Government has imposed over the last six years.

Now, we oppose this bill and quite rightly so, because there is no requirement for this bill. And the prime reason for this is that there are four independent, highly credible credit-assessment companies in New Zealand who you can go to today and get, in real time, the same data that this so-called piece of legislation will enact, and for a sheer cost of $33 per application. For 33 bucks, you can go to one of the four and say, “I’d like to know about the credit assessment of X, Y, Z Ltd.” And, of course, what that will mean is that not only will you get the most up-to-date real-time data—not like this that potentially could be six months out of date—but, secondly, you get a much more enriched form of data about that firm. You can actually ask for even more than just how often they pay. You can ask them a lot more about the nature of the operations, what they do, who the creditors are, who the debtors are, who the directors are—all that sort of information.

But this is a Government that does not understand business. And this is going to be run by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). They’ve told us that they are looking at going out and employing a whole lot of IT consultants at a cost of between, we think—the estimate I asked of some of the credit-assessment agencies who are really in the market: “What would it cost MBIE to set up a package like this? What would it cost them to set up an IT programme like this?” And they estimate between $3 million to $5 million. And, of course, the Government has a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful experience in terms of delivering projects that will enable this to take place. And, of course, then there’s the operating costs if MBIE were to run this programme to deliver on the impact of this bill. And that, again, is estimated well into the millions.

And this is just a recipe. As this bill goes through—and it looks like the Labour Government’s going to shove it through—if that goes through, they should have picked up on my Supplementary Order Paper, which said it should be up for a formal review within two years. This is something we will do because ultimately we think, if you need to find out about a firm and if you need to make a credit assessment, go and get the independent assessment for $33 because that’s a much better outcome than what this bill delivers. And the whole thing about this bill really is this issue around trying to solve this issue. And, of course, Australia and the UK have got it. I spoke to the Australians about this bill and what they’ve done. They had a similar arrangement back in 2020. No doubt that’s where the Labour Minister—the previous one—sort of got the bright idea to do this. And, of course, the Australians are reviewing that right now—right now—because what they found in some of the sectors, even though they’ve had this in operation for two years, is that the companies were actually paying slower than before they started this process.

So this is the model that the Labour Government thinks “Oh, look, I’ll pick this up and put this into New Zealand.” And, by the way, even if they do it, which they seem like they’re going to do, what about the cost on business? We talked about this cost, and it’s between $1,000 to maybe $3,000. And, of course, they’re required to do that every six months. So all we’ve done is burden these people even more. And, of course, then we’ve got the issue of fines and all that sort of stuff on the directors. It is just a cascade of more regulation on our small businesses.

Labour should learn from its mistakes. Do not keep imposing regulations on small business. Let them thrive, because when they thrive they go out, they expand, they employ more people, and ultimately—Labour should work this out—they are more profitable, and that means there’s more money for the Government. But for some reason, let’s sock it to them, let’s regulate, let’s make the environment much harder, and let’s hope—oh, don’t worry about the growth in the tax revenue; we’ll just take the money off them anyway. And that is why this Government has failed so appallingly with small-business owners in New Zealand. That’s why small-business owners in the main will never vote for Labour again, because of—I don’t know what it is with Labour—this just unrelenting desire to take money off them and see them as a cash cow. They are not. They are the fundamental plank, the fundamental benchmark, the platform, for the economy in New Zealand. That’s what it’s about. But don’t worry about it; Labour knows best! That is why this is such a bad piece of legislation, and I am so concerned for New Zealand. I am concerned that we are going to see many people just say, “This is too difficult for us.”

Joseph Mooney: Yeah, they already are.

ANDREW BAYLY: They are already saying it. And so I think, for us, if we were to win the election, the biggest thing is we’ve got to provide small-business owners with the confidence and the understanding that they are important and they are to be valued, and not only them as owners but also their staff and their members. And remember just who provides the money to them: their customers—their customers. And that is what we will have to do. And this bill does not do that. This bill is a continual assault on the hard-working New Zealanders, hard-working families that own our businesses. I feel so, so concerned about the fabric of our business community in New Zealand that I am just worried that they are going to lose hope. But I’m saying to you, do not lose hope, because we will support you, we will look after you, we will help you grow, because we want you to grow. We want New Zealand to be successful, because when New Zealand’s successful, everyone succeeds. And that is what we need to achieve in New Zealand. And that is not what has occurred under this Labour Government for the past six years.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I’ve got news for Andrew Bayly, the member who just resumed his seat, this bill applies to large businesses, not small businesses. The businesses required to comply with this bill are those that have $33 million in revenue—more than—and $10 million in third-party expenditure. That’s not a small business. Small businesses have told us that one of the critical things for them is knowing that they’re going to be paid on time.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Read the bill.

RACHEL BOYACK: Exactly—read the bill. The other side should do that. One of the critical things for a small business is cash flow. While small businesses, of course, look at income and expenditure on an annual basis—on a regular basis—if they’re running their businesses well, I’m sure they are, but what is critical is cash flow, knowing that the goods and services that they are providing that cost them money to both produce and to provide, that that money is coming back to them as soon as possible. And we know, and certainly I know in my electorate, of the odd large business that doesn’t pay on time. And I know of small businesses—

Todd Muller: Dear oh dear.

RACHEL BOYACK: Don’t “dear oh dear” me, because small businesses in my electorate have told me—and if you are suggesting that I’m somehow making that up, I’ll tell you that small businesses of the Nelson electorate have told me that there are times they don’t get paid. They’re not lying to me.

It’s an excellent bill. It’s about cash flow to ensure that our small businesses can continue to thrive and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Business Payment Practices Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 74, Noes 43.

Voting

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, when the House was considering the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill, the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a third time was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 116; Noes 13. The correct result is Ayes 106; Noes 13. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Bills

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move, That the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill makes two different but equally important changes to how information is shared by councils under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. First, the bill will improve natural hazard information provided in land information memoranda, known as LIMs. The second change will enable councils to withhold information that could prejudice national security.

It is critical that New Zealanders have access to the best available natural hazard information when looking to buy a property. Buying a property can be the biggest investment people will ever make and should therefore be provided with the best information before they make a financial commitment. We know New Zealand is prone to natural hazards. This year, the North Island has been hit hard by extreme weather events, devastating people’s lives and properties. We also know that climate change will mean that extreme weather events like these will become more severe and more frequent.

The LIM is an important tool for communicating natural hazard information and a key document for buyers when deciding to buy property. However, LIMs are not doing a great job of informing the public about natural hazards. Currently, councils are not consistent in how they present natural hazard information on LIMs. This means that it is difficult for buyers to compare the information for properties in different parts of the country. Sometimes, key natural hazard information is missing from LIMs. Important information on the district plan or regional information is not required on LIMs. This is not ideal as regional councils may have better information and expertise than territorial authorities.

LIMs can at times be overly long and highly technical. This can make it difficult for the average person to read or understand. Councils can be reluctant to add plain English explanations or summaries to LIMs due to fears about legal action. This bill tackles these problems by ensuring that LIMs contain natural hazard information that is clear, concise, nationally more consistent, and easier for people to understand. It will do this by giving clearer requirements for councils when including natural hazard information in LIMs. The bill also allows for the development of regulations to set out how natural hazard information is presented in LIMs.

We know it is important for LIMs to be clear and understandable. This bill seeks to balance representing natural hazard information accurately while being in clear, non-technical language. This is important to both property buyers and sellers.

The bill also requires regional councils to share the natural hazard information they have with territorial authorities so that it can be included on LIMs. This will mean buyers will get regional- and district-level information through a single document. The bill gives councils greater certainty and reduces the risk of legal action against them by limiting council’s liability when sharing natural hazard information in good faith. Clearer requirements in the bill and regulations will give greater confidence to councils when sharing natural hazard content in LIMs.

Now, turning to the second part of the bill, the bill will align the grounds for withholding information with those under the Official Information Act (OIA). Unlike the OIA, this Act does not currently have grounds for councils to conclusively withhold information that may prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government. Time has moved on since the Act was drafted in 1987 and the local government landscape is now very different. Councils face threats from cyber-attacks and they hold strategic assets and information that need to be protected. In aligning this Act with the OIA, this bill will allow councils and the intelligence agencies to work more closely together to manage security concerns. The bill reduces the risk of information being disclosed that could prejudice New Zealand’s national security.

I’d like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its work on this bill. I want to acknowledge all the submissions on the bill. The majority of submissions supported the bill, and the submissions provided very useful and informative feedback.

Councils agreed the system needs to change and agreed with the need for more clarity and certainty in the law. However, councils also raised some concerns about the bill’s provisions related to LIMs. I support the select committee changes to address these concerns. The select committee has made some changes to the language in the bill to ensure that the requirements for councils are clearer. Councils requested that the bill should specifically require the Minister to consult with local government when developing regulations. The select committee have accepted this request, and I support this change, as councils are the ones that are the most impacted by the regulations. Their input is critical to ensure the regulations are workable and achieve their objectives.

The select committee also extended the back-up commencement date to 1 July 2025 for when the LIM-related provisions in the bill have to be in force. Extending the date by six months ensures that there is ample time to work with councils on the regulations and for councils to prepare for the changes.

Coming now to the new withholding ground provisions in the bill, all councils who submitted on the new withholding grounds in the bill supported the additions, as it will align the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act with the OIA. Councils recognised the important role they play in society and the valuable information they hold. Councils said this bill will allow them to proactively engage with the intelligence agencies on concerns they may have, including cyber-attacks. The bill will also support the intelligence agencies to proactively engage with councils on important security matters and enable the two parties to have more free and frank conversations.

I want to acknowledge those few submitters who disagree with the addition of new withholding grounds in the bill, and I thank them for their submissions. While I note their concerns about access to information being restricted, the Official Information Act has long established rules that provide for transparency while also managing risks to national security and international relations. The bill simply extends these provisions to local government.

It is important that councils can talk to our intelligence agencies about any concerns they may have and that communication is kept protected. The Ombudsman will continue to play an important role in ensuring that the new withholding grounds are not being used unreasonably, and I expect any complaints to be followed up in a timely manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Business Payment Practices Bill

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave from the House to correct the record of the vote on the previous bill, where ACT has the proxy vote for Dr Elizabeth Kerekere and it was not cast.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to have the record corrected for the vote on the previous bill, the Business Payment Practices Bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just give them the numbers.

SIMON COURT: Elizabeth Kerekere, one in favour.

Bills

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and here we are this evening, in urgency. The Government have put this House in urgency to deal with the most significant legislation that will deal with the biggest problems in this country! And I must commend the Minister in terms of the introduction to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. He absolutely nailed it, smashed it with the enthusiasm and energy that came out with that opening address. I acknowledge that I’m not even going to be able to come close in regards to that energy. But I do commend the Minister on that; for that reason alone—I don’t think for any other reason—National will be supporting this piece of legislation because it was such a great opening gambit while this Government sits in urgency in order to deal with this matter which, remarkably for those sitting at home watching, are going “Is the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill the biggest fish to fry in this country this evening?” Well, I tell you what, it is important but it is not the most important factor. But it does go to show that this Government—this is as good as it gets, and that, sadly, is the reflection in regards of where this Government is at the moment.

So let’s turn our minds to this bill, and I do want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee. I tell you what—and I acknowledge the Minister and I’ve had the pleasure of being able to sit on that committee in regards to other bills that are passing through quite swiftly at the moment, like a fast-flowing river of water—it is a very good committee, the Governance and Administration Committee. But we had 36 submissions on that—local councils across the country—and I think that while it is correct to say that pretty much most of the submissions were in support, it was acknowledged that the context in which the majority of local governments sit at the moment is sitting under a burden of regulation and reform brought upon by this Government, and this is just another aspect in regards to that growing pile of treacle that is slowing down our country in order to achieve its outcomes. But the select committee went through this, they did some good work and, as a result, we’ve got the bill back in the House to discuss this evening.

The key changes in regards to this bill are in relation to the improvement around the land information memorandums (LIMs) and, in particular, improving the natural hazard information that is provided within those LIMs. As we have experienced and continue to experience the impacts of climatic change and the resulting floods and cyclones that we’ve seen in many communities across this country—in the last six months alone they have suffered greatly as a result of this—this bill will bring about improvements in regards to how that information is included within those statements and provide the appropriate mechanism in order for those disclosures to be made. Because it is clear that we are going to continue to see the impacts as we have seen to date, and that will continue for very much the foreseeable future. It is the new normal in regards to how we need to deal, and this bill in regards to those changes will deal with that. The other aspect—[Interruption] Sorry?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Lift your game, man. You’re all about enthusiasm, come on!

SIMON WATTS: Well, there you go, there you go—appreciate the cordial back and forth here from the Minister, and he was right. He’s just giving me a bit of an up. I’ll try and gee it up a bit. Well, I’ll tell you what, three minutes into your speech and I was struggling as well but, you know, you got to seven and I’m not doing too bad, so just don’t wait; the best is always to come. And that will be the case because we are coming up to the most exciting part of this bill, and this is around the ability to withhold information that—oh, a little bit of water there to clear the throat—around the ability of the Act to be able to withhold information in regards to the Official Information Act. And this is quite a serious issue so we want to just pay a little bit of, you know, a little bit of serious—jokes aside; this is important.

The elements around ensuring that we’ve got the appropriate provision and provisions primarily relating to national security are needed to be improved, and that has been the case here, because as the Minister has outlined as well, there are a number of assets and activities that our local government sector provide which do have implications in regards to our national security, and it is important, obviously, to ensure that we’ve got the appropriate belts and braces around that to ensure that that information and the information in that regard is managed appropriately so, therefore, not to place us at any threat. So I think that aspect is obviously pretty simple and pretty sensible as well.

I think the elements or the opportunity in this bill that have been foregone is the opportunity to potentially make some greater enhancements in regards to dealing with some of the core issues that local government are facing at the moment. Obviously we all sit in anticipation of the other bills that will no doubt come through urgency, in due course, in regards to other elements of great importance to those in Government and less so to those New Zealanders outside of this House. But that is no doubt going to be occurring.

Other than those two key elements, there is not too much else in this bill and, on that basis, while National will be supporting these bills in regards to the sensible changes, we do see this as very much a missed opportunity in order to deal with the significant issues that our country faces. It does go and shoot home to the fact that this Government are pretty much out of ideas, and this is, as I said before, an example of what they deem is about as good as it is going to get from here on in. I think, if you take anything away from that, you can read—I just remember, though, the last Prime Minister, Ardern, when she said, “We won’t be doing any more legislation in the local government space unless the sector are saying this is critically important for us to do.” I think the reality is this is a bit of a long bow in regards to what is being demanded. I think the key issues that they want are obviously around the funding and financing and other aspects—

Hon David Bennett: Nothing in it for them.

SIMON WATTS: —maybe a little bit less regulation. “Nothing in it for them,” says the Hon David Bennett. But on that note, we’ll leave it at that. I’ve contributed more than what the Minister did in his opening address and, hopefully, with a little bit more sprite and energy.

Todd Muller: A lot more.

SIMON WATTS: A lot more?

Hon Member: A lot more.

SIMON WATTS: A lot more sprite and energy, and, I tell you what, it is difficult. But the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill will be supported by this side of the House, and that is that, and looking to the contribution of the next speaker. I’m sure it’s going to be inspiring!

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I’m going to begin with a few comments about why this bill is such a serious matter and why it’s so important. And I want to acknowledge the Minister, who I believe has probably visited a lot more regions and councils around the country than the member who just resumed his seat, Simon Watts. Because, in my electorate of Nelson, that had severe floods last year, we have one of the most interesting—for the nerds in the room—natural hazards, which is the Tāhunanui Slump. And for those of you who are interested in geology and earthquakes and how land moves, I would encourage you to look up the history around the Tāhunanui Slump, which sits in the Port Hills above Nelson and has moved for hundreds of years as a result of earthquakes and flooding and road building at the foot of the slump—there are natural springs that sit underneath it. If the council were making decisions today, they wouldn’t allow people to build there. The impact of this natural hazard has affected lives and livelihoods.

So for the other side of the House to suggest that somehow this is only of importance to the Parliament—to the people of Tāhunanui who live in that area, this type of reform that local government has asked for is of significant importance to them. The importance for them to know, through a land information memorandum, the natural hazards that are in the area will affect whether people choose to build or buy in certain areas of my electorate. It’s really a serious matter. And for those people that are currently not able to live in their homes and suffering extreme financial distress as a result, this bill would have made a significant difference to them if it had been in place. So it’s an excellent bill. It is of importance to the people of New Zealand affected by these events, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it’s a very difficult bill to do a 10-minute speech on, I’ll give you that, because there’s not much in there. But I won’t hold back for the Labour Party because it’s what they’ve all come here for; they want to hear what we’ve got to say. So, you know, this has been talked about by the other members, about how massive the changes are but actually how practical some of them are, as well. And at a time when, you know, people have had the loss of land and loss of their properties, it is a serious matter and anything that can be helped, in the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) report or the land information memorandum report, is of benefit to those people and future potential residential or property owners that may encounter a difficulty in the future. So we understand the rationale and the reason for it. Doing it in urgency does not really make much sense but they haven’t got much else to do so we can understand why they’re doing this.

But I guess the biggest threat to local government at the moment is in regard to the assets of local government that are being appropriated by this Government, an appropriation which has been based on a theme that they have taken and this bill actually relates to it in a very loose sense, in the sense that local government should be given more respect than this Government has given them in what they’re doing around water and resources. And the resources we’re talking about here are effectively water, land, and other impacts. So it does have an impact on many New Zealanders and especially on local government.

Glen Bennett: Tell us more.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Tell us more? Well, I would, but I fear the Speaker might cut me off if I tell you exactly what’s happening in the Water Services Legislation Bill, and we can’t really divulge that because it’s in committee, as well. But suffice to say that it’s just a take of assets from councils. Everyone knows that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! We are in urgency and so I do like to give a little bit more latitude to members. Straying from a bill—briefly—I can accept, but I think I gave enough body language warnings to the member that the time had come to veer back into the lane which is the lane of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. So I’ll ask the member to confine his comments to the contents of this bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, and thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t intending to go off lane; I was really just helping out a member and colleague that needed some assistance. And so, you know, in effect, this bill is something we will support. We see the practicalities of it. It’s just it’s very disappointing that a Government, after six years, gets to the stage where this is all they can ram through in urgency. And, you know, it’s really just a symptom of the Government that they are and how they’ve failed New Zealanders. And so we look forward to a speedy transition through the House.

Now, the member over there, Naisi Chen, is standing up already. I might have to take a few more sentences then if she’s going to stand up like that, you know, without being called. That’s completely inappropriate for a new member to do that and they should just read the bill again, maybe, and enjoy it. But thank you.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you. I do want to just say I am very enthusiastic about taking my call, and so I really want to get up early. The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill—I like to call it LGOIMA. I think that’s probably one of the best names of an acronym ever that exists in politics. The LGOIMA, I think, is an excellent bill.

I know my good colleague Rachel Boyack has talked about Nelson, and I look at Auckland and the floods that we had over the anniversary weekend. The amount of property in that city and the amount of property that I used to advise on when we were doing conveyancing at the first law firm that I worked for—all of the land information memorandums that we had to go through and all of the information that our clients expected us to provide but we just simply weren’t able to.

Because I remember looking at those maps, those diagrams of flood plains, and they were so limited as to what had happened, actually. The devastation and the unpreparedness that Auckland City faced during the anniversary weekend—I really do think information is trump in this day and age, making sure that we are ready and prepared to face all of the changes that climate change will bring to our little country, and I hope we are prepared. So that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): This is a very important piece of legislation, because it clarifies how natural hazards are identified to property owners, current and prospective. This disclosure has been missing from information that property owners should have had access to, and should have been available to them for many, many decades.

Now, when we think about the purpose of the bill, to introduce changes to improve natural hazard information provided on the land information memorandum, the LIM, and to align withholding information with the Official Information Act processes—ACT agrees with both of these provisions, but I want to explain a little more what the implications of this bill are, what the bill does, but also what it means, because that has not been articulated by the Minister of Local Government or by anyone else here. So when we read the rather garbled executive summary—I’m not quite sure who edited this—it says that “purchasers do not make decisions that reduce natural hazards that may have significant consequences for community wellbeing, including the impact of natural hazard emergency response and recovery programmes.”

Well, that’s a little bit garbled, but what I think they mean is that if people buy land and think they’re going to develop it in a certain way, but it turns out that it’s subject to flooding or slips, erosion or coastal processes, then they might waste their money or they might build in a place that in the future someone has to rescue them from. That’s how I would interpret that, for people watching or listening at home or for members in this House. So it does make sense that natural hazard information is included on a LIM.

Now, what else does it do? It says the key benefits to purchasers are information from a single source—well, apparently that’s council—and to better inform property decisions that reduce or avoid natural risks, greater certainty for councils about what natural hazard information should be included on a LIM, and a potential reduction in costs as a result of limited liability. All of these matters are important to local government and to people who own property. The impact assessment says that stakeholders generally agree with the problem definition and support statutory amendment. The ACT Party does too.

There are some fundamental issues that this raises. I visited the Karekare community a few weeks ago and I was horrified to see the damage to homes caused by, in some cases, what are enormous landslides that have come from bush-covered slopes that if you stood back and looked at it on a sunny day, you’d think, “That doesn’t look prone to slipping.” It’s a beautiful bush-covered slope in the Waitakere Ranges in West Auckland above the Karekare coastal settlement, and enormous volumes of soil and trees and rock have literally fallen off the side of the hill and engulfed or completely demolished homes or pushed them off their foundations, and people are lucky to have got out with their lives.

But that land is council land that is or was a regional council park. You can go online and you can find reports from academics, from geotech specialists about the landslide risks in the Waitakere Ranges on those very cliffs that failed, but nobody at Karekare was told about that by a local council, even though they knew. There’s nothing in this bill that says what local government needs to tell people. It says what must go on a LIM. So when we get to the committee of the whole House stage, I’d like the Minister to answer some questions about that, because simply putting information on a land information memorandum that’s held in local councils’ files doesn’t necessarily give people who live in a place now the information they need about whether it’s a safe place to live, what they must do. So that may well be an omission or it may be intentional or it may be consequential.

But I also want to come to—forgive me; just got to grab some notes. What are the implications? So when information about natural hazards—and, in fact, it also includes land contamination, special features, or characteristics of land, including information about the likely presence of hazardous contaminants. What does it mean when a council applies information to your property file that says, “Here’s some information that we think your property is contaminated or is subject to a natural hazard.”?

Well, firstly, the property owner has a right to know. So I hope that local government would send them a letter telling them about the information. The first thing that will happen is when people get that letter, some of them will be shocked. Some of them will be upset. Some of them will fear that if they’ve been living on a property, if they have small children, for example, playing in the backyard, that those children have been potentially exposed to contaminants, and we know this has happened in places like Paritutu in New Plymouth, where agent orange was manufactured at a chemical factory there, and the airborne pollutants have ended up on people’s properties. We know that asbestos is present on some residential properties, and we also know that lead from lead paint is a common pollutant in soils in urban areas built before the 1990s.

So people will get a fright, and then they’ll ask, “What should we do, and why didn’t council tell us before? And if they knew, but they’ve only just put it on the property file, but they let us build here, who is liable for that?” Is it local council which knew? There must be many, many local councils which have this information in their files, because there will have been contamination assessments done. There will have been risk assessments for geotechnical risk, landslide risk, flooding risk, erosion risk. They’ll be on file.

What this bill allows councils to do is to put that information on an individual property file and then be able to hold their hands up and say, “This is not our problem. We don’t owe you an explanation or apology. This bill absolves us of legal responsibility for that, for having allowed you to build—and, by the way, now we’re divulging the information.” This matter was canvassed extensively in Auckland around soil contamination in residential properties in parts of the city back over a decade ago. This is not a new problem.

So implications: people are going to get a fright. They’re going to say, “How come you knew, but you let us build here? How come you’re only telling us now?” And then they’re going to say, “What do we need to do about it?” Because when someone gives you information that’s actionable, you do something with it. Well, imagine if we knew what to do. There’s something missing here. And maybe when it comes to climate adaptation, that could be the Climate Adaptation Act, which was supposed to be one of three bills introduced to this House this parliamentary term to round out the resource management reforms. Now, last night we debated the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, and the bill that was missing that’s part of the Government’s reform programme that Minister Parker announced is the Climate Adaptation Act, and that would give local government and property owners a steer on how to deal with the implications of knowing about natural hazards that affect where it’s safe to live and who’s responsible, who can help, what decisions we should make that guide us living safer lives where we’re not wasting money on property developments that end up being stranded assets. That’s missing, and so I’ll have questions for the Minister at the committee stage about that as well.

Then, of course, funding, because local government is going to have to respond to some of this stuff. They’re not squeaky clean. They’re not excused of all legal liability. They’re going to have to respond. So what ACT would say is that the Government should be sharing at least half of the GST on all new building activity—$1.2 billion a year from central government revenue—back with local government that is signing off consents for new builds, because they’re going to have to pay for all of this.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, thank you. Pleased to take a short call on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. This is a sensible bill. The Government over the last decade has spent $11.4 billion, and rising, on responding to natural hazards. We live in the shaky isles. We’re assaulted by increasingly severe weather events, major floods, earthquakes, seismic hazards, and landslips, so having better information on natural hazards on the land information memorandum (LIM) to enable people who are fortunate and wealthy enough to buy a house to get that information, is really sound. Others have railed against this going through under urgency, but I understand that this bill does need to be passed by the middle of the year in order to meet the time line in the national adaptation plan.

I think this bill also meshes well with the Spatial Planning Bill, and the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which we, as the previous speaker noted, were discussing last night, because in the regional spatial strategies, councils have got to identify matters that relate to the risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change. So that planning at a regional level, and then this work that is including accessible information that the public can actually understand on the LIMs, will help people make good purchase decisions when they’re buying homes.

As the departmental report noted, there’s an expectation that there will be significant improvements over the next five to ten years in the information that we have available on natural hazard risk data. We’ve got the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) developing a national flood-risk model. We’ve got the Earthquake Commission (EQC) with its portal for natural hazard risk and resilience. We’ve got the national direction that will be part of the national planning framework on natural hazard risk management, and we’ve got the work that’s happening under the national adaptation plan. Can I assure Mr Court that I understand that the Climate Adaptation Bill is coming, but it will largely deal with issues around managed retreat rather than just the natural hazard risk information that these LIMs will provide. So this is a part of that bigger jigsaw, and a very useful part of it.

I think, also, there was quite a sort of discussion in the submissions that the Governance and Administration Committee considered about what level of information regional councils had to provide to territorial authorities for them to include in the land information memoranda, and the department referred back to the Kāpiti District Council case on coastal hazards, where the court held that councils need to provide known natural hazard information. They don’t need to believe that the information is accurate or even probably accurate, but there has to be a reasonable probability of the event occurring. So I think there’s still quite a level of uncertainty in exactly what information regional councils need to provide, and the department has said that regulations are likely to be developed to provide guidance here, and submitters were concerned that there’d be good consultation with local government before those regulations are developed.

So I think there is a need for quite a bit more policy work before those regulations are developed, so that we do ensure that there is better guidance to councils. But this is a step forward, and the Minister has gone through the other provisions around non-disclosure, the protective provisions that emulate the regime and the Official Information Act for when information shouldn’t be disclosed on national security grounds. We recognise that there’s concern about that, but again, it’s not really going further than what is already in the Official Information Act at that national level. So the Green Party, like others in the House, supports the bill.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll also take a short call on this bill at the second reading. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister. I’d like to acknowledge all those who made submissions; it certainly has been well received by our local councils. We see the effects of climate change front and centre—you know, there’s been a lot of wet events over the past few months, we’ve certainly seen sea-level rise, and a bill like this is important as we continue to adapt to that climate change.

The reality is, as much as probably every New Zealander would like to live in Hamilton or Palmerston North, we can’t take them all in. I mean, that’s just the reality. I’m sorry to disappoint New Zealanders here tonight and sort of break the collegial mood, but the reality is we basically do have a sense of freedom in our country. People can generally live where they want to. However, that has been challenged due to climate change, and Hamilton and Palmerston North can’t take everyone. So it’s important that we continue to work through—providing good support for councils and information for homeowners. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Joseph Mooney—a five-minute call.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the second reading of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. I didn’t have the privilege of sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee, which considered this, and I will yield my speech at the end of this and we’ll hear from Ian McKelvie, who has been a great chairperson of that great committee and is also very experienced in local government as well as central government, so I’ll look forward to hearing from him.

Just to return to my contribution, I note that the purpose of the bill is to provide clarity and certainty for local authorities on the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. Submissions have arisen that this bill will address, and I’ll turn to those quickly.

The LGOIMA—as it is colloquially known—allows for the withholding of information in certain circumstances, which is essential when other concerns might make the disclosing of information desirable, but there’s a mismatch between the Official Information Act (OIA) and the local government official information Act. The changes to withholding information for reasons of national security which this bill will address are common sense and they already exist within the Official Information Act. However, the lack of conclusive withholding of grounds is currently preventing both the intelligence agencies from practically providing security advice to local authorities, and local authorities from seeking advice on security threats, including foreign interference and cyber-attacks, and getting that information from intelligence agencies. So having consistency between the OIA and the LGOIMA makes sense, and aligning the two is a good thing. I note that the LGOIMA lacks these provisions primarily by virtue of having been entered into law a lot earlier than the Official Information Act and not having been updated as much, which this bill will do.

I see that there were 36 submissions received by the select committee from interested groups and individuals, and the select committee heard oral evidence from 10 submitters. These provisions, in terms of the report back to Parliament, don’t seem to have raised much attention, or at least much that had to be addressed by the select committee in their consideration of the issues.

I note that the other thing that this bill does is amend the Act to set out clearer requirements to provide natural hazard information in land information memoranda (LIM). It would introduce provisions to allow regulations to be made for the purpose of providing natural hazard information, and this is particularly important for property buyers, as we’ve seen with weather patterns around the North Island, in particular, this year. It has certainly demonstrated the risks some property owners face in the event of a natural disaster, and therefore it’s crucial that property buyers can be fully informed about the issues that might affect a property. So this bill will require regional councils to provide natural hazard information and support for territorial authorities, and will also limit the legal liability of local authorities when providing natural hazard information in good faith.

I note that the select committee did recommend some changes to this. It was concerned that this could require territorial authorities and regional councils to produce new data and information for properties’ specific assessments, and the select committee noted that that was not the policy intent of the bill and it has made some suggestions to make it clear that the territorial authorities and regional councils were not required to create new information for each individual LIM.

Another concern that the select committee looked at was a potential requirement that a regional council could be required to provide natural hazard information to a territorial authority, even if that information did not relate to land in that territorial authority’s district. So the select committee recommended a proposal to change the designation to make it clear that that was not the policy intent of this bill.

The other main thing they looked at was that a particular amendment to section 55 in clause 9 would not unfairly impact persons or organisations that would need to be consulted. The select committee was concerned that there would not be a specific requirement for consultation with councils and territorial authorities, given that they are central to providing these LIMs, and so the select committee also recommended some changes to make it clear that that was the intent of the bill.

So with that, I will end my contribution and say that the National Party is supporting this bill through to its conclusion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Dr Tracey McLellan—five minutes.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill—LGOIMA, as my colleague Naisi Chen first introduced in this debate. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Kieran McAnulty, who I know is incredibly passionate about all things to do with local government; also like to acknowledge the members of the Governance and Administration Committee and all of the people that have made considered submissions on this bill. Essentially, it’s a common-sense bill which, in a nutshell, just allows homebuyers to have the requisite information that they need going forward and to make good decisions. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise to make a short contribution on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister Kieran McAnulty, but also the Governance and Administration Committee—I was not a member. And thank you to the submitters for putting their views forward.

It’s a really important, common-sense bill, but important for people in our community who are able to purchase a home. We were one of the areas badly affected by the weather events in Auckland—in South Auckland and Māngere—and a couple of those homeowners are still at quite a loss in terms of what they had to face. This bill that is being introduced, in terms of the Act, will provide better information, which is very valuable for the homeowners. The legislation will be very helpful and provides better understanding for the homeowners. It also provides the specific purpose of the natural hazard information. And on that note, it’s a good bill. I commend it to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): We certainly support this bill. But I thought I should take the alternative view on it because there will be some significant challenges as a result of this bill. I expect the current Minister won’t be the Minister at the time those challenges arise, but it’ll be some years away. But I guess the point I want to make is that some years ago, some in this House might remember the Kāpiti Coast District Council attempting to put sea-level rise on some of their coastal land information memorandums (LIMs), and the controversy that caused with their ratepayers and the issues it caused for the district council—it caused them to pull those from the LIMs. And I guess that’s a little bit of the background to the reason we’ve got this bill today. And I’m not criticising this bill except to say that I think there’s going to be significant challenges when some unsuspecting property owners open their eyes to what’s on their LIM.

The challenge will be—and the Governance and Administration Committee did talk about this, so I can’t say that we didn’t discuss this briefly, albeit briefly, in the course of the select committee. The challenge will be that the bill doesn’t stipulate the efficacy of the information that’s going to be applied to these LIMs, and I think we’re going to end up with some very difficult situations in the future. I’m not saying we didn’t need to bring this bill to the House or this issue didn’t need to be dealt with; I think for sure it did. All around New Zealand, there are very different states of readiness to deal with this issue, and having come out of the Manawatū 2004 storm events which at the time, interestingly, was the biggest insurance claim in New Zealand’s history—been usurped by a couple of decent old disasters since then. A lot of work was done around LiDAR in the lower Manawatū, and I would think that Horizons Regional Council is probably as up to date as anyone in the country with that sort of information.

Even in the Manawatū where that information has been around for quite some time, it still causes reasonable controversy because when people go to develop what they thought was a perfectly buildable or developable property, they find that in fact they’ve got to do quite significant work to be able to build on that property. I’m not criticising that process; I think it’s probably necessary. But the outcome of this bill will cause some significant angst in our community in the future, and I think that’s something we need to be aware of.

I do think that the intention of the bill, particularly with respect to property information, was necessary to deal with. I often wonder whether we can deal with these sort of things better in the course of putting them through the House, because the challenge that we get—successive Governments have had a lot of criticism from local government for the load they’re putting on local government in New Zealand. And it goes right back to my time in local government, which started well over 20 years ago. And that load has continually been lumped on to the ratepayers of our country. So as a result of this, local government is now going to have to deal with a whole new batch of information they’ve got to provide and a whole new batch of, I guess—what would be the word? Not protest so much as opposition to the activities they’ve been—I shouldn’t use the word “forced” because I kind of agree with the way we’re going about this, in a way. But they’re going to be faced with a whole lot of controversy as a result of that. And people are definitely going to be very upset when they see what appears on their LIM. I think we’ll see significant court action over this. Of course, once it’s resolved, it will be resolved.

But the reason for my doubt about this—well, not my doubt, but my concern about it—is I think there’s going to be a significant variation in the information that’s applied to getting this on to LIMs. Unless we get a standard set—and it could well be that the result of this bill promotes, in due course, a sensible set of actions that then promote a standard across New Zealand that maintains some relativity across the country so we don’t have different standards being applied by different councils, and consequently different information being put forward by different councils.

And again, if you go back to the Manawatū storms of 2004 and you look at what’s going on in Hawke’s Bay right now, the decision was made very early—as a result of the damage in those 2004 floods—what to resurrect and what not to. And so I think the issue that you’ve got with all this sort of information, once it’s there, is it provides a whole lot of obstacles that we don’t foresee at the time it’s put there; insurance is one of them. So we’ll suddenly see some variations in the way insurance companies deal with things in some areas, as a result of the information that appears on these LIMs.

So I think it’s going to be challenging for councils to implement this—it won’t be challenging for them to implement; it will be very challenging for them to deal with the noise that comes about as a result of it—I think in some areas particularly. It is an issue, though, that we’ve got to deal with as a country. And I think that certainly the last two major disasters we’ve had in New Zealand have really pointed to the fact that we haven’t been particularly good at this over the years. The information we collect is changing quickly, and the technology we’re using to provide that information and to attain that information is changing quickly as well. So I think that while we support this bill—and I think it’s probably sensible—I do think it’s going to create some significant challenges for our councils and probably one that they’ll come back to the Government with, or a Government at some time in the future with, to find a way of dealing with it. Because it could even get to the point of people anticipating that they should get some compensation for the result of what we applied to these LIMs.

So that’s a major concern I’ve got about this. And I suppose I was thinking as I lie back in my armchair I’ll be able to say, “I told you so” when this happens. But I’m not like that. Not really. So I do think it’s quite a problem for us, and it’s a problem coming our way. But I still also agree with the fact that the problem exists and we have to deal with it somehow. So that’s quite a challenge.

The other issues in this bill have been well dealt with by, certainly Joseph Mooney, and other speakers before me. I don’t need to carry on with that. I do want to thank the select committee for the work they did on it, and those officials that helped us get to the point we got to. We often forget the officials in the course of this, and we had a bill in select committee this morning where the officials have been under significant pressure to deliver on something that’s probably going to have a marginal result in due course. But none the less, we should remember that they have to do the work because they’re the servants of the Government—in, I think, the same way that the people who have to implement this bill are, effectively, the servants of the councillors, and the councillors are the people that should be funding this, not the poor old officers that have to go out there and deal with all the flak that comes about as a result of us forcing this bill or any other bill on to another sector of our community and then dealing with it. So I won’t talk any more. I’ve talked too much. But thank you. We support it.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): It’s pleasing to be able to stand and take a short call on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. In light of the destruction from climate change such as severe weather and natural hazards, it makes absolute sense to amend the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

I have seen the damage myself from climate change, having visited Kahungunu after Gabrielle, and let me just say: it’s devastating to see this kind of damage from severe weather done to our communities. These amendments will provide that critical and important information for local government to be able to make those better decisions around the location of housing, land; whatever it is, this bill and the amendments to it will help provide a better foundation for that decision making.

I’m not too sure that I understand the anxiety that my colleague over there mentioned earlier, but what I can say is that this is an important start—a very important start—in terms of providing another tool that can help us to best manage these issues that we live with, in this world today, around climate change. I commend this to the House. Kia ora.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity, Minister McAnulty, to ask a few questions in regards to this legislation. As we’ve outlined in the prior section, National see this as sensible legislation, and so the purpose of these questions is simply to clarify a few aspects that have been raised through our debate and provide an opportunity to get some additional clarity within that.

Minister, a question in relation to clause 9 of the bill, which is in regards to the consultation requirements, and as we’ve heard through the contributions leading up to this point, the element around improvements in terms of the disclosure of natural hazards within the land information memorandum (LIM) process is obviously going to be significant and bring value in regards to having that additional information, but the question in regards to clause 9 is around seeking a view from the Minister: is the Minister comfortable that the appropriate persons or organisations will be consulted with in regards to the way in which this process is undertaken? In particular, I guess, it refers back to some of the comments in regards to submissions at the Governance and Administration Committee around whether councils, regional councils, and other entities will be able to satisfactorily contribute into that consultation process for this legislation, because I think it is obviously important to recognise that that perspective in regards to the improvement of the information available within the LIM has the appropriate voices around the table to ensure that that is included. But clause 9, which is amending section 55 of the Act, is the area which will be impacted most significantly. So that’s the first question, and we’ll go on from there.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, looking at the regulatory impact statement, the analysis does not consider wider natural hazard data and information challenges. “The LIM work”, it goes on to say, “is limited to improving the communication of natural hazard information currently available and ensuring future data and information can be effectively and efficiently referenced as it becomes available.” Now, it goes on to say, Minister, “Natural hazard data and information is not equally available across regions and local authorities may not have sufficient resources or expertise to commission their own modelling.”, Minister. “This work was originally part of the wider Community Resilience work programme but was scaled back due to the level of funding provided [in] Budget 2021/22.”

Minister, given the extraordinary landslides that New Zealand has witnessed on the East Coast of the North Island in communities at Muriwai, Karekare in Auckland, Pīhā to a lesser extent, and the extraordinary flooding that has taken place in our major metros, Auckland and throughout Hawke’s Bay—Minister, will there be any additional funding from any Vote that will help fund local authorities to acquire the information that this bill makes provision for them putting on the land information memorandum?

As a follow-up to that, Minister, will the New Zealand Landslide Database and the New Zealand Geotechnical Database be funded so that that information, which is a shared resource administered by GNS and, I think, the landslide database actually—or the landslide database by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment now; not the Earthquake Commission, because they weren’t up to it. Will there be additional funding for that information to be procured by those agencies for those databases? Because, Minister, it’s all very well to say you can, but if councils can’t afford to go out and actually carry out the assessments, either from the air using satellite imagery or on the ground using physical geotechnical risk assessments, photogrammetry, if they can’t afford to engage these services, Minister, because apparently the Labour Government thought that it wasn’t worth budgeting for them—I mean, obviously, that was before Cyclone Gabrielle—how are they supposed to do it, Minister?

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I appreciate the Minister’s in deep thought, thinking of the responses to these questions, and we’ll give a few more questions to add to that list as he ponders—

Hon Member: Deep reflection.

SIMON WATTS: Deep reflection in regards to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. So let’s move to the commencement clause, clause 2.

Todd Muller: Oh, yes!

SIMON WATTS: Ha, ha! I love the sense of energy coming from Todd Muller in regards to the commencement clause.

Todd Muller: It’s very important.

SIMON WATTS: And it is very important. It’s interesting, though, when we listen to a number of the contributions from the Labour members on how excited and inspired they were by this critical aspect, they noted how important it is for this to happen as soon as possible, and yet my question is in regards to the fact that the legislation will not come into effect until 1 July 2025.

Todd Muller: That’s a bit ridiculous.

SIMON WATTS: And that is—well, look, you know, that is a reasonable amount of time, and I know the select committee pondered this in regards to some of the feedback, particularly from councils, and regional councils in particular, around the time for processes and procedures to be set up. But I think, you know, one has to be resonant of the fact and the implications of what we’ve seen in the last four months in particular around natural disasters and the value which the disclosure of information on natural hazards does provide to consumers who are making decisions around property. The reality, I guess, or the offset to that is that, actually, this won’t be in play for, you know, quite a reasonable amount of time. So I’m interested for the Minister to provide comment around why 1 July 2025 was deemed appropriate in order to bring this in force. Was there any consideration of bringing this earlier, and whether the trade-off in terms of the commencement date at that point equally mitigates the risks that are outlined around not having that information available sooner because of the importance that that information provides in terms of decision making.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, and I thank the members for their questions. In regards to the commencement date, the member will note that it was originally proposed to be six months earlier but the select committee, after hearing submissions from local government and other submitters, proposed that that date be pushed back six months, and we’ve agreed with that. We think that’s sensible. We’re conscious that particularly in those areas that have been hit by recent severe weather events, there was a lot of work being asked of councils, both elected representatives and officials, and an extra six months will give them additional time to get prepared.

In regards to the question about consultation, yes, there’s a specific requirement for consultation with each regional council and territorial authority. In regards to the question of Mr Court, information that he was after, the extra funding: the bill does not require that councils commission that information, so there’s no need for additional funding to come along with it. However, this Government has provided additional funding on a number of occasions to improve public information. One that comes to mind, for example, is the funding that came through the National Emergency Management Agency that provided a national tsunami map. That was information that was available at each regional level, but it wasn’t available in one go so that the public could easily access that if they wanted to know—if they were going on a holiday to a coastal area, for example, they wanted to check out where the safe zones were before they arrived, that sort of thing.

The purpose of this bill, of course, is to provide important information about natural hazards in a way that the public can understand. It doesn’t necessarily impose additional requirements on councils to provide new information. It’s already information that’s available, but it’s in a way that people get and it’s a way that’s consistent.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, there were a number of submissions—I think about 13—which highlighted the issues around this phrase in clause 8, 44B and 44C of the principal Act, about the identification of natural hazards to the extent that the regional council in 44C is satisfied that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the hazard or impact may affect the land.

I think it goes to the issues that others have raised about the clarity around that, because submitters were saying there was a range of interpretation possible around what constituted a “reasonable possibility”. So is it the Government’s intention—and the department’s response was that in that controversial case that Mr McKelvie mentioned in Kāpiti Coast District Council with their coastal hazard information, that there the court said that land information memoranda (LIMs) were required to provide information identifying natural hazard events known to the territorial authority if there is a possibility that the events may occur in future. The High Court said that possibility means “a reasonable possibility objectively determined.”

So the court said that, but how that’s actually applied in practice—there’s quite a lot of leeway there. So is it the intention of the Government to potentially have regulations which might provide a bit more practical guidance to councils so that there’s consistency across the country about what “reasonable possibility of a hazard event occurring” actually means in terms of the information that they need put on the LIM?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you. I thank the member the Hon Eugenie Sage for her question; it’s a fair one. The intent of this, of course—or part of the intent of this—is to provide that consistency across the board. We’ve got some councils that are providing this information in a more fulsome way than other councils are, and it’s not like that information isn’t there; it’s just that, because of cases that have been raised by other members in the House, there is a not unreasonable threat that there might be legal action against the councils if they wish to go out without such guidance as is provided in this bill.

I think that’s why we saw, with the submissions, that there was broad support for this across the local government sector. But it does, also, account for councils to be able to provide in land information memorandums (LIMs) appropriate qualifications and limitations on the information that they have. I mean, essentially, you only know what you know, and you’ve only got the information that you’ve got in front of you, but if there is that information there, we want to make sure that people who are considering the purchase of property have that readily available to them through LIMs.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Chair, thanks. Minister, you did correctly observe that the bill does not require councils to carry out any work, except to publish information that you believe they already have on land information memorandums (LIMs), giving property owners information that a council already has. And I certainly acknowledged in my contribution on the second reading that many, many councils have such information. But officials did point out that many do not. They do not have sufficient expertise or resources to commission their own modelling. Minister, it’s been acknowledged that local government doesn’t necessarily have the capability to undertake more complex work, whether it’s in three waters or certain types of infrastructure work. They don’t have the funding for it, they don’t have the financing, and they don’t have the revenue sources. It’s very clear in this document that the officials who put together this regulatory impact assessment identified that there was funding to collect this information but it was withdrawn in Budget 2021/22. So, Minister, how are councils expected to fund this additional work if they don’t have the budget, they don’t have the expertise, and they don’t have the in-house resources or access to professional resources to do it? I mean, if it’s natural hazards that are meant to be on the LIM, they would want to tell people where it’s dangerous to live or where they should consider not building. How’s that information going to be collected and made public or made available to property owners if the councils can’t afford to do it?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): This is a question that can extend to all operations and councils. There’s no doubt that councils across the board are under considerable financial strain, and it’s no doubt that rates alone are not a sustainable form of revenue for councils. That is why the Government agreed to the sector’s request for a review into the future of local government. And that is why I, as Minister, have asked Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), now that we have the recommendations that have come out of that review, to conduct a process within the sector to come to an agreement. What we don’t want to do is repeat what’s happened across the board, in previous and successive Governments, where we’ve had reviews, we’ve had recommendations, the Governments looked through those, it cherry picked what it liked, decided what it’s going to do, then goes to the sector and says, “This is what we’re going to do. What do you think?” What I’ve asked LGNZ to do—and this is relevant to the question of resourcing and revenue—is to sit down with the sector, come to a consensus ideally, and then meet after the election, and we can go through, bit by bit, what is sustainable, what would work for some councils but not for others, and what things can we change to allow councils to extract additional revenue. I’m interested in that conversation. What additional opportunities could there be for partnership between central and local government? I’m very much looking forward to that conversation. The broader question of funding for local councils is one that has to be tackled, and it’s one that this Government is up for, but there’s a process in play at the moment to deal with that.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, did the future of local government report give you any insights into how local government might deal with this issue of a lack of revenue, funding, and financing? Because it’s quite clear that they need the money, and if central government, through Budget appropriations, is not going to provide the money because it was not provided in 2021/22, and if this is urgent—I mean, the bill’s here under urgency—does the future of local government report give the Minister any insights or—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m just going to make some reflections on the direction that the member is going. If I have a look at the bill—admittedly for the first time. But as I look at the introduction, I find the purpose of this bill is to relate to the “provision of natural hazard information in land information memoranda (LIMs)”. That’s what the bill does; that’s the purpose of the bill. And while the member quite rightly asks questions around the financing of extra responsibilities, that question has been asked several times—and answered—but it is not the main purpose of the bill, so I now invite the member, in his further contributions he wishes to make, to come more closely to the purpose of the bill.

SIMON COURT: I just have one further question for the Minister—one further question. Where we’re looking at, under “Land information memoranda”, Part 6A, it requires councils to publish “information about other special features or characteristics of the land concerned, including … the likely presence of hazardous contaminants”. Does the Minister have any insights as to what the quality of information held by local government around New Zealand is about the presence of hazardous contaminants on private property?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I’m not one to pretend to know something that I don’t, but this is the information the councils have, and it’s the sort of information we want prospective buyers to have on their land information memorandums.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I’m going to pretend I know something I don’t, ha, ha! That’s why I’m going to ask you the question, Minister McAnulty, because you might know. It sort of interests me because I’m not as pessimistic about the information that councils have got as some in the Chamber are, because I actually think that a large number of our councils do have this information. But the question I’ve got, and the issue I want to raise, is the fact that we’ve got unitary authorities, we’ve got regional councils, we’ve got territorial authorities—that information is held all over the place, in those different entities.

I think that, whilst the bill’s tried to address the issue with respect to regional councils and the fact that they must provide the information, it does interest me as to how we’re going to get a consensus across the country as to the nature of that information that’s provided on those land information memorandum (LIMs). It needs to be consistent across the country. So, in other words, if you’re 3 feet above the sea level in Tangimoana and 3 feet above the southern Wairarapa, you need to have the same thing on the LIM, that’s what I’m really trying to say. The bill doesn’t really have any—well, there’s no consensus around how that might work.

I also don’t think that the funding issue is quite the significant issue that we think it is. I think it’s a significant issue where the information isn’t available, but, as I said earlier, a number of councils have got that information, so I don’t think it’ll be quite the serious challenge we think it is to get the information. How that information’s interpreted and how it’s dealt with—perhaps even through the courts, later on—is another issue altogether.

But my question for the Minister is—we haven’t really addressed the issue of how we collect that information, other than directing regional councils to provide the information to territorial authorities in the course of this bill, and I think it will be a bit of a challenge. I don’t know whether the Minister’s got any comment on that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Well, I have a lot of faith in the sector to provide the information that this bill requires them to do so. Where it gets complex is—the member Ian McKelvie is right to point out that in some areas you have a district council and a regional council, or a metro council, for that matter; and in some councils you have a unitary authority, like in Tairāwhiti, as an example. But, of course, the point of this is to require regional councils to share that with territorial authorities; unitary authorities will already have it because they perform the role of both, so for them this should be relatively straightforward. But the member’s right that the point of this is to provide consistency.

There are some areas that face unique challenges, but there are challenges that are pretty standard across the board. The member mentions the potential for sea-level rise. There’s obviously the potential for flooding, the potential for impact of a significant earthquake, for example. Some people have that information already, and they’re able to make informed decisions when they purchase a home. I think back to when I purchased my house in Masterton. I was able to access modelling for flooding and it could indicate that a couple of houses that I was considering could, in certain circumstances, be in a flood zone. The place I ended up buying wasn’t deemed to be in a flood zone, and that was really useful information for me. But I’m conscious that some people, in some areas of the country, don’t have access to that information.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): One last point, Madam Chair. One of the things that’s always concerned me about the relationship between regional councils and district councils or territorial authorities is that one seems to charge the other for the information and the same ratepayers are funding them both, and it’ very frustrating. I wonder whether the Minister of Local Government’s got any light he could shed on whether in fact these regional councils are going to charge these territorial authorities for this information or not.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Well, I’ll be kind to the member and choose not to interpret that as a call for a unitary authority in the Manawatū -Rangitīkei area. But he’s right in the sense that we are relying on compliance and we are relying on good relations. But in my time as local government Minister and as Minister for Emergency Management, I’ve seen nothing but collaboration between regional and local councils. In fact, the work that is being done in the Hawke’s Bay at the moment—for that region to be in a position now to have identified the categorisation of land in category 1, 2, and 3 and working to put in mitigating measures around those flood-prone areas in category 2, I think should be commended. And that is an example of collaboration between regional and local councils.

But we are requiring regional councils to do this. They will need to do it as a matter of law, and, ultimately, it shouldn’t be that difficult, because they have the information already. They’ll now be required to share it, and they’ll now have the safety and protection to be able to do so in simple language so that everyone can understand it.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill supports councils to improve how they share information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. First, the bill will improve natural hazard information provided in land information memoranda (LIM). The second change will enable councils to withhold information where its release would likely prejudice New Zealand’s national security or international relations.

All New Zealanders have a role to play in building our resilience to natural hazard risks. New Zealand faces a range of natural hazards. Cyclone Gabrielle this year was a powerful reminder of the extraordinary damage that natural hazards can cause to people’s lives and properties. We also know that climate change will mean that extreme weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle are going to hit New Zealand communities harder and more often. Property buyers need natural hazard information they can understand so they can make good decisions and reduce their exposure to risks from natural hazards and climate change.

The LIM is a key document for buyers when deciding to buy a property. It is also an important way for councils to inform buyers about natural hazards at a critical decision point in people’s lives. There are significant issues with how LIMs communicate natural hazard information. This information is often complex and written in a way that is difficult for most people to understand.

Todd Muller: This is exactly the same as the second reading.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Sometimes, key regional council information is missing.

Todd Muller: It is—word for word.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Some councils have been reluctant to include summaries or plain language explanations because of the risk of legal action. This bill will support people to make good decisions by ensuring LIMs contain natural hazard information that is clear, concise—

Andrew Bayly: Good reading—first reading, second reading, third reading.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —nationally more consistent, and easier for people to understand. I appreciate the contributions from the members opposite—I think it’s jealousy. They haven’t had the opportunity to be a Minister. Maybe one day, but not today.

The other part of this bill is that the Act currently does not have grounds for councils to conclusively withhold information that may prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the New Zealand Government. The bill will extend to local authorities the same protections afforded to central government agencies by the Official Information Act. As security risks increase, including an increase in cyber-attacks, it is even more important that the intelligence agencies are enabled to increase their outreach efforts with the local government sector. It is important that they have the ability to share any relevant threat information in a timely manner to mitigate the risks to local authorities.

This is a good bill. I appreciate the fact that it has broad support in the House, and I commend it to them.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Point of order, Mr Speaker. That speech reminded me very much of a Geoffrey Boycott opening innings, and I think we should really ask him to return it!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, using that as a point of order—the member should be aware of a bouncer from the Chair, for tortured trifling with the House. However—Simon Watts.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, well, well. Isn’t it great to hear a Minister so full of energy, only 80 days out from an election, being able to articulate this piece of legislation? You can pretty much hear in the Minister’s voice how tired he is of where we are in the cycle.

But it is our pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. This is a sensible piece of legislation; it is without a doubt that—what we’ve heard this evening in regards to the contributions is that this is fulfilling a gap that has been identified and does solve a problem or an issue in which we’ll derive value. National always will stand behind and support common-sense ways in order to provide and ensure that the New Zealand public, in particular, have access to the information requirements that enable them to make better decisions.

In its essence within this bill—and it is an exciting bill; I think a few people have mocked it a bit this evening, haven’t they? They’ve said, “This is actually a bit, you know, down.”, but this is a pretty exciting and interesting bill because it does serve a purpose. But the—

Todd Muller: Really?

SIMON WATTS: Really? Yes, really. It does. Well, just to outline a little bit more detail just so you can get fully in, because I appreciate that maybe you missed it in the last contribution.

So the improvements around the recording of the natural hazard information in the land information memorandums (LIMs) is a really important factor. We’ve heard this evening—and again, echoing the impacts that we’ve seen across natural disasters across this country—flooding, cyclones, you name it: it’s happened to New Zealanders not just once, not just twice; actually, for many parts of the country, multiple times.

But that information, or the lack of information, in regards to the implications of natural hazards on properties has been an aspect that has been missing for consumers in order to be able to ascertain that as part of the due diligence process that they undertake when purchasing a property. This bill will bring in the requirement for that information to be in play. That is really, really important because we know that those significant weather events that we are seeing are going to continue and potentially get worse. So having access to that information is really, really important and that is sensible and is a good thing to be in play.

We’ve learnt, this evening, around the fact that the Governance and Administration Committee did put thought around the timing of when this legislation would actually come into play. Originally, the effective date was the beginning of 2025. The select committee did take on board some feedback in regards to that, and some may argue, “Well, you know, there’s pros and cons around that.”, but the decision was taken in regards to moving that to July 2025. At the end of the day, whether you want it now or you need to wait, the reality is it is going to come and that will provide some benefit in regards to that aspect.

The other aspect within this legislation, which is in there and many probably haven’t necessarily got into it, is—and I think it’s pretty fair and it’s logical—that there are provisions to be able to withhold some of this LIM information on the grounds of national security. We all think it; we all can understand that that’s logical and that there’s reasons, and there needs to be appropriate mechanisms to withhold that information. This bill puts in place the provisions around that, which brings it in line with the Official Information Act process as well. That all makes sense, right? That all makes sense and that’s a good thing to do.

In regards to this legislation, we talk about the implications of climate change and the implications on severe weather events. I want to just do a call-out and acknowledgment to our local government sector. Our local government sector do a significantly great job across our country. In particular, in relation to this bill, the implications around dealing with significant weather events has been very much front of mind for a large number of local government entities.

I think about Tairāwhiti in Gisborne—that small town but a town with a big heart—and the mayor there has been dealing with natural disasters after natural disasters for what feels like, you know, 18 months, if not longer. I think it is not often acknowledged, but the reality and the stress and the process of that placed upon our officials and our volunteers and our staff within our local government sectors—particularly in rural, provincial New Zealand—is really, really significant. So a big call-out to all of those people that work within our local government sector. National have got your backs and we appreciate what you do and the value that you contribute to our country and to our communities.

That’s pretty much the key elements in regards to this bill. As I said, we think that the ability for New Zealanders to have access to that improved and enhanced information will make sure that people can make more informed decisions when they’re making significant property decisions. That’s important; it adds an element around personal responsibility—which is obviously a key value that we are supportive of—that they have the ability to be able to use that to make more informed decisions and it places the responsibility, also, back on that consumer. I think there’s also an opportunity there where central government and local government are, in effect, providing a mechanism in equal measure in order to facilitate that process. Again, we think that is very simple.

So in conclusion, National will be supporting this common-sense way to make information more accessible to New Zealanders across this country. We think that while this bill, in the context of the issues that our country faces, is reasonably minor, the fact that we are pushing this under urgency when it’s not going to be actually effective until mid-2025 is a little bit of a dilemma—but we shan’t place further emphasis because we made those points earlier on this evening. But on that basis, National supports this bill and we will be watching it flow through this House this evening. Thank you.

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

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m proud to be a member of a busy Government that is working hard for the people of New Zealand, and putting forward, as the previous member noted, a very important legislation like this law that will really help those areas that are potentially at risk of weather or other natural disasters. So it’s an excellent bill, we’ve covered a lot of the work that has been done on it throughout the evening, and I think it’s important that we get this legislation passed to give that certainty to councils so they have the time to prepare for it. They did ask for that extension of time so that we could ensure they had plenty of time to do all the necessary preparatory work, so that they’re able to actually comply with the bill. So on that note, I commend it to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that when that Government starts work, most New Zealanders are going to sleep, but a hard-working New Zealander has gone to sleep by the time that Government comes to life. Anyway, I just want to make a few comments about this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr McKelvie, I’m still pondering whether you’ve actually said anything wrong there or not, but keep going.

IAN McKELVIE: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I withdraw. Anyway, back to the bill. I think we’ve covered really a lot of what needed to be said about this bill in the second reading, but Simon Watts in his contribution made a number of interesting comments. One of those interesting comments, of course, is the work that we as a Parliament foist on to local government and have done all of my career and public life, and we keep on foisting it on to local government and hence the reason for—I think I’ve been through at least three or four funding reviews for local government in my time; not one of them has brought any change. Hopefully this last one will bring some change, because there are one or two suggestions in it that I think would be quite useful for the sector. There’s also a lot of suggestions in it that I don’t think will be any use at all, but that’s not the point.

The Minister did, in one of his contributions during the committee stage, talk about the fact that there was some difficulties—or he didn’t perceive them, but I think there are some difficulties with respect to the way information is transferred between regional councils, territorial authorities, and, of course, then you’ve got the unitary authorities that operate in a different manner. He did think that there was some suggestion in my comments that I’d do away with some of them. I certainly would. If I had my way, we wouldn’t have regional councils in the current form, and that would solve some of this problem. But, nonetheless, I don’t want to criticise my friends in the regional councils because they do do, under the circumstances, a pretty good job. And, of course, a lot of this information, as I said earlier, is already being provided by regional councils to the territorial authorities, and certainly in my part of New Zealand, which is the Horizons region, they have a lot of this information and provide a lot of it.

There’s no comment about one or two other things that change the nature of this information and change it quite quickly. If we look at our rivers—and we’ve been building stopbanks, I think, since the 1930s in New Zealand and probably earlier than that, but we’ve never concerned ourselves with what happens to the riverbeds themselves as a result of building those stopbanks. And, of course, we’ve seen both in the two big rivers in the Manawatū, the Rangitīkei and the Manawatū, and we’ve certainly seen in Hawke’s Bay and the Tairāwhiti or Gisborne region the significant impact of putting those stopbanks up, then not maintaining the rivers inside them, and consequently the information that we might have had on a land information memorandum (LIM) on the outside of the stopbank becomes a very different kettle of fish as a result of the changes that take place in those watercourses.

And so when we are considering managing what could be a potential fallout from the information that gets put on people’s LIMs, we’ve also got to realise that, as public bodies, we have a responsibility to manage the assets that we effectively manage or that those community organisations, such as regional councils and territorial authorities and Governments, manage on behalf of the property owners of New Zealand, because if we don’t manage those entities or those assets or facilities in the manner we should, then we end up with some very strange things happening.

And the other thing I wanted to really comment on was that whilst we haven’t had this information on LIMs in most parts of New Zealand before, nothing’s really changed in the last hundred years. And if you look at the significant floods that have taken place as a result of Cyclone Gabrielle and Bola before it and probably going right back into the 1890s, very similar things happened in our communities. Sure, the riverbeds and those sorts of things have changed, but nonetheless the differences between the events that are happening now and the events that happened then are only really caused by the infrastructure that we’ve put in place since those events initially. And I know that one of the major bridges in Hawke’s Bay has washed out three times since 1931, so it’s not the first time it’s washed away in this event. And so we can get that sort of activity going on through generations.

And, of course, historically, when you’ve got to be a little bit older, you remember things that have happened years ago. Now we’re going to shove them on LIMs so everyone knows about them. There’s no advantage of being old anymore, because the advantage was taken away by the fact that they’re recording all this information that they never used to record. Only those of us that were there could remember it. And, of course, if you think about interest rates in our younger generation today, we could have told them it was coming.

Anyway, I don’t really need to say much more about this bill. It has been mentioned and there is some interesting parameters around some of the information we acquire, because some of the information, for one reason or another, needs to be kept under lock and key, for want of a better word. This bill also—and, of course, it’s called the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill—goes some way towards enabling councils and public entities to retain that information where it’s required, and it’s mostly for security reasons that that would be the case, because there’s certainly no reason for us to keep information from the public and property owners in our regions. I hope this bill makes its way into law in about three years’ time. I hope I’m still around, and I wish the Minister of Local Government at the time it does all the best with the complaints they get as a result of it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I might say, to your reference to age, you do get largesse from the Chair as respect for age, Mr McKelvie!

NAISI CHEN (Labour): It’s always great hearing our chair of the Governance and Administration Committee depositing knowledge into the bigger web of ChatGPT knowledge, and all of the databases that we will have into the future as well. I spent the first part of my contribution, the second reading, in the point about making sure that our land information memorandums are up to date in the face of climate change, and this reading speech, I wanted to use it on the part about our national security.

As we go around the country, we see different cities engage with diplomacy, whether that’s sister cities, whether that’s exchange programmes for economic development and investment. But more and more and more, we see—and I do encourage different cities getting out there and getting out into the world and promoting the best interests of their own cities and their own regions. With that does come risk and responsibility, and more interest from other parties across the world, and I do think that this makes this Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment legislation extremely important. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT will support the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill, but there are some problems that this bill tries to solve that in solving creates some consequences, such as additional unfunded liabilities, unfunded obligations on local government that the bill doesn’t solve.

The bill is providing for councils to put information about natural and physical hazards, soil contamination as a result of industrial activities—for example, agricultural or horticultural sprays that were once used on market gardens in places that are now a suburban or urban residential property. And so it’s important that people developing that land or people living on it now know whether their land was used for those type of activities, hazardous activities, on their land, and therefore what they should do about it.

That’s one of the other problems with this bill. It’s one of the other things that’s missing. It says councils have to put the information or should put the information on the land information memorandum (LIM)—should be disclosed—but it doesn’t say who should do what with the information. And if you live on a property, have a young family, and council says your property is contaminated or it’s at risk from slips or liquefaction or some other kind of hazard, you’ll want to know “What should I do?” Well, who knows? Because what this bill does is it gives councils cover to put the information that they might have held for some time on the LIM but does not provide a mechanism to resolve between landowners, between regulators and local government, policy makers and local government, and central government how existing risks that have a financial implication should be resolved.

And one of them, climate change risk, potentially we’ve heard this evening from another member of the House, a very trusted member, the Hon Eugenie Sage, that there will be a climate adaptation bill brought to the House at some point in this term of Parliament.

Hon Eugenie Sage: No.

SIMON COURT: Apparently not—apparently not. Don’t worry.

Hon Eugenie Sage: It will come.

SIMON COURT: Don’t worry. I’ve asked the Minister in a written question. We’ll find out one way or the other. So what’s missing? The climate adaptation Act. That might tell people who live in an area exposed to coastal hazards when their property is tagged with a hazard layer: what should they do, who should they call, how will it be resolved if their land is no longer safe to occupy and their buildings are at risk? Again, this provides just one small piece of a much larger puzzle that’s no doubt left to future Governments, to much smarter people, to solve.

There’s another missing part, and that was raised by officials in the regulatory impact statement, which is that there is no funding to create a more unified and comprehensive database of information about natural hazards. Because many, many councils, particularly smaller councils, don’t have the budget to do that, they don’t have the competencies in house to do the LiDAR, to do the aerial surveying, or to do physical surveying on site. It can be very, very expensive getting drilling rigs out, doing bore holes, and creating geotechnical maps or maps of natural hazards like landslides. But there are organisations that do that and that the Government does fund to some small extent, such as Geological and Nuclear Sciences or the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, and the Earthquake Commission. But that information is incomplete. I’ve spoken to people about those databases and they said they need a secure, long-term funding stream so they can build an information set for New Zealand, which means that whether you’re building a shed on a farm in a remote valley or you’re trying to build a subdivision in an urban environment, you have access to good quality information that is, essentially, repeatable across districts and across regions.

Now, the Government had undertaken to fund some of that work in financial year 2021-22 but, as officials point out, that level of funding was insufficient and that programme was scaled back. So at a time when we’ve never been more acutely aware of natural hazards, natural risks from cyclones, storms, floods, landslides such as at Muriwai and Karekare in West Auckland, where I live, the Government has created, essentially, another unfunded obligation on local government to do the work that central government said they were going to do but decided they weren’t going to pay for it. So that’s very disappointing.

Now, funding’s missing, a climate response Act or a climate adaptation Act’s missing. A lot of information can go on land information memorandums about climate risk. If you go on to Auckland Council’s GIS database, you can click on a layer that will tell you about whether your property is in a coastal hazard area, a coastal risk area, and what different levels of climate change - induced sea-level rise will do to your property. So, for example, you can click on a layer that says what happens if there’s half a metre sea-level rise in the next hundred years or 1 metre in the next hundred years or, you know, heaven forbid, 2 metres in the next hundred years. And what that layer will tell you is there’s many, many properties in the Auckland region that may well be subject to coastal hazards, to the risk of sea-level rise, but in the absence of a climate adaptation Act, which is supposed to tell us about managed retreat and adaptation—what do we do to protect vital infrastructure, what do we do to stop land that has public assets on it, for example, falling into the sea? It’s all very well knowing about it, but what are we going to do about it?

That is what New Zealanders have come to rely more and more on the ACT Party to provide answers for. What do we do about it? Practical solutions. Practical solutions to how do we fund councils so they can do the work to collect the information about natural hazards.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Court, there are a number of Speakers’ rulings about third readings not being about what’s not in the bill. You can touch on it. We’re now two minutes to go, so let’s just start concentrating on what is in the bill, shall we?

SIMON COURT: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’ve had a pretty good run.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You’re right. The ACT Party’s had a great run, so I will come back to the bill. There’s some important amendments in here, particularly around official information as it relates to cyber-security and central government agencies sharing information with councils, because many local councils around New Zealand own critical infrastructure. I’m aware that many of them have traffic control systems, enormous networks of CCTV camera, traffic light systems—all kinds of systems that govern how rail tracks operate, for example. You know, where and when trains should be or should not be, what trains should do when they come to a red light—we should probably tell KiwiRail they should probably stop. But if those systems are compromised because their cyber-security is not adequate, then of course that has really significant and potentially life threatening consequences for people using public infrastructure owned by councils.

So it’s important that if central government agencies—and if we’re talking about people who might be collecting information about scams, about malware, about attacks on our information systems—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s a long way from the bill and you’ve 43 seconds left, Mr Court.

SIMON COURT: Well, in fact that’s actually—I’ve got a quote from the bill. Amendments relating to official information—it’s important these amendments allow councils to protect information that would otherwise prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of a Government to New Zealand. So, again, it’d be very interesting to know if Wellington City Council declaring Ramallah, part of that terrorist State of Palestine, a sister city or a friendly city—whether that would have breached any rules, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Sit down, Mr Court.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. With the ACT Party worried about climate adaptation and keeping on talking about the bill that’s coming, I do wish they would similarly focus that same level of attention on climate pollution and reducing our emissions instead of sometimes almost denying that climate change is happening.

This is a useful bill and I will start where the previous speaker was talking about the Official Information Act changes in relation to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, because the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties opposed clause 11 of the bill and the changes it’s making to allow councils to withhold official information to put them on the same base or the same grounds as apply at the national level. The Green Party, of course, looked very closely at that submission by the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, but was reassured by the work of the Ombudsman in considering the bill before it was introduced, and the Ombudsman noting that local authorities increasingly are finding themselves involved in security and defence matters and would seek advice and guidance from central government agencies on issues like cyber-security. We only have to think about the Waikato District Health Board issue there—the cyber-security issue in 2021. And so it’s an anomaly if local authorities don’t have that same protection that exists at the national level, when information is sought from the security and intelligence agency, and others, to withhold information.

So the Green Party is comfortable with supporting the bill and that section of the bill, even though others have raised civil liberties issues about it. But the major issue is around the land information memorandum and the fact that climate change is exacerbating the impacts of natural hazards in Aotearoa, that land information memorandums aren’t currently required to include information about the potential for climate change to exacerbate those risks. But this bill does rectify that. And so that’s another of the good changes. But I do note, and it didn’t really get a clear response from the Minister, that there have been a lot of submissions about the need for guidance in terms of how this information is provided, because as the Minister noted, a lot of the information on land information memorandums (LIMs) can be too technical—so it’s not understandable by those who are using the LIMs—or there’s not enough information. So we really do need those regulations to provide the guidance about what level of information councils should provide and how it should be presented. Because talking about one-in-100-year floods, some members of the public think that means that the flood will only happen once a century, when that’s not the case. So this information about natural hazard risk can often be quite technical. If the LIMs are to be really useful, then it’s got to be very clear and accessible to purchasers.

I guess the other issue, too, is that we haven’t seen any major drop in property prices of houses in areas that are at risk of hazards. Is that because of the deficiencies in LIMs to date? Because we really need to see that sort of signal going into the market so that people don’t buy houses in areas that are at risk of flooding and prone to other natural hazards. So the bill is only a small step. It’s now got delayed time in terms of implementation. But this requirement around this information being provided on LIMs, and also the removal of legal liability for councils when they provide that information in good faith, I think, will ensure that we don’t have the chilling effect that the Kāpiti Coast court case really had on other councils, that there was a risk of them being taken to court if they did include good hazard information, in that case in their plan. So that’s also a useful initiative in the bill and the Green Party supports it.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to take a brief call. This bill has been well-canvassed over the past recent period of time. I don’t see any benefit for the House, in terms of going over the key points again. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I expect I might have a slightly longer call than that speaker who spoke before me from Hamilton East, but I’m here to speak in the third and final reading of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill.

This bill does two things, really. One is that it changes the disclosure requirements in terms of official information for local government and it brings it into line with the Official Information Act, and the reason for that is because there are reasons why certain information should not be released if it’s likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand. There have been concerns raised that information regarding matters of national security that should be shared with local government potentially isn’t being shared with it, and local government is not seeking that information. The third concern is that information may be provided that could potentially affect the international relations of New Zealand and/or prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand.

So these things are covered already under the Official Information Act, but they’re not specifically covered in respect of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, and this bill will bring those into line with each other so that that particular concern is addressed. There have been some issues raised that there is an increasing number of reasons that the information may need to be shared with local government, and so this tidies that up. I stress that it is bringing it into line with existing law in the Official Information Act.

The second thing that this does is it brings in some changes to the land information memoranda—otherwise known as LIMs—that local government will provide to prospective property buyers. In particular, if we have a look in clause 8 at what will be the new section 44B, “Natural hazard information to be included in land information memoranda”, we see that it will be “(a) natural hazards: (b) impacts of climate change that exacerbate natural hazards.”, and this information is to the extent the information is known to the territorial authority. So that’s addressing that. If the territorial authority isn’t aware of it, then they don’t have to provide that, but if they are aware of it, that will need to be included on the land information memoranda which will then be available to prospective purchasers to make decisions about their purchase or otherwise.

There is also new section 44C in clause 8, and that states that regional councils must provide territorial authorities with natural hazard information. It largely replicates the one I spoke to before, but the information, which the regional council must provide as soon as reasonably practicable, is to provide the territorial authority within or partly within its region with information about each natural hazard and each impact of climate change that exacerbates natural hazards and affects land in the territorial authority’s district. There is a provision also in the bill that a territorial authority or regional council is not liable in civil or criminal proceedings for making available in good faith that information that I referred to regarding natural hazards and each impact of climate change that exacerbates natural hazards.

So this provision is to ensure that there is full information, or at least fuller information, available to prospective purchasers of property. We certainly have seen, particularly on the East Coast of the North Island this year, some particularly big weather events that have had quite significant impacts. It has been the case—I’ve just read it myself—that in terms of some of those regions, local government have had information that they’ve identified in the past and issues from rainfall events that have occurred in the past as well, and this is ensuring that more of that information, hopefully, is made available to prospective purchasers so that they’re aware of what they’re getting themselves into when they buy.

So there are two relatively straightforward changes with this bill, but they will have some significant impact, particularly with regard to the land information memoranda that my colleague spoke to earlier. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a short call on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill, and essentially this bill is a common-sense bill to make that homebuyers are able to get good information about natural hazards that could affect the properties that they are interested in. It also makes common-sense amendments to the provisions in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act that deal with national security information, and this is a simple alignment with the Official Information Act.

We support this bill because we believe that New Zealanders have the right to know whether properties they’re considering buying are in a natural hazard zone. This bill makes sure that councils provide that information to prospective buyers through their land information memorandum reports. It’s a good bill, it’s a common-sense bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this bill, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard many of our speakers this evening clearly state—the sensible legislation, the advantages and changes of the provisions, how helpful it will be, and it’s clear and concise.

At this time, I do want to acknowledge the many local government representatives across the motu. In particular of the events this year, we were very unfortunate of the weather events that happened in Auckland, particularly in our area, Māngere, and very quickly many, many people in the community came across to help. But the confusing part was some of the property owners who were not aware of their homes being built in floodplain areas, particularly when council comes with information that nothing is going to happen in 100 years—and that was only like four, five years ago, as a previous member of council.

So I do want to just point that out and highlight that. The bill is common-sense, it builds resilience for our communities, and it will really help property owners to understand and be better informed and manage the expectations. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the House is pretty uniform in its agreement tonight on the bill. However, it does raise some issues, though, around when councils change the dimensions of a property. For example, if you had a property that was in a gully at the moment and there’s nothing on your land information memorandum (LIM) report, and then suddenly this comes along and it said that this is a flood prone area. Is that person going to have some recourse to the council? We’re seeing the Government talking about wanting to buy-out people from a certain area. Well, you know, the issue when you do change these LIM reports is that there is a financial consequence on somebody.

Hon Andrew Little: If it’s not now, it’s 50 years’ time, when they get flooded out of it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: So what’s that? So Mr Little says their answer is: in a few years’ time, they’ll be flooded out of it. Well, that’s really helpful for the person that bought that house in good faith. Now, they bought that house in good faith, on the ability of what the council said.

Hon Andrew Little: They want to kick the can down the road.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: “Kick the can down the road.”

Hon Andrew Little: Kick the can down the road; it’s somebody else’s problem.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: “Somebody else’s problem.” Well, those are all good lines—

Hon Andrew Little: Failure of leadership.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —but I want to—maybe this member—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Little, short and sharp and preferably witty.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, I was hoping you were going to add the “preferably witty”, because we weren’t getting any wit coming from there.

But I want to draw that member’s attention to the thing called “leaky homes”, and what happened there with councils and how they stood behind people that actually had leaky homes—didn’t they? They were right there, the councils of New Zealand, helping those people out. They were the people that stood behind you if you had a leaky home. Are the councils going to stand behind you if your LIM report now says that you’ve got a flood-prone area? No way—no way—are they going to do that. This Minister of Local Government’s given no money for that. If he was genuine about looking after people in the future and protecting their interests, where’s the dollars to protect people? Because there’s going to be a financial implication for this.

Anybody that owns a block of land that now is going to have this on their land report has just lost money. They have just lost money. And it’s alright saying, “Oh, we’re going to stop you getting flooded out.” They’re actually stuck there now. They can’t sell that property—nobody in their right mind’s going to buy it. They are really in trouble. So what does the Minister say about that? What’s his great, one-line witty answer for that, for those people that have actually lost money tonight because of this bill? Because they have. And the reality is: not only losing money, but then are councils actually going to get it right?

So just say a council doesn’t actually identify an area that is flood prone, and then you are flooded—because some of the areas that we’ve seen flooded this year, nobody necessarily expected. Nobody thought the Esk Valley was going to be flood prone, did they, Minister? Otherwise, you would have done something about it. But the reality is that not every council is going to put down every flood prone area. And therefore, if you are flooded, can you go back to that council for not actually doing their job—not actually doing their job. Not actually putting on the LIM report, when you bought that bit of land, that it was flood prone. Are you going to be able to sue the council for that?

It’s very quiet on the Government side now, isn’t it? You know, very quiet over there. They hadn’t thought that anyone would lose any money. They hadn’t thought the councils could get it wrong. They hadn’t thought about the legal liability. They hadn’t thought it through. They thought, “Oh, we’ll just do a change to somebody’s LIM report. We’re the big hand of Government, we can do whatever we want. We don’t have to care about individual property rights. We don’t have to care about actually getting it right. We don’t have to care about actually having the right information.” That’s what that Government does all the time.

Hon Andrew Little: The member should get out of fantasyland.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Fantasyland, now—fantasyland. Well, I just ask that Minister to remember the words about leaky homes. Was that fantasyland, Minister? The fantasyland leaky homes. I tell you, you go to anybody that had a leaky home and tell them they’re in fantasyland, and they’ll tell you what land you’re in. And it won’t be a good space.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not in any land, Mr Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, you’re not, you’re higher than us—I know that. On a higher plane, coming from a good Catholic family. It’s all good.

Now, the Minister over there hasn’t thought about those issues. And I really think we need to be very careful in this House every time we put a blanket thing over people’s property rights and say, “Hey, we’ve got it right. We know best. It doesn’t matter if you had that house, we can just put a sign on top of it, now, for anybody that wants to come purchase it, and say that it could be flood prone. Don’t worry about your economic loss.”

What are we going to do if the councils don’t get it right? What are we going to do then, Minister? If they don’t get it right, are they going to then be excessively going out there and doing every flood prone area to make sure they don’t get it wrong, and then hurting more people? Because I don’t think anybody can tell where the next natural disaster in New Zealand will be. I don’t think anybody can tell which the next valley that will flood is. They don’t know—they don’t know. Nobody thought Christchurch would have an earthquake. Nobody in here. Nobody knew that that was going to happen, you know. And the reality is that these things happen in situations in that people don’t understand or don’t know. To have blanket legislation like this can have a detrimental impact on people.

So the practical realities of it are that it sounds good and it’s all great legislation and all that, but the reality is: every time we do this, somebody’s going to lose some money.

Todd Muller: We are supporting it.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And the middle New Zealanders are going to lose some money. And that member, Todd Muller, says that we are supporting it, and we are. And that’s why I said it—because it was a practical thing. But the reality is that there are some detrimental issues in it.

Hon Member: Benno’s crossing the floor.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: He’s not crossing the floor. It’s a bit late to do that, I think. But no, I just think that there’s some elements of this bill that probably haven’t been thought through 100 percent. The reality is that blanket attempts from local government on landowners’ rights do have an impact. There will be an impact on many people, and sometimes that can be detrimental.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Again, I am pleased to be able to stand and speak to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. As I said earlier, it makes absolute sense to amend the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act as a result of climate change. Something had to be done, and we had heard earlier on, from across the way over there, it is a sensible solution, common sense, and even an exciting bill. It will fix some of those issues by providing all that relevant and pertinent information to local government, to make their decision making a lot better than what it is now, given the environment that we now live in. I commend this to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Inspector-General of Defence Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): I present a legislative statement on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Inspector-General of Defence Bill be now read a second time.

First, I want to acknowledge the work and the deliberations of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the bill. The committee has produced a report recommending a number of changes to the bill and many of those changes, I think, are worthy and I endorse them. I believe that the changes the committee has recommended will only serve to enhance the transparency and integrity of the office of the Inspector-General of Defence once it is established, and I will come to some of those changes and some that I don’t agree with.

I’ll delve into, as I say, those changes, but I want to outline now why the bill is so important to this Government. This Government is committed to implementing the recommendations made by the inquiry into Operation Burnham, which concluded in 2020 and included the recommendation to establish an independent Inspector-General of Defence. The establishment of that office goes to the heart of two fundamental requirements in a democracy such as ours, and that is that there is civilian control of the military and that there is a ministerial accountability to Parliament for the military. These are important tenets of freedom and democracy in our society and which we, as parliamentarians, must work hard to uphold.

The inquiry into Operation Burnham, undertaken by Sir Terence Arnold and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, found that the actions of the NZSAS in 2010 and 2011 in Afghanistan were professional and lawful, but that there were shortcomings in the way that the New Zealand Defence Force subsequently provided information to Ministers and adequately scrutinised or responded to information. I believe the establishment of an Inspector-General of Defence will not only strengthen public confidence in the New Zealand Defence Force but will also support New Zealand’s international reputation by providing assurance that the Defence Force activities are subject to independent and dedicated scrutiny.

Members will recall the background to the Operation Burnham inquiry. A number of soldiers on deployment were concerned about some of their tasking, but had nowhere to take their concerns. Ultimately, their concerns were outlined in a book by investigative journalists Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson, and it soon became apparent that the Minister of Defence at the time—a National Minister of Defence, Dr Wayne Mapp—had not been kept properly informed.

Coming back to the Inspector-General of Defence: once appointed by the Governor-General following a recommendation from this House, the Inspector-General of Defence will be an independent statutory officer for a five-year term. The inspector-general will be supported by a deputy who will be appointed for an initial three-year term. The inspector-general’s office will have the power to investigate any activity or matter related to the New Zealand Defence Force activities, which the inspector-general can launch on their own initiative, or following a referral from the Minister of Defence, the Secretary of Defence, or Chief of Defence Force.

I believe that this ability to investigate any issue at any time will reassure New Zealanders that they can continue to place their trust in the integrity of our Defence Force personnel. It will help me, as Minister of Defence, and my successors facilitate democratic and civilian oversight of the Defence Force and will strengthen the accountability and transparency of the military and increase public confidence when investigations are launched that review its actions. This is an office that will be able to examine, inspect and assess, to scrutinise and respond, to look across systems and process, and to ask hard questions.

The return of this bill to the House today is significant. New Zealand is one step closer to the establishment of the Inspector-General of Defence, following the robust review of the bill conducted by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The committee accepted 13 written submissions and five oral submissions, and I’m confident the committee gave very careful consideration to all of them. Many of the submitters made helpful suggestions to the committee, and I thank those submitters for the contributions they’ve made.

I want to also particularly acknowledge Sir Kenneth Keith, former Supreme Court judge, who was appointed by the committee to provide independent specialist advice. His advice reassured the committee and should also reassure New Zealanders that there’s been an independent eye cast over this bill.

There are a number of recommendations for change made by the committee that I’d like to acknowledge today—the first and perhaps most significant being their recommendation to enable the inspector-general to examine all the Defence Force activities on its initiative. As mentioned earlier, the Inspector-General of Defence will have the power to look into any activity undertaken by Defence Force personnel, except the activities of Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand. This means the inspector-general is free to choose the subject of the investigations or assessments it conducts. The office will have the discretion to act on information it receives from any person, organisation, or whistleblower within the Defence Force or outside of it. The inspector-general’s office could choose to examine, for example, incidents on deployments as well as wider matters including the Defence Force’s training or its workplace culture, or a policy or procedure that governs its activities.

The broad scope of the inquiry provides an important avenue of scrutiny for not only members of the public but also for service personnel themselves. Wide powers to investigate such as these are similar to the scope of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and I believe this will bring greater public confidence to the independence of the office.

The committee also recommended a number of changes to the bill to reassure the public that the inspector-general is independent from both the Defence Force and Ministers of the Crown. As a result, the bill no longer requires the inspector-general to accept the Minister of Defence’s feedback on its annual work programme or to seek the Minister’s permission before sharing an investigation or assessment report with relevant Ministers. I want to thank the committee for their work in this regard and I commend those changes to the House, too.

But I add this, though: there is the question of who the responsible Minister should be. The bill doesn’t say who the responsible Minister should be, but the term “Minister”—which is in the bill, of course—for the purposes of any legislation, is defined in the Legislation Act 2019 as basically the Minister made responsible for the administration of the legislation by the Prime Minister of the day. I put on record now that I do not expect the Minister of Defence to be the Minister responsible for the Inspector-General of Defence. It should be another Minister, most likely the Minister of Justice.

In a similar vein, the committee recommended the bill strengthen the inspector-general’s powers to gather information. The bill empowers the inspector-general to access all Defence records, including Defence Force databases, if they are considered relevant to its functions. The bill now also requires the Chief of Defence Force to notify the inspector-general of civilian deaths or injuries, whether these occur in peacetime or in armed conflict, and when it’s likely the Defence Force has caused or contributed to civilian injury or death.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge and thank the committee and the submitters for other changes to the bill which enhance transparency and public confidence in the inspector-general’s operations. The bill will allow the inspector-general to publish information on the Defence Force’s progress implementing any recommendations it has made.

It will also be compulsory for the office to publish a summary of its investigations or assessments, where a full report is unable to be released in order to protect classified or sensitive information. It’s important that the public, again, has confidence that the inspector-general is acting lawfully, fairly, and reasonably. These changes will allow for greater visibility.

I have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that will make three amendments to the bill as reported back to ensure there are sufficient protections for people and information. To a large extent, they reinstate provisions that were in the original bill. These changes will, firstly, reinstate the Minister’s ability to certify that protected information should not be disclosed. This is an important backstop to ensure that information is not released if it would endanger the safety of a person or prejudice the security of New Zealand.

Secondly, it reinstates the Inspector-General of Defence’s partial exemption from the Official Information Act. This will apply to the working documents or internal records of the office. This will preserve the inspector-general’s ability to seek and receive information in confidence during the course of an investigation or assessment.

Thirdly, the SOP will require the Inspector-General of Defence to hold investigations in private unless the inspector-general determines on a case by case basis to hold hearings in public. This is necessary to protect participants and to encourage full participation in investigations.

These are responsible provisions that correctly balance the important powers of the Inspector-General of Defence and the need in this sensitive area of Government endeavour to preserve our national security and foreign relations interests. As members will recall, this Government has worked to bring this bill to Parliament following the conclusion of the Operation Burnham inquiry. It’s crucial that New Zealanders trust their military and their activities, and this bill, I’m sure, will go a long way to doing that. It will go a long way to supporting the brave, selfless, dedicated individuals who make up the New Zealand Defence Force. It’s critical they are supported to do their work and are able to get the right information at the right time so they can focus on the job at hand that is so often challenging. I commend the bill to the House.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, happy to take a call on the second reading here of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill, a bill the Government deems so urgent and critical to get passed that we are going through the remaining stages here at 9.30 p.m. under urgency.

This is a total waste of the House’s time and, indeed, the committee’s time. The committee went back and forward over a number of aspects of this bill—and the Minister has outlined some of those just now as well—but this derives from the Operation Burnham inquiry that was conducted and, indeed, that began or was first requested under the previous Government, and the Government at the time didn’t pursue an inquiry. They chose not to, having confidence in the professionalism of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) to have carried out their duties, and indeed that was borne out and proven to be the case. There was no illegal behaviour from the NZSAS on operations. There were some process deficiencies in the senior leadership and how that was reported through to the Minister, but a new matrix has been put in place since that time via Defence Force Order 35 around their requirement to report civilian harm.

Ultimately what we’re looking at here is, when we saw that change in Government, the new Government of the day decided we did need an inquiry and that’s their call to make. They went down that path and carried out exactly the sort of function that is now being proposed under this Inspector-General of Defence Bill. There is no need for this bill because the Government already has the ability to conduct an inquiry if they have concerns around a particular aspect of behaviour or a process or a system or deployment that has been carried out by NZDF that they can look into.

What’s being proposed here is certainly not the biggest priority in defence at the moment. We have a defence force going through significant issues. Attrition has been a big part of that and we’ve seen 30 percent of uniformed personnel leave over the last two years, and yet we’re seeing now a response via an additional oversight function, more bureaucracy and cost at a time when, frankly, we need a Government to demonstrate that they trust and back the Defence Force.

Now, some of the changes that are being proposed through the select committee—there were four key changes there around the scope of the inspector-general’s function: the independence of the inspector-general, notification of civilian deaths and injuries, and greater transparency. Generally those changes, I believe, are an improvement on the original bill as it was presented, particularly around the independence, taking out the Minister’s input to effectively lead some of the work that the inspector-general of the day may be doing based on what the Minister of the day can direct. So taking that out was a good move. Having the additional oversight from the Official Information Act (OIA) appeared to make sense.

I’m interested, though—and I’ll come to this in a second as well—when we look now at the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) from the Minister, which is effectively unwinding the key changes that were made by the select committee, so back to my earlier statement about the waste of time being spent on a piece of legislation that is simply not the biggest priority in defence and is not adding sufficient value for the cost it will bring.

We’ve seen that now when the Minister has tabled an amendment which is proposing to totally change what had been put forward by the select committee’s amendments, their consideration of clauses 36, in particular, around the duty of confidentiality, where most of that part—subclauses (4), (5), (6); most of subclause (2) rewritten, as well—has been struck out around the Minister’s certifying what can be disclosed. That has now reappeared in the SOP put forward by the Minister.

Likewise over clause 39; amendments proposed there around investigations being conducted in private versus public was the consideration of the committee, and that’s now been unwound as well by the Minister. So we can look through at some of the changes that have been made that were fiddling with what was already an unnecessary piece of legislation that were potentially going to make it somewhat better, but still unnecessary, and now we’re seeing those major changes being unwound via the SOP that the Minister has talked to and we will be debating in short order given that we are, as I say, in urgency, talking through what is clearly a big issue for the Government of the day, but, frankly, is not a big issue for the Defence Force.

There are much bigger issues, as I say, around addressing their operational readiness, ensuring they are fit for purpose and can deliver on the needs and expectations of the Government of the day, on behalf of the people of New Zealand. We’ve seen concerns around their ability to do that. They are strained, they are under pressure, and this is a clear example of something that is actually not going to help alleviate that. You know, when you are under pressure, when morale is impacted, when attrition is through the roof, when there are any number of other issues around conditions of service and frustrations within the system, this is not a solution that is going to shift the dial on that.

Obviously we have the view, on this side of the House, that this is an unnecessary piece of legislation. The Government holds a different view; I can accept that is the case. Either way, though, this is not a strong indication of addressing the key issues in the defence sector at the moment, and that is one of the areas that I find most disappointing about this, when we are in such an area of need within the NZDF, we are not seeing the solutions delivered via this legislation, certainly, to address that.

I do want to acknowledge that the Minister did make, through the last Budget, an increase in the wage allocation, which had been a major issue within Defence and that has been well received. Of course, it would have been well received two years ago as well, but, nevertheless, we’ve seen that 30 percent loss of uniformed personnel in the interim.

But, as I say, I come back to the point that we are now debating under urgency a piece of legislation that is simply not going to shift the dial in a meaningful way for our Defence Force. It is not going to significantly increase the transparency or the oversight that the Minister alluded to, as well, because, as I said, the Government of the day, as we have seen, has the ability to carry out an investigation in its own right if they have concerns. That’s exactly what happened in this instance. Creating this mechanism is unnecessary, it adds more bureaucracy and cost at a time when we see a Government adding bureaucracy and cost across just about every sector, and, frankly, it’s unnecessary.

So on that basis, we do not support it and we will be debating the Minister’s SOP more in due course as well, but the proposals he’s made in there—amending or reverting back to some of the initial aspects touched on or outlined, rather, in the first reading bill—simply don’t give us any confidence to support at future stages, either.

So I will leave my contribution there, and look forward to continuing this debate over the next hour or two as we proceed what is clearly a big issue for the Government. Thank you very much.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): I actually find it quite disappointing. We have gallant members on the other side of the House there. We have members that have held commission within the armed forces, and they lack fundamental understanding of what democratic civil-military relations represent. Democratic oversight of the military is particularly important right now and topical in Australia. In a 2020 report, the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) found credible information of war crimes committed by ADF in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016 through the Brereton report, and recently, for the first time in history, a court had been tasked with assessing allegations of war crimes by Australian forces. And this defamation trial was a huge moment for Australia both culturally and legally.

Going forward, my read of the Australian people is that they are going to demand that if the Australian Defence Force enters into a coalition with any of their partners, they are going to want their coalition partners to have independent oversight that is commensurate with the society that they are representing—and this Inspector-General of Defence Bill does that. It makes sure that our house is in order so we can work as part of a joint multinational coalition. It enhances our interoperability with our only formal defence ally. So I encourage the Opposition over there to have a look at how it improves our integration, how it improves our interoperability with our formal defence ally, our coalition partners. So, for that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I think in the last few years, where the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has considered bills, this would be the one that has demanded the greatest degree of consideration by all members of the committee. While we end up at the end of all of the select committee consideration coming down on two sides of the proposal, I don’t think it in any way diminishes the desire by all members the committee to get as good a piece of legislation as is possible—albeit that on our side of the House we do not support it.

I want to acknowledge the advisers who were available to the committee. It was possible to have quite significant and robust discussion with them, and they were very willing to engage in that discussion. I particularly want to acknowledge the contribution made to our deliberations by Sir Ken Keith. To have someone of his capacity, his understanding, and his broad experience advising us was, I think, of extreme value. It meant, too, that where there were positions taken and he asked for time to have a think about those things, we could be certain that when he came back, there was a degree of thought gone into any proposition far greater than any one of us on the committee might have been able to put in place.

We know that this bill has come out of the royal commission subsequent to the investigations into Operation Burnham, which occurred in Afghanistan. I think, though, to suggest that there is any comparison between Operation Burnham and the matters that the previous speaker, Dan Rosewarne, just raised being dealt with by the Australian military at the present time—where there were very clearly war crimes committed by one particular soldier—is wrong; completely wrong.

There is, I don’t think, anyone else in this House at the moment who has been privy to viewing this footage that was available of that particular battle. I would have to say that anyone who was able to see that would find it very hard to point the finger at anyone inside the New Zealand Defence Force who were deployed in the field on that particular day.

I think it’s important that we recognise that those soldiers were in Afghanistan because the New Zealand Government had committed them to that particular endeavour. They were there working under a set of some rules of engagement—the “legals”—for how they would operate. That was approved by the New Zealand Government. Their responsibility was to do their best for the people of New Zealand. There is no doubt in my mind that there was several moments during that battle where large numbers of New Zealand soldiers were in danger of losing their lives.

It was an operation conducted with other military forces. We were part of that. While it’s good that we were able to come back here and review this with the clear sight that hindsight always provides, I think it’s important that we recognise that this is unusual; it’s not something that occurs every day in the military.

I think, also, we need to recognise that the military, in its three branches, is very different to any other organisation that exists in New Zealand. They are not a police force. They are not a first responder. They are a military force, and they are always going to be, when deployed, in a position where they will be coming up against people who have nefarious intention toward them. That intention would also, of course, be directed at us—at our freedoms, our lifestyle, and all of the values that we have in our democratic society.

What concerns me about all of this is that we are somehow saying, because of this one incident, and because the royal commission has, you know—and they did a good job, the royal commission, of it. No issue with their report or anything like that or, for that matter, their recommendations. But their recommendations are for us to consider, not necessarily enact. I think reaching a conclusion that the operational arrangements for the New Zealand Defence Force should be so significantly changed as this bill is proposing to do is wrong.

We ask those soldiers to undertake exercises that are going to see them firing upon people at various times because that’s what military forces do. It is, I think, ludicrous to suggest that we are going to, in the future, if it was necessary to ask our military personnel to go into a battle zone, that somehow they would know at all times there was someone else looking over the top of them—not their immediate superiors, not their headquarters staff back home; but someone who is completely, apparently, independent who is going to decide whether or not what they have done is reasonable.

What I fear most is that this will lead to, effectively, the Inspector-General of Defence becoming the veto operator on defence activities. In other words, you have to ask the question: why would anybody in a leadership position in the Defence Force, having been asked by the Minister of Defence—therefore the Government of New Zealand—to undertake a particular deployment where they’ve gone through all the exercise of the rules of engagement, and I know that they are extensive. There is no such thing as just “fire at random” in any of these circumstances. There are rules of engagement, and they are agreed and they are set down, and they are drilled into every soldier. In fact, the previous speaker was able to say that when he was on deployment, he carried those rules of engagement on his person so that they were known at all times.

So there we have it: that they are being prepared to go into a deployment. What I think will happen is that the particular commanders of that deployment will end up going to the inspector-general and saying, “This is what we are planning. This is how it’s going to work. What do you think?” So you’re going to have the supposed line between the Crown—therefore the Government—and the military broken by, effectively, the Crown deciding to second-guess itself by appointing an inspector-general into an area where very few people will have sufficient expertise to be able to enable the activities of the military, recognising that they’re, within the rules of engagement, going to be at difficult circumstances at various times.

I want to just repeat, again: I think it’s a great shame that the footage of that battle is not more publicly available and able to be seen. It can’t be, because of arrangements that this country has with like-minded countries—and I’ll say no more than that. But if people could see that, then I think their understanding of the allegations made as a result of the investigations by the journalists and, ultimately, some of the conclusions of the royal commission would be a little more hard to understand.

Because there’s no doubt that when the we put soldiers into the battlefield, effectively—and they are in a position where they could lose their lives—then there has to be an understanding that they’re going to, at times, respond to those provocations in a way that some people won’t like, but we have to accept is the role that the military takes on.

So we’re not supporting this bill because I think it undermines that relationship between the military and the Crown. It further, I think, puts a degree of scrutiny over the top of the military operation that I don’t believe is, in all circumstances, necessary. I say, again, that Operation Burnham became the subject of a royal commission because it was rare; because it wasn’t something that happens often. I think that to suggest that because of that, we change how we do things from this point on forever, in such a radical way as this, is just a little bit too much.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call in support of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Just to respond to Mr Brownlee’s comments around if there was a video available about the operation—and Mr Brownlee is forgetting that there were civilian casualties in this operation and that no one is directly blaming that war crimes were committed, but civilians were dead. This, more or less, takes a lot from the integrity of our Defence Force. So responding by establishing an entity like this is good for the image of our Defence Force, for the integrity, for the mana of the organisation. We cannot afford to have any doubts hanging over organisations like our Defence Force; it’s such a critical entity.

So this bill is a good bill for the reasons that I’ve mentioned above, and Operation Burnham has significantly undermined the integrity and the image of our Defence Force. Therefore, establishing this entity will play a role in facilitating democratic oversight of the New Zealand Defence Force and will provide independent scrutiny. For these reasons, this is a good step and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT at the second reading of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Notwithstanding the circumstances—as the National Party have raised, that we’re under urgency here and this is obviously not a key priority for the Defence Force—I do acknowledge the investments that have been made in defence since the first reading of this bill.

This is one of those tricky roles, quite clearly. One hopes that the inspector-general won’t be doing very much, because if they are busy, then something is obviously going quite wrong, and that is in particular because the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) is involved in a lot of overseas deployments at present. Of course, they are in the United Kingdom training Ukrainians—good on them. In addition to that, which could be a tricky issue for this particular legislation, there are New Zealand Defence Force personnel unofficially fighting in Ukraine.

We will continue to support this legislation because it confronts an important issue, and, while there is room for improvement, once this office is established and functioning we think it can be up to the next Government to look at how it has played out and make those legislative improvements. Because this is not a particularly fast-moving area, there is time to look at that structure and improve on things like the independence. I think the submission during this select committee process by the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties is quite a good one to refer to—lots of good recommendations in there.

This new authority, obviously, requires a significant amount of trust in the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) and the Minister, whoever it may be. While we acknowledge that things do work a bit differently in the defence space, the purpose behind this bill is to increase accountability and we do have some concerns about that. There is a concern around the amalgamation of power and whether there is sufficient independence between the roles, say between the Minister of Defence, CDF, and the inspector-general. As an aside, keeping in mind at present that the Minister of Defence is also the Minister responsible for the GCSB, the NZSIS, and even the Public Service—just thinking about the requirements around getting permission from the Minister of Defence before passing on information to other Ministers—you know, you have to wonder if the Minister of Defence has to ask himself if he can pass on information to the Minister of GCSB and so on.

If we look at the introduction of the bill, and others have spoken about the origin of this, “The Inquiry found that the Defence Force had failed to provide full and accurate information to Ministers and to the public.”—Operation Burnham—and “The establishment … is also intended to assure the public that activities of the Defence Force have independent oversight.”

Given the nature of this new role, it isn’t quite clear that this is fully fit for purpose in dealing with this issue. But none the less, as I said, it can be improved. It does have a lot of promise, but it does need tweaking. The independence, as I said, is a bit questionable, but we acknowledge and understand that this is a difficult area to get the balance between transparency, oversight, national security, and privacy right. Obviously, there is a necessity to protect identities and national operational security matters, so it is tricky.

I know we’ll get to this in the committee stage, but referring to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of Minister Little, number 370, “amends the Inspector-General of Defence Bill by enabling the Minister to certify certain material obtained by the inspector-general as non-disclosable”—perfectly understandable, but immediately you get that kind of hint of a reduction in independence of this role. It requires the inspector-general to conduct every investigation in private—so that switched from public to private. I think, in all fairness, this practically doesn’t make a heck of a lot of difference, because, ultimately, it’s up to the inspector-general to decide whether to make it public or private anyway. So I guess it changes the focus but not necessarily the outcome.

The last issue that the Council for Civil Liberties raised, around the OIA, we agree with that.

Another clause which I’ll just sort of query, clause 31, requires the inspector-general to “give prior written notice” before entering a defence estate, the defence area, naval ships and so on, and other assets. This is again this issue of independence, because—maybe it’s just the influence of Hollywood here in the back of my mind, but I think it doesn’t take too much to imagine a scenario where a future Chief of Defence Force may decide that there’s a reason they don’t want the inspector-general to go there or can delay it, and that heads-up can be quite useful. So we just need to see how this actually rolls out. Maybe it is just an optics issue, but I think it’s worth raising due to the complex relationship between the CDF, the Minister, and the inspector-general as a result of this legislation.

It is good to see the protections for Defence Force personnel to make sure that they can be whistleblowers and not have that blow back on them. It does make me wonder, what about intermediaries who aren’t connected with the New Zealand Defence Force? What if a whistleblower goes through one of them, perhaps even their local MP, and they raise issues with something they’ve seen or something they’ve heard, witnessed, and so on?

I think it’s also important, you know, given all the powers that this bill grants this role and the protections, which are significant, to reflect on the functions, going back to clause 8. So not only “(1)(a) to investigate—(i) incidents … in the course of activities of the Defence Force”—obviously—“(b) to assess, and identify potential improvements or additions to, Defence Force policies and procedures governing activities of the Defence Force”. So, all in all, while this position has a great deal of power, as I said, around it—privacy mechanisms and information-gathering powers and restrictions on sharing and procedures to follow—it’s kind of, you know, what’s the actual outcome we’re looking for?

Clearly, this is not a judicial issue. This is not about massive prosecutions against soldiers. It seems to just be about improving policies. I understand that this is trying not to step on the toes of military justice and the consequences, and I wonder, is there a tension between the investigations carried out by this role that will be carried out and those that are carried out by the military judicial system or the civilian judicial system?

So, in summary: room for improvement, possibly a job for the next Government. Luckily, this is not an area that moves at great speed. This is an important issue. The role should exist, needs to be improved, and we hope in good faith that the purpose of this role and the office are carried out effectively and it doesn’t just become an internal procedural mechanism that actually protects wrongdoing by concealing it from Cabinet, Parliament, or the wider public. So, with that, I commend it to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will begin by acknowledging you as the chair of our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, the committee that considered this bill, the Inspector-General of Defence Bill, at great length and with a lot of diligence, I would say. As others have said—including the deputy chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee—I think we did all come together with a lot of good will in terms of improving this bill based on its purpose, although some members are, of course, tonight voting against it, and I think that’s sad.

I do also want to congratulate the Minister. I think that although we’ve heard that perhaps this isn’t the most urgent of bills, in fact there isn’t a moment more apt for a bill like this to come to the House. It is urgent in the context of global events for us as a nation to send a message that we stand for the rule-of-law system in not only times of peace but in terms of international humanitarian law—or the so-called laws of war—when prejudice is high and national security is at stake and that we stand for those precious rules that have protected our rules-based system and our like-minded nations in the toughest of times since World War II when we first started to apply them.

So this does come, as we’ve heard again and again, out of the inquiry into Operation Burnham. So it is apt to also draw on some of the themes of that operation and the types of shortfalls that led to this bill being introduced. Operation Burnham was, of course, about events that happened on the ground, but the most concerning of the findings were not, in fact, about the operation on the ground perhaps, and those were not necessarily the events or the actions that have led to this bill. What Operation Burnham highlighted was a pattern of disrespect and inappropriate behaviour by members of the Defence Force right up to three different heads of the New Zealand Defence Force in terms of failures in transparency and accountability and the relationship between the civilian oversight mechanism, which is right now the Minister, and the military system—the information lines and the processes.

So that is part of the reason we see this bill and the office of the inspector-general as being necessary. It’s not only to address the very, very rare cases when something like a harrowing war crime happens, but to know ahead of time where our systems, processes, accountability mechanisms, transparency—as far as it is necessary, even in the context of the military—are falling short of what New Zealand would expect.

So to those ends, the committee focused on improving the bill in terms of transparency, public access, journalistic access, the judicial-review mechanism that would kick in for anyone that wanted, whether as part of proceedings or another affected party, to challenge the decisions of the inspector-general, including on transparency decisions. That idea of justice being done is as important as justice being seen to be done.

So to that end, having a civilian or an independent mechanism to investigate not only individual cases but also patterns and systems is taking us quite far, as a nation, into the modern expectation that we will follow international humanitarian law and, actually, international criminal law as well, where those more serious incidents might occur. We are recognising that we have an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish, but we also have an obligation to build systems that are fit for purpose and that are like those of our allies. In some of these combat operations, we heard that Australia, for example, has a system that would potentially go much further than ours, and so we may fall behind.

To that end, the committee’s report sits in a little bit of contrast to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) introduced by the Minister, so we won’t be supporting that SOP. The ACT Party member, Dr James McDowall, outlined opposition that—although we don’t often agree so closely with the ACT Party—I would say reflects quite directly what the Green Party’s concerns are: the certification of information that may be withheld by a Minister. The committee did discuss and analyse that issue in terms of whether or not politicisation may come into it. If something has happened, a Government may not want to reveal whether there were considerations of that kind. That may be later, and this will obviously apply to successive Governments, and may come up.

The Official Information Act’s (OIA) applying. Operation Burnham was obviously an investigative journalistic revelation that came about, and so to have the OIA apply is an important mechanism to have processes assumed to be held in public unless there are named sensitivities. This is something that courts really abide by and the inspector-general’s office would always be sensitive to, so we felt that that presumption was helpful to calming public anxiety about secrecy around defence mechanisms like this. For me, the idea that that judicial review issue would be protected was one where I, at least, was led to press harder for transparency, being put into the bill, which I think is rolled back somewhat by the Minister’s SOP.

But, nonetheless, this is a watershed moment, I would say, in terms of bringing back trust, accountability, and transparency and restoring the idea that the New Zealand Defence Force will operate in line with the values of Aotearoa New Zealand and that the public will have some access and some way of knowing that that is in fact the case without there needing to be journalistic investigations like in Operation Burnham.

So we do commend the bill to the House, and I do congratulate the Minister for bringing it in urgency, because we do need to set those standards right now. We need to draw that line in the sand.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate taking the opportunity for a short call on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. I was not a member of your select committee, Madam Speaker—the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—but nevertheless I followed along in the debate tonight and I want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill and for his hearty definition and explanation of the legislation, which was very helpful.

The policy outcome for the establishment of this is an oversight function independent of the New Zealand Defence Force that will strengthen democratic accountability, civilian control of the military, and increase public confidence that issues regarding the legality and propriety of its actions are appropriately investigated with the flexibility and durability to respond to the complexity of the New Zealand Defence Force business now and into the future. It also gives those personnel, the military personnel, another place to apply to or to ask for help or seek advice. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As someone who’s served in both the New Zealand Army and the British forces, when the book by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson was released in 2017, I was sitting over there, and I went down to the bookshop as soon as I heard about this book, and actually bought it and read it in the course of the same day. At the time, when I read it, the one thing that struck me was when you looked at the bibliography in the book, there seemed to be only three sources for the entire book and the claims made by Hager and Stephenson in that book. My personal feeling at that time, back in 2017, was how maligned the New Zealand Defence Force had been in that book, that obviously led to the inquiry.

I think in times of this, it’s very important that facts are part of the conversation—and not allegations. I just want to pick up on an earlier point one of the Labour members said: I think it’s shameful to compare this action—Operation Burnham—to what has been taking place in Australia. I’m very disappointed to hear a Labour member—and also a former member of the NZDF—talking in that way, because there is a gulf between what has happened there and what happened in Operation Burnham.

I just think we need to reflect that war involves both offensive actions and defensive actions, and war is often ugly, it’s usually confusing, and it’s a horrible display of mankind, but it is what it is. Politicians and politics mean that the military is an arm of politics, unfortunately. But the people who go out on behalf of our country—the men and women who do this on behalf of our country—deserve our support.

I have spoken to the combatants who were engaged in this operation, I’ve spoken to them directly, and one of the things I was surprised and pleased to hear from them was the level of restraint shown by our New Zealand soldiers during that battle. I was very, very heartened to hear that. I think the important thing is, it’s when people go into battle, there are always terms of engagements; there were very formal, very clear terms of engagement issued to all the soldiers involved in Operation Burnham, and from what I could see or understand, I thought they showed incredible restraint in that action.

What I’m concerned about is the issue of inability to know, and to determine, and to make quick decisions in the field. When you realise that actions are often lead by rather junior officers such as lieutenants, or senior NCOs such as sergeants. These are people who’ve got to make split decisions in the time of a great deal of confusion and danger. I think what this bill will do is put an element of uncertainty in the minds of those commanders. I’m very concerned that our men and women who serve New Zealand proudly are going to be in a situation where they may delay, they may be unsure of what to do, and I would say to you that in conflict, delay is deadly. Delay is deadly in conflict.

I am very concerned about what this is, because this bill proposes to embed in the process an independent inspectorate. If it was one that could be called upon when required, I can understand that arrangement, but I think it’s unnecessary and it will lead to long term degradation, and it also raises the issue of what is the remit of the inspector-general. Just heard the member from Greens talk about approving battle plans—is the inspector-general going to be involved in determining rules of engagement?—

Hon Member: No, no!

ANDREW BAYLY: Whatever—what weapons should be used; what personnel? I think that level of uncertainty is very worrying, and I hope everyone understands that National will support our servicemen in New Zealand because they do a fine job on behalf of our country.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to take up the point that Mr Bayly has just raised, because I’m quite concerned by the underlying logic. This is a situation where five people, including a child, died. I have great respect for our defence forces, but Mr Bayly’s argument—if you read the Hansard—is actually that we should not make our Defence Force worried about acting in a situation that’s critical, because they’ll be worried that sunlight will be shone on what they’ve done. Now, that’s just not a good argument.

This law is about safeguarding democratic accountability. It’s about building trust for our force because our force will know that there is an independent examination of what they do. That’s a fair examination, it’s an independent examination, and if people do nothing wrong, then they will not be exposed to anything wrong. This is a safe way of bringing accountability into our system and making sure that our Defence Force is in fact supported in doing the right thing. Thank you, I commend this bill to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker, and mālō 'aupito for the opportunity to take just a short call in the House on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill tonight. It will be a short call, because we’ve already heard tonight that it’s been well canvassed, and, actually, it’s a no-brainer because this bill speaks to the defence priorities for people but also the defence principles of mana and pono by establishing an Inspector-General of Defence (IDG) that will have oversight of our New Zealand Defence Force, as recommended by our Operation Burnham inquiry.

As I said, this bill is a no-brainer. This is about establishing what the service is asking us for. It’s also about ensuring that we support our service people—and that’s not just in terms of the wage increase that we’ve recently done, but also about making sure that we listen to them, we establish the IGD, as requested. For that, it’s a good bill and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thanks to colleagues who’ve been contributing in this debate at the second reading of this Inspector-General of Defence Bill. It’s been an interesting discussion.

I agree with my colleague and friend Tim van de Molen that there are many priorities for the Defence Force right now that are much more urgent than this project. Morale is low. I say that not merely anecdotally, although that is certainly the sense I get from talking to people who are currently in the New Zealand Defence Force, but also borne out in various satisfaction surveys or whatever they’re called now. I know what low morale looks like. I was a member of the National Party caucus in the last Parliament and members of the current Labour Party caucus know what low morale is like too.

The army and indeed the Defence Force in general have been decimated. In the literal sense of that phrase, it would be one in 10 members having departed the service. In fact, the attrition rates, again, as my colleague and friend Tim van de Molen has indicated, some 30 percent over two years. If we do the math on that, obviously that’s north of 10 percent, so worse than decimated, which has echoes of Blackadder’s famous “a fate worse than a fate worse than death” line. And that’s, again, in the words of Blackadder, “pretty bad”. So strategic decisions are needed for the Defence Force at this juncture.

I do acknowledge that the Minister of Defence has brought forward a review that his predecessor had instigated. I think bringing it forward was a good move. I also give credit to the Minister for arguing successfully that a pay rise should take place across the New Zealand Defence Force. While some good decisions have been made recently, it is nevertheless the case that there are other pressing strategic priorities. So while it is again positive—and I give credit where it’s due; I don’t wish to speak in a partisan way unnecessarily regarding defence and national security matters. It is positive, as I say, that decisions were made in relation to P-8 aircraft to replace the existing P-3s, likewise the Hercules replacement. Nevertheless, there are big questions now still: what is to be the replacement for the frigate class—if we can call two ships a class—and the case discussed relatively recently in relation to the Boeing 757s, and many other issues of course remain and they’re all worthy of debate and discussion. It seems surprising that it would be the priority of the Government to put forward this legislation—and under urgency, at that.

We’ve heard a number of arguments—and some of them are more compelling than others—from various parties across the House about why this bill should be supported, why we’re not going to have the opportunity to discuss it further and debate them with our caucus, because the bill will be passed before the night is out. So that’s one of the perils of urgency, of course.

We’ve heard about the need to increase public confidence in the Defence Force and the matter of trust. I’ve had a few occupations in my life and my current one, politician, is not particularly high among trust levels among New Zealand public. Before that I was a lawyer. Again, not a particularly trusted profession. The only thing I’ve ever done that’s actually been remotely likely, in a general sense, to be the subject of public trust was being a member of the New Zealand Defence Force.

So with all due respect, I think we’re looking in the wrong place if we say that these measures are necessary to increase public confidence in the military. I think, in fact, the members of our Defence Force—and I acknowledge and Mr Rosewarne and also Mr Bayly and van de Molen, who have spoken tonight in that regard. I think that is, with all due respect, not the strongest justification for the further measure that’s in front of us tonight.

I think the point that Mr Rosewarne makes regarding interoperability with Australia is a useful one, because I think that should be a concern of ours. That is to say we should always be interested to know whether moves that our Defence Force are making will make us more or less interoperable with close allies and partners, including in particular Australia—which, of course, is an ally proper, not merely a very good friend or however we’re characterising our relationship with the US, for example, at the moment. But I think if we were to wonder about how Canberra and indeed other parts of the Australian defence establishment would regard New Zealand as an ally in our region and further afield, I think that the establishment or non-establishment of an Inspector-General of Defence would be very low among their priorities. Certainly there would be other issues that they would, and do, raise with us frequently that they would have us attend to more pressingly in relation to our Defence Force and its ability to operate with their.

I state an obvious case in relation to the AUKUS submarines. At the moment, our statute book will not allow the prime strategic asset of our closest defence ally to enter our waters. Notwithstanding that they are nuclear-propelled not -armed, I don’t state that with any intention of suggesting any policy position one way or t’other. I just merely state that there are interesting and important issues that will come up in trans-Tasman relations, and questions of interoperability, I think, might more usefully be answered in such questions as that going forward than merely creating another position such as this.

Most fundamentally, again, as pointed out by Tim van de Molen, the things that this bill will do need not be legislated, because they have been done before even with the legislation in its current form. So to that end, we don’t see that there is any need—urgent or otherwise—for the bill, and for that reason, we do not support it.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It is a privilege to take a short call on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging the brave and selfless men and women who are members of the New Zealand Defence Force, and I know that all of our Parliament would concur with that.

I do want to pick up on some comments made earlier in the evening by Mr Bayly when he was referencing some earlier comments from my colleague Dan Rosewarne, and I’ve read through the comments that Mr Rosewarne made around both the workings of the New Zealand and Australian Defence Force. I just want to, I guess, correct Mr Bayly’s interpretation of that, because Mr Rosewarne was not saying that what happened that was investigated through Operation Burnham or that the practices of the New Zealand Defence Force are comparable to the events that are currently in the media in Australia. That is not what he said. I think it’s really important that I place on the record that it’s not the comments that he made.

What he was saying was the need for, as part of the work that New Zealand and Australian Defence Forces do in partnership—which is something that as New Zealanders we are very proud of, the partnership that we hold with our Australian comrades—was that as part of that work there is a need for those assurances around having an independent inspector role sitting there as part of that work. That was the point he was making. He was not saying that the events that led to Operation Burnham were comparable with what’s currently being discussed and being addressed in Australia. I just want to make sure that’s very, very clear.

Some other comments have been made tonight around the importance of us as a Parliament protecting and upholding the role of the Defence Force and just ensuring that, as politicians, that that is appropriate.

One of the things that this bill does is that it actually creates a mechanism for members of the Defence Force to whistle-blow, to raise issues up, so they have a place that they can take things if they are seeing things that is of concern to them; and that, actually, that inspector component is, again, independent of politicians as well, so that it can ensure that it’s not tainted through politics—that it does have that genuine independence about it. So that is a way for us to provide greater protections to, as I said, the brave men and women of our Defence Force. It’s our job as politicians to ensure we are putting every mechanism in place so that they can do what is the most difficult role in the world on behalf of New Zealand in a way that New Zealanders feel they can trust and are proud of, which is what we are. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 85

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Inspector-General of Defence Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 85

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Inspector-General of Defence Bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Inspector-General of Defence Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There is none. Part 1 of the debate on clauses 3 to 6 and Schedules 1—sorry; it is actually taken as one.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just, really, by way of introducing the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, I acknowledge the members’ contributions in the second reading and I want to reiterate the point that the purpose of this bill is to strengthen the civilian democratic oversight of our military and to ensure—to the extent that vehicles such as military courts of inquiry and general military discipline do not deal with the issue, including issues arising out of combat or peacekeeping operations—that there is a means to investigate those issues. But, most importantly, it is to make sure that those charged with civilian oversight—the Minister, other Ministers as well, and indeed Parliament as a whole—can be assured that the advice and information they are receiving about military operations is accurate and is assured.

The genesis of this bill was from a series of events during a combat episode, a peacekeeping operation where the Minister was not properly informed—and on successive occasions, the Minister was not properly informed.

I have every confidence that our brave members of our New Zealand Defence Force, when they are in conflict situations, are carrying their doctrinal training and subject to the disciplines of their profession and their craft as soldiers and sailors and aviators know what to do. But there are occasions when events happen, when misjudgments can be made, whether at the leadership or senior officer level or at other levels and where an independent investigation outside of a court of inquiry is appropriate. This bill sets out the vehicle to do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m interested in picking up on the Minister’s comments there, because one of the key things that stands out for me is that there is already, from the people I talk to and from the feedback I get, a strong level of confidence that our defence personnel operate in a very professional manner and are well regarded both domestically and internationally, and his comments that the intent of this bill is to give further confidence. I’m wondering why, if that is the case, he has taken away two aspects within his Supplementary Order Paper that were put forward by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—one of those effectively taking away the Minister’s ability to certify certain information as being ineligible to be disclosed, bearing in mind that the Official Information Act (OIA) already has the ability to refuse to release certain information based on some of those security parameters or privacy or any number of other considerations. Under the OIA, why does that clause need to be back in specifically? But also to the Green member Golriz Ghahraman’s point—around the perception as well when we are moving away from a public session to a private session. And surely if the intent is to improve the perception or the overall integrity of this defence personnel, then those would be two facets that would enhance that. And so I’m interested in why he’s looking to revert back to the original bill in that case—as I say, particularly given the OIA capacity to allow for some of that information. I also wanted to touch—oh, perhaps I’ll let him address those first.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his questions, and I acknowledge and agree with them entirely that the reputation of New Zealand Defence Force personnel around the world is of the quality of our personnel and what they bring to the role of the roles they play—as I say, whether in combat, whether in peacekeeping, whether in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) operations. The member will be well aware of the stories someone like me would get told of the efforts that NZDF personnel go to engage with the communities of which they become a part, because they know that their security is tied up in the knowledge and understanding of the communities of which they’re a part. And I think we can more confidently say we stand apart in the world in the ability of our NZDF personnel to do that. So I acknowledge the member’s contribution in that respect.

On the two questions the member raises, one is about the Minister’s power to certify, effectively, the non-disclosure of information. That is subject to qualifications. As the member will know, in the reinstated provision in the bill, it is not just a blanket “the Minister can certify”; the Minister can only do that—I’m looking at clause 36(5) that sets out the conditions on which “The Minister may certify that protected material should not be disclosed”. And, principally, the reason for that is that much of the information that the NZDF will be dealing with—and certainly the inspector-general in any inquiry—will be classified information, and a fair quantity of it will come from overseas partners, and information shared between our partners, particularly in the military or national security context, is typically subject to conditions about preserving the confidentiality of it. And in order for the inspector-general to get on and do their job—and sometimes it will be appropriate for the inquiries to be conducted reasonably expeditiously—then it’s important that the protections around certain information can be provided, and the Minister’s power to certificate, in that respect, achieves that.

In relation to the second point the member touches on, which is whether or not the inquiry should be in public or private, the member will be aware that the original bill specified they should be in private. As a consequence of the submissions to the select committee and representations by members on the committee, I have taken the view that there should be a default position, which is that inquiries are conducted in private, much for the reasons about the nature and quality of the information that the inspector-general will have to deal with, but with a discretion to open the inquiry up to the public. And if members think back to the way the Operation Burnham inquiry, the royal commission of inquiry, was conducted, the first part of that was conducted in private, because there was a lot of classified information and it took a long time for information that could be declassified to be declassified or presented in an unclassified way. But that inquiry went on for many, many months, and so there was time to do that. There may not—in fact, there is highly unlikely to be time to do that in the sort of inquiries that the inspector-general may be called upon to make, and, therefore, it makes sense for the expeditious nature of inquiries for them to default to being private with the discretion to go public as needed.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): So let’s assume the auditor—sorry, the inspector-general has been appointed. Immediately, that person is going to think, “Well, OK, I better do something with this role.”, and the scope for that person, under the bill, is going to be quite considerable. How big does the Minister of Defence envisage that office might become, bearing in mind that we have other inspector-generals who have quite large office operations? And what would be the circumstances if there is conflict between the view of the inspector-general about the scope that they’re able to exercise and the concern that might be expressed to a Minister by the Chief of Defence, for example, about that role starting to impinge on the battle readiness that they need to instil as part of their personnel? In other words, what are the brakes on this person? What are the constraints on this person? If it going to a point where there was clear conflict, who’s the adjudicator, and who makes the decision about where to from there?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank Mr Brownlee for his questions. Ultimately, the size of the office will, I imagine, be something that will evolve over time—it won’t be immediately apparent what their precise needs will be. But that member will be aware of the experience, under successive Governments, of the office, for example, of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, which originally started out as one fulltime-equivalent person—in fact, no, it was a part-time role with some part-time clerical assistance, then it became a full-time role with some part-time clerical assistance. But, during that time, significant omissions happened, and significant failures of oversight happened in relation to the intelligence agencies. Following an inquiry—an investigation conducted under the previous National Government—it led to that Government and the Prime Minister of the day, now Sir John Key, effectively recalibrating the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. It’s now an office of, I think, eight fulltime-equivalents—nine people, I think, for a pretty involved work programme for the intelligence agencies.

I don’t expect the Inspector-General of Defence would be anywhere near that size, at least in its early years. It would have an important role to establish some processes and protocols and procedures. One of those is to understand how—I think, clause 10 in the bill, which is developing its relationship with other oversight bodies; it has to work out how that relationship works and how the other relevant jurisdictions around New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) works. Specifically, the legislation requires the inspector-general to deal with us, laid out in subclause (2) of clause 10, and, indeed, will also have to calibrate its actions in relation to military courts of inquiries.

So there’s a bit of work to do, but I’m confident that it will establish a pattern of work and a responsible approach to work, and we’ll negotiate the resources needed to do that. That would be complementary to those other sources of authority and discipline within our NZDF. I don’t have any concern that the Inspector-General of Defence will add anything to the concerns that front-line defence personnel would be worried about, concerned about, or thinking about as they acquit themselves in their roles, because of the disciplined nature of their role, the doctrinal training that they receive, and the other rules, including international conventions that they’re subject to in that role. Those are things that defence personnel on the job are thinking about naturally as they conduct themselves. The powers of the role of the Inspector-General of Defence will not add a thing to that.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate that insight. But that’s an area that I want to delve into as well, because under clause 8(b), the functions of the inspector-general are to “assess, and identify potential improvements or additions to, defence force policies and procedures”.

That is a very broad statement, and I think it picks up on the issue Mr Brownlee was raising around how far can this go. What limits are there on the inspector-general and, indeed, effectively, then, if they make a decision around something but that is in conflict with what CDF, Chief of Defence Force, is saying, for example—or indeed might have a different set of priorities or a different risk assessment from the inspector-general’s perspective, which may or may not align with the training objectives of the Chief of Defence Force, which may be looking to align with international areas where we’re trying to improve our interoperability, for example. How do we get that balance right?

Do you have any examples of the sorts of things that would come under that paragraph (b) around those powers, and can you really give the committee some confidence that there isn’t going to be continued creep and that we don’t see this office merge into something much more than I believe it is intended to be?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question. As the member will know, there is an extraordinary array of procedures and protocols and policies that govern all manner of things within the New Zealand Defence Force across the three forces—guidelines and rules that are specific to each force.

This is in the context, too, where the conduct of defence activities is changing. It is becoming more—for want of a better phrase—digitally involved or engaged. There is more activity now that is done at a desk that previously wasn’t done that makes a direct contribution to combat or peacekeeping activities. I think we’re going to start to see, as we move in to the realms of outer space and the use of satellite technology, that that will become a critical feature of the work of front-line defence force personnel. There will be another set of procedures and protocols developed for all of that sort of work.

My expectation is that where this will come into play is where there is a breakdown or a failure or—for want of a better phrase; I hope people know what this is—a snafu that therefore requires interrogation. Now, the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) and the office of the CDF may well be able to provide a remedy to some of those sorts of failures, but the CDF may well benefit from an independent investigation into a particular process or procedural failing.

The only analogy I can draw upon is what happens in the intelligence space with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Admittedly, that inspector-general has very broad powers on a proactive basis to know everything and see everything that those agencies are doing. But typically what happens is, where there is a lack of understanding about the application of a particular protocol or even the law—the powers in their legislation—it is often the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security that will play a role in assisting the agencies, and sometimes with further assistance of the Solicitor-General, to clarify the limits or the extents of powers that the front-line personnel have in that respect.

I expect that, with appropriate modifications, that’s how the Inspector-General of Defence will operate under this bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t intending on taking a call on this bill, and wasn’t actually meant to be taking a call, but first I just want to acknowledge the members in the House that have served in our New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). I have never done that, but I was very proud to have been a defence Minister, and reviewed all the information in relation to Operation Burnham and was struck by the incredible, professional, and brave behaviour of all of our NZDF personnel in Afghanistan and the amazing restraint that they showed. I find it extraordinary that we’re in this House, and the Minister has alluded to it several times tonight, the incredible, world-class standard and professionalism of our forces, and yet we’re still talking about putting an inspector-general in place as a result of, obviously, the recommendation that came out of Burnham, which completely vindicated, cleared, and confirmed for all of us just the quality of the New Zealand Defence Force that we have.

My real concern is this: if we do have our staff deployed overseas, if we do have them in Afghanistan doing a job that most of us don’t want to do, putting them in harm’s way, often trying to advance the democratic values that we hold as a country, can the Minister stand and assure me that an inspector-general or his or her office, however big that may be, is not going to be in a position where they’re going to inject themselves into an operation, where they’re going to put troops on the ground in a situation where all of a sudden there is an outside entity that arrives and starts to scrutinise and look at what they’re doing?

The reality of it is they have to be wholly focused on what they’re doing. There’s a chain of command, and any outside interference could put them in danger and anyone else that they’re protecting or having to focus on, bearing in mind that a big part of our SAS deployment there and our provincial reconstruction team deployment was acting as security for Afghan security forces.

So I guess what I’m asking the Minister do is give this House an assurance that there is no chance—and there’s too much vagueness, in my view, in terms of the response that the Minister’s giving in the House at the moment around what the parameters are, what the rules of engagement are for an inspector-general in terms of how they’re going to have oversight, how far they can inject themselves into ongoing New Zealand Defence Force operations. This is critically important that they are not compromised or put in a position where all of a sudden, like I said, if they’re on the front lines and they’re operating in a war zone, all of a sudden having an inspector-general’s office roll into town and start to scrutinise operating procedures, the way they’re operating and what they’re doing.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): As I have already said now at least a couple of times, the front-line defence force personnel are already subject to a range of rules, policies, guidelines, protocols, and their own training. That is what makes them disciplined combat personnel. So they’re already subject to that. It’s very clear in clause 8 of the bill, in the description of the functions of the inspector-general. There are two principal functions. One is an investigation function, and it’s very clear in the drafting of the bill that it is post any event that might be the subject of an investigation. So the inspector-general will not be marching into a combat zone with a clipboard, checking that anybody is complying—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Define an “event”. Is it a single event, or is it a deployment?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —with rules, protocols, policies. The member asked whether it’s a single event. The legislation refers to incidents that have occurred in the course of the activities of the defence force and also then goes on to say “acts or omissions … in relation to those incidents”. That’s the investigation function.

Then there’s the assessment function, which is more about the policies, procedures, and you might say the governing level of NZDF, what happens at the officer level. I go back to what I’ve also said before too, which is about the origins of this. If you look at the conclusions of the Operation Burnham inquiry, the negative conclusions, if I could describe them this way, focused on the failure of the defence force hierarchy to keep proper information and provide proper information and advice to the Minister and others responsible for civilian oversight. So it is about making sure that that remains intact and conducted in a proper way. The Inspector-General of Defence does not and will not interfere in the work of front-line personnel when they are carrying out that work, but when things do go wrong, when there are failures of policy, other failures that are not or could not be the subject of a military court of inquiry, then it will be the role of the Inspector-General of Defence to conduct an inquiry.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions to kick off, for the Minister. I’d like him to elaborate on what assurances he can provide that the independence of this office and the inspector-general—that the independence can be maintained to a high standard and that a future Minister of Defence, given the framework, can’t just prevent an investigation from going public or even to Cabinet, to Parliament, or even the existence potentially of an investigation. I’ll just kick off with that one—if the Minister could give us assurances how this might maintain independence, thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank Dr McDowall for his question. I think the answer to the member’s point will be found in clause 9, the requirement that “The Inspector-General must, when performing … [their] functions, (a) act impartially, fairly, independently, and in the public interest; and (b) have regard to the military context”. So I’m satisfied that statutory obligation on the inspector-general to act independently is very clear cut, and any conduct by the Inspector-General of Defence that looks like the office holder has compromised their independence would render any inquiry and investigation, or at least its conclusions, if not questionable, possibly unlawful if they haven’t truly acted independently. And I would fully expect that not only the incumbent Inspector-General of Defence but people such as the incumbent Minister and the incumbent Chief of Defence Force will know that their obligation is to ensure that that statutory obligation is properly adhered to.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for his answers there. Just a quick question about jurisdiction. Given this is a current issue, will the inspector-general be looking at, for instance, as I alluded to in my second reading speech, personnel who are on leave who are fighting in an overseas theatre when they shouldn’t be—for instance, there is a current reality we have personnel fighting unofficially in the Ukraine, even if we’re talking about a small number. So I’m just curious, because that’s quite pressing.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you again to Dr McDowall. I think, again, clause 8 of the bill is clear that “(1) The functions of the Inspector-General are (a) to investigate (i) incidents that have occurred in the course of activities of the Defence Force.” And so if there is a serving personnel member who is on leave and going off conducting other operations akin to combat operations but not as a member of the NZDF, then that will not come under the auspices or the aegis of the Inspector-General of Defence. It is possible that under subclause (1)(b) of clause 8 of the bill, in the assessment function, which is assessing and identifying potential improvements or additions to policies and procedures, an inspector-general might express a view about the granting of leave to serving personnel to do those sorts of things, but I think that would be somewhat limited by the fact that even considering policies and procedures must relate to activities of the defence force, but I have to concede that there is possibly a grey area there.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I just thank the Minister again. A previous statement talking about the personnel and how they might perceive this, I was just wondering—you know, there’s pulse surveys, there’s other surveys that have been conducted. Have there been any studies on how this legislation is perceived by our personnel?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): I’m not aware of any surveys that have specifically touched on this legislation. In the end, this legislation arose out of the commission of inquiry into Operation Burnham. That itself was prompted by the book produced by the investigative journalists. It’s interesting to note that some of the content—a significant proportion of the content—of that book by those investigative journalists came from serving personnel, including personnel who served in and at the time of the events that were the subject of the book and Operation Burnham. So my expectation is that there will be personnel who will be reassured that there is some oversight. And in the event that there is activity that they see, or issues that they see that are not otherwise covered by courts of inquiry, that could be the subject of an approach to the Inspector-General of Defence.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, the legislative statement proposes that the Inspector-General of Defence’s functions, duties, and scope includes to assess and identify potential improvements or additions to policies and procedures governing NZDF activities. Today, Janes published an article under Defence News saying that “New Zealand faces procurement challenges” in defence and that the 12 procurement programmes under way during 2021-2022 face some significant impacts. The review of those programmes says that Defence faces significant challenges on budget, that Defence prefers to hold to fixed price contracts and benefits, which is a measure—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Court, this is not relevant, unless you are going to make it relevant—

SIMON COURT: The question is, for the Minister, will the Inspector-General of Defence also be enabled to inquire into procurement practices at New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): The organisation principally responsible for procurement is the Ministry of Defence—works with New Zealand Defence Force, of course, but the actual practical exercise of procurement, of investigating options, preparing budgets, preparing advice to Ministers, principally the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance, is the role of the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence is not covered by the Inspector-General of Defence powers.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Minister. So which entity then would have responsibility for reviewing the procurement approach and whether there is value for money in procurement?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): I don’t want to give the member a primer on Government, but there are a number of entities that do that—Treasury is playing a critical role in being a check and balance on effective procurement procedures. The Auditor-General plays a role in ensuring value for money. But I can say that for the Ministry of Defence, because of the centrality of procurement to its role, it is continually learning from every procurement exercise it undertakes, and improving its processes. I have to say, in my engagement with Treasury, one of the comments that they do make about the Ministry of Defence is to talk up the quality of the procurement processes that it utilises, and has described it as some of the best procurement processes across Government.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 85

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Inspector-General of Defence Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): I move, That the Inspector-General of Defence Bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank the House for their consideration of the bill, particularly in the committee stages. I think there’s been a good examination, I think the points of principle that the members have been concerned about have been well canvassed. I reiterate the point that the importance of this bill is that it strengthens and assures civilian oversight of our military forces—that’s very important in liberal democracies like ours.

Our defence force has an extraordinarily important role to play, not only domestically, in being the source of defence and security for New Zealand but, as our forces frequently are—the role they play overseas in theatres and areas overseas and the work that they do, whether it’s peacekeeping, whether it’s humanitarian assistance and disaster recovery, or whether it is indeed combat. And we need our defence force personnel to know that, alongside their professionalism, the training they get, the leadership they get from their officers, in the rare occasions when there are failures and failings—and particularly where there are material consequences, including loss of life—that there are avenues for them or their families or members of the public or indeed the Minister of the day to have an inquiry and to be assured about what has happened in relation to those events. That’s what this bill does.

The office that it sets up is pretty orthodox, actually, in countries like ours. We are not the first to have an Inspector-General of Defence. Other like-minded countries have already established such an office—Australia is one, the UK is another. And most countries with well-established and well-developed defence forces have a range of oversight offices or organisations to provide that assurance that we expect, that we all need, and this will do this.

I know that some members have expressed disappointment about some of the amendments that I’ve introduced, effectively reinstating some aspects of the original bill. I have done that to protect our national security and foreign relations interests. Of course, everybody has a natural curiosity about the things that go wrong and the information that may support that. The reality is that if there is one operation of Government—apart from foreign affairs itself—that engages heavily in information and data that comes from our overseas partners, it is defence. A lot of that information is classified or it is subject to confidentiality, and we have an obligation to those partners to respect and observe that confidentiality whatever the context—and that would include the discharge of the powers of the Inspector-General of Defence under this bill, once enacted.

So that’s important, but those powers themselves are subject to a set of conditions. So there’s not a carte blanche right of the Minister of the day to certify that any information that he or she chooses should not be disclosed. A certification of non-disclosure of information has to meet a certain type and a certain description, and is laid out in the bill. Likewise, the conduct of inquiries—whether in public or private, again, those confidentiality requirements, our obligations to partners, have to be preserved.

The final point I’d make, which is the other change, which is the application of the Official Information Act. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee quite rightly, on the basis of submissions made, did not accept the kind of almost blanket removal of coverage from the Official Information Act, and that is now no longer the case. But there is some exception for that. The committee got advice from Sir Ken Keith, who basically said the sorts of things that ought to be excluded from the Official Information Act under this bill, are already excluded by the application of a range of other pieces of legislation. What I think is important, and indeed the style of this House has for some years now been that where we can, we codify those sorts of arrangements. So all I have done is to ensure—in the amendments I have put in, in relation to the Official Information Act—that the exemptions that would be applicable to the Office of the Inspector-General of Defence are those that would apply through the application of other legislation anyway. And in that respect, nothing is lost.

Otherwise, I think as a consequence of the work of the select committee, of the debate in this House, and the attention that members in this House have given, we have now a good piece of legislation to establish the Office of the Inspector-General of Defence. It will be good for our defence force personnel, it will be good for confidence in our New Zealand Defence Force, and it will be good for the confidence of future Ministers and MPs who will rely on this office to provide assurance that up to now has not been able to be given—except through the very expensive, time-consuming, and somewhat tortuous process of a royal commission of inquiry. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So we’re now a couple of hours further along and we still haven’t been able to utilise the House’s time appropriately. This is still a waste of time, as it was before, of both the committee and the House, and is not fundamentally achieving a significant improvement for the defence force or for the confidence the public can have in the defence force.

I want to start on their piece because the Minister of Defence has talked about the intent being to provide greater confidence to the public of New Zealand that there is civilian oversight of the military. But this doesn’t achieve it in a manner that can’t be achieved through an inquiry into Operation Burnham, which is exactly what happened, right? So in that instance, we saw the Government seek to provide confidence that the military was acting appropriately. They used the mechanisms available to them, conducted an inquiry, and got an outcome that, as I said in my previous contribution but I will reiterate, demonstrated that there had been no illegal behaviour from our defence personnel.

Our NZSAS had acted lawfully, and that whilst there had been some issues within the senior leadership in terms of their ability to communicate information, indeed there were no illegal activities by our personnel. And that is the key thing to highlight here, because what we’re seeing is, I believe, a knee-jerk reaction to an area where concern was raised. It was found there was not a concern, and yet now we have a piece of legislation adding more cost and bureaucracy to a defence force that has many other priorities than this, and yet that cost and bureaucracy is not outweighed by the benefit it provides. It will not provide a significant increase in the confidence that the public will have in defence, which, as I mentioned earlier as well, is very high domestically and internationally. Our defence personnel are very well regarded for their professionalism and the manner in which they conduct themselves with integrity throughout their taskings. This won’t change that.

I think that is the key issue that we have here, and it’s been touched in the previous stages of this bill as well. But when we go into any operational theatre, our troops are deployed and they operate by the laws of armed conflict, their specific rules of engagement based on wherever they are and what has been set in place there. Those are the frameworks that guide them, as well it should be, and that is the mechanism to ensure that actions are appropriate.

Any function this inspector-general might carry out would be retrospective in terms of investigating potential behaviour anyway, and so it would not change a situation where something may have happened. But, as I’ve said, Operation Burnham found that nothing had happened inappropriately. So, on that basis, we are simply not seeing value for money.

This is something that is happening across numerous pieces of legislation put forward by this Government. The cost and the bureaucracy is not outweighed by the benefit it provides. Any time that legislation has been put forward, that should be the fundamental test. Is the cost of putting this in place less than the benefit we will derive from putting it in place? The answer clearly, in this case, is no, it is not.

Alongside that, and we traversed this through the committee of the whole House stage, is the concern around some of the potential for creep within the role. And I mention that in the context of the functions of the inspector-general being not only to investigate incidences that have occurred within the defence force but also the secondary or the assessment function, as it’s called, which allows for the inspector-general to assess and identify potential improvements or additions to policies and procedures. That is a real area of concern because, to me, that is incredibly broad. That is one of the reasons we’re opposing this bill as well—that there are not sufficient checks in place to limit the scope, the powers, or the breadth of what this inspector-general may do.

When we look at that alongside the need to empower our defence personnel to act, to perform the duties they are expected to carry out in whatever location they are and with whatever mission they have been given, this has the potential to overshadow that. As Mr Mitchell raised during the committee of the whole House stage, the concern around, potentially, the inspector-general significantly overreaching and ending up giving directives, as Mr Brownlee pointed out as well, or being sought out for advice on how to act—that for me would be a major concern, but is one that hasn’t been alleviated through the readings we’ve had to date.

So, look, we will continue to oppose this bill at its final reading. It simply isn’t fit for purpose. The Government hasn’t demonstrated a sufficient case for bringing this piece of legislation before the House and implementing it, so we would rather continue to back our defence personnel. As I’ve said, there are many other priorities that I would love to see the Government focusing on in defence that are much more meaningful for our defence personnel primarily, but for New Zealand as a whole, over and above this proposal to implement an Inspector-General of Defence.

Can I end by thanking all of our current and past defence personnel because it is a tough role. They do a fantastic job on behalf of all New Zealanders, and I do want to acknowledge their service. That is what’s being put under the spotlight here. There have been some concerns raised, through the inquiry and this process, around their integrity and their ability to perform. It has been shown they are professional, they maintain that high level of those high standards that we expect of them, and I am very proud of them and they should well be proud of themselves. So I thank them for their service. And, as mentioned, we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Effective democratic civil military relations is a central tenet to any functioning democracy. As the only agency in power to inflict organised violence on an adversary, the public needs to have confidence that its armed forces will behave in a manner that’s in line with their values, even if the enemy does not behave in that manner. Having served a large chunk of my life in some of these hostile regions of world that we’ve been working in as part as a coalition, it takes years to build that trust with the communities you’re serving in, but then also the public, and it only takes a second to lose it. The trust of the public can only be maintained through transparency and certainty that the military is reporting faithfully to the public and the Government.

In closing, the Inspector-General of Defence will be an independent office that, if required, will investigate operations carried out by New Zealand’s armed forces. This a very important piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The circumstances just outlined by the previous speaker Dan Rosewarne do not change because there is an Inspector-General of Defence. If there is to be any breakdown in the trust between the New Zealand public and the military, it would be because an event has occurred; not because the inspector-general existed.

The inspector-general just becomes a mechanism for dealing with events that have happened, and I go back to my point before: Operation Burnham was rare. It was an unusual circumstance, and there was a mechanism available in order to have a better look at it. To tip the entire system upside down by putting in place an inspector-general who ultimately will become the veto office on the activities of the military is, I think, very short-sighted and somewhat disrespectful for those who commit their lives to military service.

I’ve said all I need to say on this bill. It is not something that we support.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): A lot has been said about this bill from across the House in support and in opposition to this bill. I just want to thank the officials who worked around the clock to make this bill what it is. The members of the committee, with all disagreements, they have done a good job, and all the submitters, including the five submitters who submitted in person. So I’d like to thank everyone for the work that they have done, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to rise in the third reading of this bill. It’s been an interesting night and I, obviously, stand on behalf of ACT to continue to support this bill at third reading.

The scope of this role, for all its power and all its abilities, is rather narrow. I think it does need some improvement over time, but the urgency of that is not necessarily there. We’ve got time to look at it over the coming months—the next Government, which is a bit odd, given we’re doing this under urgency right now. So does the role have sufficient teeth? Probably not, but that may help to contain the powers and the influence. Therein lies the question, I think. If it was in place at the time of the incident that we’ve been talking about, would it have meant that the defence force would have provided sufficient information? I don’t think that question has been quite answered.

I still have concerns around the independence of this role. How can that be maintained? You know, I understand there are expectations in the bill—clause 9—but none the less, I think it’s very difficult, and it may be hypothetical, but it’s very difficult to foresee a future Minister in whatever Government having that respect to maintain that.

The grey area that I raised in the committee stage, I think that is something that does need to be addressed pretty quickly by the person in this role, because that’s happening right now. As members have noted, these are very rare occurrences that we know of where things are going wrong, but there are, in fact, theatres where New Zealanders are involved in. Will they be looking at that? Will they not be looking at that? We got some clarity, but perhaps not all that sufficient.

It would have been good, I think, for the defence force to do a bit of internal discussion with the personnel. Obviously, there were submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but it would have been good to look internally, I think, and actually ask what people thought of this and what the barriers are that they face or they feel they face in reporting incidents that may happen. That would have been good in designing the exact role.

The jurisdictional side of this is interesting. Again, it goes back to: how much teeth does this have? It was going to be one of my follow-up questions before I got stopped, but will information gathered by the inspector-general—obviously, it’s got a lot of confidentiality around it. Can that then be used in prosecutions? I think there’s, again, a bit of a grey area there around what is restricted and what isn’t.

So I think with the time that the Government and future Governments can have developing this, there may be some opportunity for scope change where members of the defence force can perhaps utilise this role to make complaints of internal issues, not just operational issues but areas where they can see that things need to be improved. Maybe it’s the houses falling down and getting mouldy, maybe it’s all the reasons behind the attrition rates and the other issues that the National Party and ourselves have raised. So, you know, we hope, as I said in the second reading, that this role is successful but not busy, because if it’s busy, then things are going wrong and it would make you question, retrospectively: have there been things going on that we haven’t been made aware of? So with that, with some hopeful optimism, we commend it to the House. Thank you.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s actually a pleasure for me to rise in support of this bill tonight. I know that others have said that there’s no urgency in this matter, but I do want to note that Operation Burnham, which we all keep referring to as the trigger—for lack of a better word—for this bill and this office being created happened in 1996, and the inquiry report was made public in July 2020, so it’s almost the anniversary three years on. It has never been, I would argue, more apt for New Zealand to signpost our values when it comes to operations and the conduct of our military, the conduct of armed conflict, and the values that we hold dear, hopefully, in terms of the rule of law, the protection of human rights and humanitarian law, even when the worst of circumstances are occurring.

I am perplexed by the repeated submission of the National Party members—who are the only members of this House voting against it tonight—in saying that Operation Burnham did not in fact find anything adverse. In fact, there were some extremely concerning findings in that report in terms of failures in process and accountability and in transparency that went right up the ranks to three successive heads of our military, and, in particular, in terms of the ways that those failures in process and transparency and in accountability impacted the ability of successive Ministers, who were at that time and until the passing of this bill the only and the highest civilian accountability mechanism for our military to actually do their job. So those extremely concerning findings, I would frame, are the impetus for this bill. It was not necessarily what happened on the ground, but the fact that there were such big failings in terms of the ranks of our military in identifying failures in humanitarian law and their own obligations in holding each other to account and upholding New Zealand’s values.

Now, if our military is to continue to engage in military operations with the likes of Australia and the United States to take part in operations that put us in danger of breaching international humanitarian law, we, in fact, have an obligation to those populations, those communities on the ground, who interact with our military personnel. That’s not to say that any one of us in passing this bill suspects our military of being war criminals, which seems to be the argument against this bill, but the fact is that we stand for values that say that the rule of law and human rights will protect those communities, even when we join military operations.

Whether or not I support those decisions themselves is a very different thing, but I did live at one time in my life in a Middle Eastern war, and so I would hope that nation States that engage in military operations across the globe, far away, have systems in place that would uphold the rights, including the right to life, of people like myself and that we’d want to hold that Operation Burnham actually engaged the deaths of five people, including a child. So it’s about making our systems accountable and assuring that the New Zealand public as well as those communities who interact with our military across the globe are confident that we hold those values above and beyond any stated bravado that comes, often, with war.

This is a good first step in meeting some of those obligations and in honouring the recommendations of the Operation Burnham report, but we—together with the ACT Party, interestingly—share the concern that some of the mechanisms in this bill were weakened as against the report of the select committee in terms of transparency, in terms of giving a veto to the Ministers to hold information secret, in terms of the limitation of access to the Official Information Act, and in terms of the presumption that all proceedings will be held confidentially unless the inspector-general makes them public. I would point out that it shouldn’t be up to a journalistic investigation to uncover not only misdeeds but procedural impropriety, as Operation Burnham did reveal. So this office would best operate if those limitations were eventually removed.

The intention is good. The structures do provide for an independent mechanism that will start to rebuild that trust and confidence in our military, but some of the opaqueness may mean that although justice may well be done, it may not be seen to be done, and those mechanisms do need to still be strengthened.

But with that, it is a line in the sand for New Zealand to say that, in fact, our military will be accountable. It will to some extent be found more transparent than it has ever been, and we say that the values of our nation will apply equally to our military in its operations and in its processes, whether here or across the world—whether they’re operating in the Pacific, as they mostly do, or whether they’re in combat operations much further away. So it is a good step, and I do commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call—how can I forget your name? I think it’s late at night. It’s a mental blank. Come on, someone give me a hand.

Hon Members: David Bennett!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): I was going to do a short call, but now I’m going to tell a story about the Speaker—ha, ha! It’s only a little story, but I’m sure everyone will want to hear it!

But no, the National Party wants to pay tribute to our defence forces, the men and women involved that do a tremendous job. There’s many that are in this House that have served our country, and we just have to look around these walls. We thank them for their service and their contribution and we look forward to their continued service in the future.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. I commend this bill to the House. I also want to say that we’ve had an interesting debate and I think the points that have been made by the National Party, I don’t need to rehearse at length, but suffice to say that our position has been, for a start, there were many pressing priorities for the New Zealand Defence Force at the moment, including low morale, high attrition—which, two things that are the wrong way around, of course—and the stated need for an increase in public confidence in the defence force, we don’t think, is sufficient justification. We don’t think there is low confidence in that in the defence force.

We don’t think, therefore, this is a measure that would be needed to increase public confidence. We think that the basis for legislating in this way is not made clearly because, in fact, these things all can already be done without the need for bespoke legislation or, indeed, the position created.

All these reasons—National continues to oppose this bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Inspector-General of Defence Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 85

New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Government has indicated they wish to conclude urgency. Therefore, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 11.46 p.m. (Wednesday)