Tuesday, 15 October 2024

TUESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2024

TUESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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.

Urgent Debates Declined

Heated Tobacco Products—Excise Tax Cuts

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the decision of the Associate Minister of Health to overrule official advice regarding excise tax cuts for heated tobacco products in favour of independent advice. This is a case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However, the matter does not appear to be urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House. The application is declined.

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

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

SPEAKER: Sixteen petitions have been presented. The Clerk will present now.

CLERK:

Petition of Shane Riddle requesting that the House allow children aged 14 years and under, and adults accompanying them, to cycle slowly on footpaths

petition of New Zealand Equestrian Advocacy Network requesting that the House hold an inquiry into road user behaviour towards vulnerable road users

petition of New Zealand Homeopathic Society requesting that the House remove natural health products from the Therapeutic Products Act

petition of Ren Monn Lee requesting that the House urge the Associate Minister of Immigration to allow Nadir Mashal and his family humanitarian entry into New Zealand

petition of Anne Henderson requesting that the House urge the Government not to impose a toll on the Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū–Tararua Highway

petition of Summer Fraser requesting that the House urge the Ministry of Education to prioritise rebuilding Onslow College buildings and infrastructure

10 petitions of Murray Richard Tingey requesting that the House take various actions relating to the Bargain Chemist logo.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 45 papers.

CLERK:

Financial statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2024

2023-24 annual reports of:

AgResearch

Independent Children’s Monitor

AsureQuality

Ministry for Culture and Heritage

Ministry of Defence

Drug Free Sport New Zealand

Ministry for the Environment

Environmental Science and Research Ltd

External Reporting Board

Genesis Energy

GNS Science

Government Superannuation Fund Authority and Government Superannuation Fund

KiwiRail Holdings

Kordia Group

Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research

Landcorp Farming Ltd

MetService

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd

New Zealand Customs Service and the Border Executive Board

New Zealand Forest Research Institute

New Zealand Post

New Zealand Railways Corporation

New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the National Emergency Management Agency

Quotable Value

Registrar of the Environment Court

Reserve Bank of New Zealand

Ministry of Social Development, and Whaikaha

Tāmaki Regeneration Company

Te Aka Whai Ora

Office of the Māori Trustee

Treasury.

Ministry for Regulation’s report on appropriations for March to June 2024

2025-29 strategic intentions for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage

2024-27 statements of intent for New Zealand Post and Whakaata Māori

Government response to the report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Erica Rowlands

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

reports related to non-departmental appropriations from the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage

Vote Business, Science and Innovation, Sport and Recreation portfolio

Vote Customs

Vote Social Development

Minister of Finance

Ministry for Emergency Management and Recovery.

SPEAKER: I present the 2023-24 annual report of the Parliamentary Sector. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Ten select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into climate adaptation

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, and the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill

report of the Justice Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Executive Board for the Elimination of Family Violence and Sexual Violence

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill and Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Brian Tamaki and the petition of SAFE

report of Primary Production Committee on the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of Rau Paenga Limited Crown Infrastructure Delivery.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading, and the inquiry in review briefings are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, introduction

Mental Health Bill, introduction

Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill, introduction

Policing (Police Vetting) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first readings.

Ministerial Statements

New Zealand Defence Force—Sinking of HMNZS Manawanui

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): I rise to make a ministerial statement regarding the all-of-Government response to HMNZS Manawanui’s sinking off the coast of Samoa on Saturday, 5 October. I’d also like to acknowledge the brave ship’s company and passengers, who evacuated overnight in extreme conditions, and Commander Yvonne Gray, who made the right decision to evacuate the ship. We should be incredibly proud of all of our New Zealand Defence Force personnel, who are all highly skilled and serve New Zealand without hesitation.

With the passengers and crew safe, the Government’s focus shifted to mitigating any environmental impacts. I assure this House, the people of New Zealand, and those of Samoa that we will do everything that we can. The New Zealand Defence Force is leading the all-of-Government response to this incident, named Operation Resolution, which includes support from Maritime New Zealand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Defence, and wildlife experts from Massey University. Operation Resolution involves working with Samoan authorities to understand the implications of this incident and to evaluate salvage options. Personnel have been clearing flotsam from the beach area, and navy divers are regularly assessing the ship’s position and the status of oil tanks onboard.

I’d like to express our deepest thanks to the Samoan Government for their support and patience as we assess the impact of this incident on their exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, and to the Samoan personnel who rescued the ship’s crew and passengers on that fateful Saturday night. We are also grateful for the support provided by HMS Tamar of the Royal Navy, and other partners. The defence force is investigating options to mitigate the capability loss as a result of the HMNZS Manawanui’s sinking. The navy still has diving and survey capabilities that operate independently of Manawanui and are, therefore, still available and deployable. Further considerations, including as part of the upcoming Defence Capability Plan, will provide options for broader and longer-term solutions.

On Thursday, 10 October, Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Garin Golding announced the details of the New Zealand Defence Force court of inquiry into the matter. This inquiry will collect and record evidence and report on the sequence of events leading up to the loss of the ship, the cause of the grounding, the subsequent sinking, and details on notification procedures, along with injuries sustained and, of course, any environmental damage. We do know that there will be many questions, but the appropriate process does need to play out through the court of inquiry, which is being conducted strictly in accordance with the Armed Forces Discipline Act. The Government recognises the high level of public interest in the matter and will continue to keep the New Zealand public informed as new information comes to light, subject to privacy, national security, and commercial sensitivity concerns.

It is important that we do not rush to speculate on what happened and also to allow the court of inquiry process to play out. While we do not yet know what caused this terrible incident, I do wish to echo the sentiments of the Minister of Defence, the Hon Judith Collins, that we do know that the ship’s captain’s gender had no role to play in the incident. Our personnel are highly skilled, and it is a testament to their courage, comradeship, and commitment that the evacuation of HMNZS Manawanui was carried out safely—that is, with no loss of life. The Government will continue to do everything that we can to continue to mitigate the impact of this incident on Samoa and the wider Pacific.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Labour Party, I acknowledge the tragic event of the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui. We were all relieved to hear that the crew and passengers are all safe, and we too wish to thank first responders and the people of Samoa for the support and care given to our people during this difficult time. On behalf of Labour, we apologise to Samoa—in particular, the community of Upolu and the large Samoan community here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We know this is an important matter to you all.

I want to acknowledge my Pacific caucus colleagues who continue to communicate, engage, and work with our community from Samoa here in Aotearoa, and also in Samoa. We know too that words can mean so little at this time. Instead, we are measured by our actions.

In my time as a former defence Minister, I reflect upon the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha‘apai eruption of 2022, where a swift response was what the people needed and what the people expected. Therefore, the expectations from the people of Samoa will no doubt be high, and rightly so. So too will be the interest of taxpayers and the large Samoan community here in New Zealand. They will expect people to take responsibility, operate with transparency, and remain accountable.

That leads me to my series of questions for the Associate Minister of Defence. Does the Minister agree with recent reports that have described the Minister’s attitude towards feedback from Samoan locals as “dismissive” and that the relationship between New Zealand and Samoa as being not on good terms at the moment; if not, why not?

Teanau Tuiono: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Teanau Tuiono.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, no—he’s asked a question.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute—just a minute. Does the Minister want to respond to that?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Yeah, thank you, Mr Speaker. I was unsure whether you wanted me to reply to any further questions in and around it later, but I’m certainly happy to take this opportunity to of course say that there is nothing dismissive about the reaction of the Minister of Defence or, indeed, the Government as a whole. I’ve outlined clearly the number of different New Zealand Government agencies that have been actively involved in working to mitigate any environmental damage. We have, rightly, acknowledged those people in this House today, and, of course, those in Samoa who assisted so bravely and helpfully on that fateful occasion.

The New Zealand Government, from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence down, have acknowledged and been in touch with our relevant counterparts. We do take this situation seriously. There’s nothing dismissive whatsoever about the response of the New Zealand Government in this matter.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Will the all-of-Government response include a commitment to send a senior Minister to assess the damage on the ground and to speak and engage with locals, community, and the Government face to face?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): Mr Speaker, the Government has made tolerably clear, including as recently as in my own statement of a couple of minutes ago, that we will do everything that we think will be necessary and helpful in the matter. In terms of visits by senior Government Ministers, that is a matter to be determined in due course, but I do note for now that the immediate priority of the Government, and no doubt of the people of Samoa as well, is, of course, to mitigate any environmental impact that may be being felt. Of course, to assess the ongoing possibility of that, to prepare for and conduct salvage operations, of course in conjunction with relevant partners, and then any further actions will be determined in due course.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): To the Minister: given the hard fiscal times, as described by this Government that New Zealand are facing at the moment, what contingencies, if any, is the Government considering for remuneration to the people of Samoa and what is the total financial cost currently sitting at?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): It would be premature for me to speculate on what cost may accrue as a result of the incident in question, and therefore it would be premature to answer the question that is purely hypothetical at this stage in terms of a quantum of such compensation or other redress of any other kind.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Following the loss of the HMNZS Manawanui, is the Minister confident in the New Zealand Defence Force’s capability to respond to any further incidents, considering the cyclone season is upon us and the people of the Pacific?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): It’s regrettable, of course, to have lost a ship of our navy. Goodness knows it is not a large navy relative to the needs of our maritime nation and, indeed, the Indo-Pacific region in which we live and operate and trade. We will, obviously, work closely with the New Zealand Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence and, of course, other relevant Government agencies to ensure that our presence in the South Pacific is meaningful and contributes well to the peace and prosperity of the region. Of course it’s not ideal to have lost one of our naval vessels. But I do know—including in relation to the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting; but also business as usual events such as ensuring protection against transnational crime, fisheries protection, environmental protection more generally, and, of course, the diplomatic relations that are enhanced by the presence of our defence force in the region—that the New Zealand Defence Force will continue to do everything it can to play a constructive role in that region.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Can I thank the Minister for the swift appointment of the court of inquiry and the strong personnel appointed to that court of inquiry. It is to be led by military personnel. The question to the Minister is: given the large public interest in the matter and the taxpayer accountability with respect to this tragedy, is this the best mechanism for an independent and impartial investigation, or is it akin to the navy investigating itself?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): I think that it is an appropriate mechanism. There is a measure of independence in the appointment of a senior officer of the Royal Australian Navy of great repute and experience and qualification, but the question from my honourable friend across the House, with respect, misses the point in relation to the court of inquiry. It is a process that must be conducted in accordance with the Armed Forces Discipline Act. That doesn’t preclude any other forms of inquiry that may be appropriate to take place after. But that is a forum for investigating the truth of the matter of what happened on that evening and that early morning and, of course, subsequent impacts that may flow from that. Of course, with the completion of the court of inquiry in due course, the findings will be made public to the greatest extent possible, and from there any subsequent actions that may be appropriate for the purpose of accountability and otherwise assuring the New Zealand public and that of Samoa will be conducted as appropriate at that time.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Given the Minister’s answer, can the Minister assure this House that he is satisfied that the economic, the environmental impact on Samoa, and the impact on New Zealand’s international reputation will be covered by the court of inquiry? And given the Minister’s response to my previous question, will this Government consider another inquiry running parallel that is far more public, transparent, and accountable?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): I don’t think it would be helpful for me to speculate on the possibility of parallel or additional inquiries until such time as we have a clearer idea of what has happened in the first instance and what continues to be possible in relation to possible environmental impacts. That’s not a commitment I would make at this stage or be in a position to be able to make at this point.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): To the Minister: there have been mixed reports regarding the impact on the environment, from social media reports to standard media reports out of Samoa. With respect to the environment, can the Minister confirm how much oil has leaked? What engagement with locals has the Government or defence conducted to confirm the damage caused to the beach, to fishing, and to the livelihood of locals in Samoa?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): In my statement, I outlined the considerable efforts that have been made by the New Zealand Government, including, significantly, along with partners of Samoa, including Government agencies but also environmental experts of both of those respective nations to quantify the extent of any environmental damage, including the quantum of any oil of any type that may have flowed from the HMNZS Manawanui in terms of where she currently sits. It’s difficult to reconcile the differing accounts in this fast-moving situation, but we are endeavouring in good faith to understand the situation as accurately as we can, including to the extent that that may change with meteorological and other conditions over a period of time until such time as the salvage is able to take place.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): To the Minister: given the Minister’s comments about the all-of-Government response and the fact that this country isn’t new to tragic events, both at home and abroad—and a goodwill gesture of a financial compensation amount or figure can be offered sooner rather than later—can the Minister be sure that the all-of-Government response will give the people of New Zealand and Samoa confidence that the response will be adequate, substantial, and enduring?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): I reiterate the commitment—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, can I direct your attention to Standing Order 365, where it is permissible to elucidate information, but straying to areas to do with compensation at time when an inquiry has not been completed—and we should be very respectful as members of the House as to what that inquiry might turn up pertaining to matters such as finance—in my view is well beyond what elucidate means.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order—thank you very much. That Standing Order allows for comments and questions to be made subsequent to the statement. It doesn’t prevent questions being asked. It’s entirely within the Minister’s ability to indicate if there are any concerns around the public interest, and that can be reflected in the response, but certainly no question that’s been asked falls afoul of the Standing Orders.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, just a final comment.

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, the content of my colleague’s statement to the House in no way strayed into areas of financial compensation—that’s not what this question purpose is designed for. It’s well beyond reasonable elucidation.

SPEAKER: That’s true, but it is a matter of public interest. The Standing Order, when it went through the Standing Orders Committee during the latter end of the Parliament prior to the last one, did make the point that there will be matters that may not be covered by the Minister that would be in the public interest. Now, the only judge of that will be the person who’s asking the question. The public will make their own determination about whether it was of any great interest to them, but so far we haven’t seen a transgression of the intent of the Standing Orders.

Hon CHRIS PENK: To the extent that I’m able to answer the question, I would note that the point effectively made underlying the point of order by my colleague Mr Jones is the right one, which is that it would be premature and therefore unhelpful for me to muse on even the possibility of any such compensation or other redress until such time as the court of inquiry and any other relevant inquiries have taken place such that we can understand and, if necessary, quantify the extent of any such damage.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I rise on behalf of the Greens to respond to the ministerial statement on the events of the HMNZS Manawanui sinking off the coast of Samoa on Saturday, 5 October. I would also like to acknowledge the bravery and the commitment of first responders in Samoa and also of the crew and personnel ensuring that their lives were safely taken to shore as well. I know that will be a relief for them and their families. Making sure that that is at the heart of the things that we do is so, so important.

I also want to support the comments of my whanaunga, the Hon Peeni Henare, in apologising to Samoa but also underscoring the importance of that relationship with Samoa. We have a Treaty of Friendship with Samoa. Our Samoan communities are part of the important social fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand. Any inquiry, particularly this court of inquiry, must put the importance of that relationship at its heart. I hope, with whatever the process looks like—like my whanaunga, the Hon Peeni Henare—that those concerns are actually factored in. We don’t want to end up playing the blame game. We need to have all the facts, and being absolutely clear is important to that.

Running alongside of that, I would like to get some clarity around the immediate response. Many members around the House may be getting calls from different communities. I know that’s been true for myself, where people are trying to ask us questions that I don’t have answers for. The immediate response should be including what is actually being put in place; what are the time frames that have been put in place; will there be communications made to communities not only in Samoa but also here in Aotearoa—acknowledging that we have a very, very strong Samoan community here, so making sure that there are communications there, I think, is incredibly, incredibly important.

I’m not an engineer, but 950 tonnes of diesel trapped at the bottom of the ocean is not going to stay down there. What are the plans and the time frames in terms of that clean-up response as well? I think it would be important for the Government to answer, to the extent that it is able, to what the plan is there specifically. I think that is incredibly, incredibly important and would, I think, alleviate some of the anxiety and stress that the community is feeling at this particular time as well.

The other thing—and I would like to get a response to it from the Minister—is around some of the kōrero that we’re hearing from the people on the coast where the sinking happened as well, acknowledging that this could be the same for people in many Pacific Island communities, certainly for coastal communities here within Aotearoa New Zealand: what is going to be done to make sure that their food basket is taken care of? What is going to be done to make sure that those villagers are actually able to feed and support their villages from a response from Aotearoa New Zealand? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): I acknowledge, in the first instance, the anxiety that the member has rightly pointed out that members of the Samoan community in New Zealand, as well as, of course, in Samoa itself, will be feeling, and I think that is a very fair point that he emphasises. Again, I reiterate, on behalf of the Government, that we understand and acknowledge those concerns. We are doing everything that we can to understand the extent of any possible environmental impact and are doing everything that we can, including to arrange salvage.

To the member’s point around the fuel not being able to remain in place in 35 metres or some other depth of water, of course that is correct and that is precisely why we are moving at pace to arrange a salvage of the vessel. Of course, I cannot commit to a particular time frame for that, except to make the obvious point that it will take place as soon as it safely is able to do so.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Mr Speaker, I just wanted a bit more clarity around that communications piece. Our communities in the Pacific are incredibly connected—with our relatives back in the home islands, with us here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Can there be a commitment from the Government to use Pacific Media Network, for example, Radio Samoa, Tagata Pasifika to actually get those clear communications to the Samoan community here within Aotearoa New Zealand? Of course, many of those that are broadcasted from here originally in Aotearoa also go out to the islands. Can we have that kind of commitment?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): I’ve already committed, on behalf of the Government, that we will be transparent in the findings of the court of inquiry and including in updates in the meantime, as we’re able to. I regard the member’s suggestions of particular avenues for remaining in touch with those who would consume their media information updates through those particular channels has been a helpful one.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Just finally, that question around food security—we have people that are living on the coast. This is what we call a pātaka kai—it is a food basket. Will there be a factoring in, in any of the discussions that the Government’s having, of some commitment to make sure that those communities on the coast have food security?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): It’s impossible to be specific about what such a commitment might entail, but, at the risk of stating the obvious, or, rather, restating it now a number of times in this House, we are moving quickly as a Government and, as part of an-all-of-Government approach, again, working with our partners and our friends in Samoa—Government counterparts, but also, again, civil society—to understand, mitigate, reduce, and ultimately remove any such threat to the economic and social wellbeing of the people of Samoa.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Just back on that point around the diesel. We’ve got an incredible amount of diesel. Is there a guarantee or a commitment from the Government that that diesel will be removed? Possibly, that might be a question the Minister might not be able to answer today. If not, are there some time frames in place where that information can be updated for people here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but also over in Samoa?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): The intention is to salvage, and the intended time frame is as soon as possible and as soon as that can safely be achieved. I’m, unfortunately, not able to be more specific than that at this time.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the ministerial statement to address the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui off the coast of Samoa. Today, I think we should stand united in the face of tragedy that has struck not just our naval forces but the peaceful and pristine waters of our Pacific neighbour. The sinking of the Manawanui off the coast of Samoa is a huge loss. We commend those in Samoa who are currently working with the New Zealand Defence Force and local authorities to assess the impacts that this terrible event has had.

The Manawanui was a modern, capable platform, a vessel of specialist outfit designed to carry out missions, including hydrographic surveys, coastal and harbour surveys, also limited mining decommissioning and operations. The ship had a displacement of 5,741 tonnes, carrying a permanent crew of 39 but could bunk 66. She entered service in the Royal New Zealand Navy in 2019.

I want to stress one point: how incredibly proud I think we should all be of the men and women of the New Zealand Navy. These people who wear our national colours, our flag on their shoulders are part of the New Zealand Defence Force. They’re our people. We should be very proud as New Zealanders, for those people serve our nation and our interests and they put themselves in harm’s way every day. We have to commend them for their willingness to do that, their lack of hesitation, and when it comes to the protection of our nation, our nation’s wellbeing is at their heart.

The sinking of the Manawanui has been a shock to all of us; a terrible disappointment; a sadness for her crew, the wider New Zealand Navy, and the New Zealand populous at large. I think it’s important that we all acknowledge the brave crew and the commander of the HMNZS Manawanui, Yvonne Gray, whose quick and concise decision-making, thoughts, and processes saved lives of all aboard prior to the eventual demise of the ship.

It has been noted by the Associate Minister of Defence today that the Defence Force is leading an all-of-Government response to the incident so that we know what actually happened and we don’t just rush to judgment in this process; we actually go through what the process looks like in its entirety. Operation Resolution will include Maritime New Zealand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, and, most importantly in this instance, wildlife experts. The operation will include working with the Samoan authorities, tantamount to a good outcome.

The environmental implications are vast, the potential salvation options are limited, and yet they have to be undertaken and assessed and understood. As has been noted, personnel assessing diesel and oil leakages from the ship, with regular diving expeditions, are being undertaken to alleviate this concern. This is a core part of their work.

Finally, in conjunction with the ministerial statement offered by the Associate Minister for Defence, I want to acknowledge the Samoan Government and the role of her people and the assistance that they offered in this terrible turn of events. I’ll make one final point. We as New Zealand should be proud of how these people reacted, how the Samoan people reacted and worked with us, and, ultimately, I maintain, they were instrumental in saving all those people on board and bringing our people home. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. First of all, Te Pāti Māori would like to express a huge apology to Samoa for what it is enduring from this incident. We too share the sentiments that we’re glad that everyone is safe, but we have more questions about the “What now?” We acknowledge the heart breaking that is happening in Samoa, and we acknowledge that in our w’akapapa and our connection as Māui, those who are one people, one ocean.

My questions to the Associate Minister of Defence: does the Government know how much has been spent on rescuing and resourcing from the Samoan end, and what has been put into the clean-up? Again, the question is: who will be covering their costs? My other question—and I’ve got a few, so the Minister may want to take the opportunity to answer if he can—does the Government know how many w’ānau and fishermen are affected by the loss of income, livelihood, and who is currently covering their loss of livelihood? Does the Government know, if locals are not allowed to eat their fish, what is the alternative source of protein, and who is covering the cost of an alternative source of kai?

My other question is: this is no doubt an environmental disaster for the Samoan community; who will be monitoring the marine damage? When will the Government know the full extent of the environmental impact? What action so far has been followed? Is there currently a contingency plan or policy that has been followed in lieu of these types of events, and can the Government tell us and assure us, if there are these types of disasters in our oceans, in Samoan oceans or other oceans, what is the contingency plan for clean-up? What is the amount of budget put aside for that? Are we equipped as a nation to be covering up the degree of activity that has been proposed in the oceans from our naval forces and anyone else? Does the Minister know the full impact on the social wellbeing of the community, and, if it does, what is being done currently to ease the wellbeing, the mental stress, and lack of certainty of the future of a community that is very reliant on its marine life, on its fishing sector? Will there be an independent inquiry—specifically, an independent international inquiry—and, if not, why not?

I guess the other question that we have, in reflection, is that the communication that we’ve had as a party is that we took too long. I don’t know how long is long or short, or how we actually are meant to react in these situations, because I’m not quite sure what blueprint or template’s being followed right now, but if the locals believe we took too long, what is the Minister’s understanding of, if we did, why we did and what we can learn from this in the future?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): A large number of questions and I’m grateful to the member for raising them. To the extent that many are hypothetical in nature, I’m unable to answer those today. I suppose, to make the obvious point around the time frames and even the quantum of any damage, at the moment we’ve been relatively lucky—and I emphasise “relatively”—in terms of some of the environmental conditions and the fate of the fuel that is currently, by and large, remaining within the vessel, HMNZS Manawanui. It’s difficult to know, of course, what the future may bring, in the immediate future, medium term, or long term for that matter, but by making every effort to mitigate any damage should it become apparent, and, of course, to remove the source of any possible further cause for concern, being the vessel itself and, of course, more particularly, the oil stored within her, that is everything that the New Zealand Government can do and is doing responsibly in this space at the moment.

The member is right to allude to the fact that there will inevitably be lessons that can be learnt. The navy, the defence force, the Government of New Zealand as a whole are committed to learning those lessons, and, again, at the risk of stating the obvious, the point of learning those lessons should be to reduce the possibility that such an incident may occur again in the future.

I’m grateful to all the members who have spoken in this House expressing their concern, their interest in the matter. I’m grateful for the questions and the comments that they’ve made. Please know that, as I made clear in the statement itself, we will continue to keep all informed, both within New Zealand and Samoa, including through any appropriate channels that are available at that end. In the meantime, on behalf of the Government and perhaps, I may venture, on behalf of the House, we would wish all the very best to those who are working so hard to deal with a difficult situation. We are doing, and we will do, everything within our power to make it right.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you. Can I ask the Government, the Minister: currently, what aid is being provided for the various communities? What Government capacity is currently based in Samoa specifically appointed to assist through this heartbreaking event? Specifically, I want to pick up on what the Green Party, Te Pāti Kākāriki, has said, which is: what is the communication plan going forward? How is the Government committing to not only look after the relationships in a diplomatic sense with Samoa—who I can only imagine are extremely upset and broken with what they’re having to deal with—but what communication plan at a grassroots level for those communities that are having to completely see their day-to-day lives destroyed is the Government committing to? What will that look like in a sense that we have digital equity issues, in a sense that we need to be kanohi kitea—seen on the ground? Most particularly, what is the current state of the relationships, and, again, aside from diplomacy and diplomatic relationships, what are the ground-to-ground relationships looking like from the Government’s perspective?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence): It seems to me that the relationship between the people of New Zealand and Samoa is strong as ever. Obviously, we are doing everything in our power, both in a diplomatic sense but also in a people-to-people sense, to strengthen that further and to work closely with the people of that land to ensure that any possible damage as a result of this incident be mitigated and then, ultimately, reduced.

In relation to her question around communications, I simply refer the member to my answer to her Green Party colleague. In relation to Government agencies involved in this work, I refer the member to the comments I made in the statement itself along those lines.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to beat inflation and to allow interest rates to fall. We’ve worked incredibly hard, since we entered Government, to reduce pressure on inflation. We’re stopping wasteful spending, we’re taking costs off businesses, and we’re slashing through the red and the green tape that have been choking off growth, allowing our economy now to breathe. The good news is that there are some early signs that our plan is working. Inflation is falling—forecast to fall further later this week. Interest rates are falling, with two cuts delivered so far in 11 months and further rate cuts forecast in the coming months. We know life is incredibly tough for too many Kiwis, but we’re working incredibly hard and I’m confident that brighter days are ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason—

SPEAKER: Just wait for a minute.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason there are only two roads of national significance in the South Island because the South Island’s roads aren’t significant or because the South Island isn’t significant to National?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Nice try, but I’ve got to tell you, the South Island’s very important to me. I consider myself a Prime Minister from Christchurch, actually. We’ve got great road investments in Christchurch as well as the investments that have already taken place up and down the South Island. Importantly, we’re working incredibly hard to make sure that we get a ferry solution that keeps these two great islands connected, so watch this space.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can the people of the South Island trust his Government to maintain the Cook Strait connection when 308 days have passed since they cancelled the order for new interisland ferries and they still haven’t come up with a viable alternative?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the good people of New Zealand will well understand that a Government like ours—unlike the other Government that started off with a project of $600 million that turned into $3.2 billion, we are going to get the right-sized solution, a comprehensive, sustainable solution for the Cook Strait. Watch this space. We’ll sort it out for you; don’t worry.

SPEAKER: Just one moment. I’ll just remind the House that questions are heard in silence. It’s also somewhat surprising that so many Government members seem surprised by the answers they’re getting.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t his Government commit immediately to rail-enabled ferries that are critical to the future viability of rail in the South Island?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would say to you: rail has an incredibly important part to play in New Zealand’s infrastructure mix and transport mix. We are big supporters of rail. We’re going to make sure we’ve got a rail capacity - enabled ferry that’s going to materialise at some future point, so watch this space.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by National Party leader Christopher Luxon’s statement to the people of Otago Southland, to “trust us” that National would futureproof the new Dunedin hospital?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They can trust us that we’re going to build them a great hospital for $1.9 billion. That’s $300 million more than the last Government was going to spend.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can the communities in the South Island from Westport to Dunedin trust his Government when they’ve had to resort to marching in the streets for their hospitals to be built and staffed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said in Dunedin, we’re going to build a great hospital in Dunedin, but we’re going to do it at $1.9 billion, not closer to $3 billion.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why wasn’t he aware that his Government had declined funding for a longer-term strategy to deal with the flood risks in South Dunedin; was he not properly briefed before his visit or does he just not care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just remind that member that it was his Government that declined the proposal that was sent forward by the district council. What we are doing is we are making sure that we’ve got a climate adaptation framework in place, that it considers all the stakeholders and considers multiple generations and different political leadership as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that increasing greenhouse gas emissions increases the intensity and frequency of severe and devastating weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister then understand that his decisions to enable more coal mining and reopening fossil fuel exploration and drilling will increase greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, the intensity and frequency of severe and devastating weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I understand is that ending the oil and gas ban and creating a so-called just transition just led to the loss of domestic gas production and the importation of foreign Indonesian coal, making global greenhouse gas emissions worse. I would just point out to both the leaders of Labour and the Green Party that we have a fantastic new piece of legislation called fast track that will enable us to generate 30 percent of the current electricity generation in renewables, so I’d encourage you all to support it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister then guaranteeing this House that all of the coal, oil, and gas that his Government will enable the production of will be used here in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m saying is we want to make sure that we can produce domestic gas again, rather than import huge quantities of Indonesian coal because of the failed policies of the Labour-Greens Government. It was a bumper sticker, it wasn’t thought through, it didn’t have second/third order implications, and no one thought it through properly. We like to have a plan, and we’re going to get it done.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he say to communities like those in South Dunedin who have this past weekend experienced the latest so-called one-in-100-year flood, knowing that his Government’s policies will contribute to the increasing intensity and frequency of severe weather events?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question, but having visited the area with the great Minister for emergency management, what I can say is, that event was incredibly well managed compared to the one of several years ago with a similar quantity of water. I met with the pump station people. They did an exceptionally good job to keep South Dunedin safe—wasn’t it great?

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Climate Emergency Response Fund for years and years put billions into trying to reduce global emissions with little effect while nothing was put into adaptation to protect New Zealanders’ homes and livelihoods from the effect of severe weather events, and, if so, is this Government going to start investing in the infrastructure to protect New Zealanders from severe weather instead of tilting at windmills around the world?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question cannot possibly be in order, for several reasons. One is that it contains a whole lot of assertions about the previous Government that simply are not true and that could never be authenticated, but also it was a statement rather than a question.

SPEAKER: Yes, the question is: “Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?” Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the statements that are stated in the question have been stated by the Government at some point, so I don’t know how I could selectively choose which is which.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order further: “his Government’s statements and actions?”—the actions of the previous Government don’t fall within the scope of that.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but what I’m saying is that the Government is most likely to have made statements about the actions of a previous Government. It brings it in line with the question.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I honestly didn’t think my question was that devastating, but if the Labour Party don’t want an answer—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s—

Hon David Seymour: —I’m happy to withdraw it.

SPEAKER: That’s not particularly helpful. Thank you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I wonder if David Seymour could indicate which Standing Order he was referring to with the point of order he just made.

SPEAKER: Well, I would invite him to do that, but we’ve had a long afternoon with very few questions answered so far. Did you have a question, Mr McAnulty?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I had a point of order, but I’m not sure there’s much point.

SPEAKER: Right, OK. Well, that’s good—that’s progress. We’ll move now to question No. 2.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last week, the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee reduced the official cash rate (OCR) by 50 basis points. That followed a drop of 25 basis points in August and took the official cash rate down to 4.75 percent. These reductions mark a significant turning point for the economy. Changes in the official cash rate and expectations about its future path affect both short-term and longer-term market interest rates. These include mortgage and business lending rates, which have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses.

Ryan Hamilton: What reasons did the Reserve Bank give for cutting rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Monetary Policy Committee said that it believes annual Consumers Price Index inflation is now within the 1 to 3 percent target range and is converging on the 2 percent midpoint. Monetary policy can, therefore, be less restrictive than it has been for some time. The Reserve Bank has also signalled further reductions to come. Markets are anticipating another 50-basis-point reduction before the end of the year, then more gradual reductions in 2025.

Ryan Hamilton: How have the banks responded to these OCR cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Banks have responded, in some cases pre-emptively, by reducing retail interest rates, most visibly their advertised mortgage rates. These reductions will flow through to people’s interest payments, depending on how long it is before their current loan matures. At present, half of mortgage lending is either floating or fixed for six months or fewer. That is a higher proportion than we have seen in recent years, and it will increase the speed with which interest rate drops flow through to household budgets. It is very good news indeed.

Ryan Hamilton: By how much will families benefit from lower mortgage rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course, that does depend on their individual circumstances, but I can give one illustrative example: an interest rate reduction from 7 percent to 6.25 percent for a family with a 25-year $500,000 mortgage means their repayments would reduce by just over $100 a fortnight. They could then use that money elsewhere in the family budget or simply pay their mortgage down faster. And this is, of course, great news for families, who in recent years have suffered both a cost of living crisis and 12 increases in the official cash rate under Labour, with high interest rates required to bring inflation under control.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the statement of National finance spokesperson Nicola Willis that “National will stop the waste and restore discipline to government spending, while protecting all frontline services”; if so, why?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, absolutely. And if the member looks at the coalition Government’s Budget in May, she will see many examples of reprioritisation from lower-value spending to higher-value spending, of fiscal discipline by having the lowest operating allowance in real terms since Steven Joyce’s Budget in 2017, and protection of front-line services, with the biggest part of the Budget being investments in health, in education, and in law and order.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that her decision to recklessly cancel the rail-enabled Cook Strait ferries without a plan B is the opposite of discipline?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I would note that the decision that Cabinet made was not to provide the additional funding requested by KiwiRail, which was in excess of the business case that they had presented. And I would note that our officials advised us that we should decline that funding.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the current operating balance before gains and losses deficit of 3.1 percent is higher than what was forecast in Budget 2024, and excluding the COVID 2020 year, this is the highest since the global financial crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’ve said it before, and let me say it again—and I hope members opposite listen up—we inherited a mess. And if you look at the last financial year, you will recall who was in Government for at least half of that financial year. You’ll also recall who set the Budget for that financial year, which was the members opposite. I am very happy to share this fact: if it weren’t for this Government being elected, that deficit would have been $1.1 billion worse at least.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Minister, that the so-called rail-enabled ferries purchase that we inherited was 80 percent not about rail-enabled ferries but about something else, to the extent of $2.8 billion in that respect?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely correct. That project had gone so far off course that the actual cost of the ships had reduced to around 20 percent of the overall project cost, because there had been a laxness which had allowed a massive blowout in the cost of the overall project.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her promise at Budget 2024 that 100,000 families would benefit from FamilyBoost when for the first week it was open only 8,672 families received it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would like to thank the member for that question, because it is correct that up to 100,000 families are eligible for the FamilyBoost payment. And I’m advised that around 50,000 have registered for that payment so far. But I’ll tell you what’s really important. What’s really important to me is that every family who is eligible for that payment be aware that they can go on to the IRD website and apply for it. I want to see as many families as possible get that tax refund to which they are entitled. And the more the member talks about it, the more I’ll welcome it, because I want it on TV, I want it on the radio, and I want it the newspaper. Apply for FamilyBoost, get your $975 today. Labour said you couldn’t have it; we want you to get it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister itemise for us some of the positive things she could have done with the not-one-metre-built light rail cost of $1.2 billion that we inherited?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Deputy Prime Minister, let me count the ways we could have spent that money better. I think of the investment we could have made into structured literacy and mathematics in our schools a year earlier. I think of the investment we could have made in reducing waiting lists for elective surgery. I think about how we could have got those 500 extra front-line police earlier. I think of what it would have looked like if we had courts that actually sentenced violent criminals appropriately. All of these are the sorts of front-line investments that this Government is making while that last Government wasted New Zealanders’ money.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. All of that was fine until that last statement, and it seems like we have to go through this process—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: When a point of order is being made, don’t speak. I’ve been incredibly tolerant of this to this point, but the tolerance is at its limit. Start again.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, sir. It seems like every sitting week we have to make this point at some stage, and we can point to numerous examples where you have made it incredibly clear to Government benchers that they are not to use questions asked by their own side to have a crack. Now, I listen very carefully to every answer, and it always seems to be the trend that they listen until the final jab, and then they go against your rulings. Whether it be at the start or the end, this is a consistent trend, and if we are to ensure that your rulings are followed, this should be pointed out.

SPEAKER: Thank you, and I’m happy to point that out again, but I’ll also make the point that there was considerable barracking, interjection—whatever you want to call it—throughout the answer to the last three questions, and I would suggest that that makes it very hard for me to concentrate on what the answers are. But, in general, it is a point that when Ministers are answering questions, they should not use that opportunity to attack the Opposition. It’s been made very clear that if it’s pointing to a matter of record, that’s fine, but attacks on the Opposition are not appropriate.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Given only 8,672 families have received FamilyBoost, when will she take responsibility for making it so difficult for parents to access their entitlements for early childhood education, or is that her approach in order to save money?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member should listen to answers and then revise her supps accordingly. As I said, we expect more families to claim for that payment over time, and I am the first to say that I want as many families as possible to claim their entitlement. And the thing that New Zealand families who are eligible for that childcare rebate need to understand is this: they are eligible for up to $975 that will go directly into their bank accounts if they go and do the IRD application process. And, yes, it is true that the National Party campaigned on a policy that it wanted to see that money delivered more directly. Officials advised us that if we were to take that approach, we would have to wait several months, possibly years, in order to deliver on the policy. So the choice that the Government made was to get that money to New Zealanders faster. The choice members opposite have made is to deny that New Zealanders should be eligible for any money whatsoever.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from the previous questioner, how many more families on the margins of FamilyBoost could have been helped if we had the $54 million wasted on a cycleway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which never got spent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I suspect many families would have enjoyed it had money been invested in a policy like this sooner, because the simple reality is that the member on the other side of the House is criticising the Government for choosing to put money into families’ bank accounts. Well, I’m proud that we’ve put in place a system that will ensure many families are hundreds of dollars better off.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s a question to be asked around the Minister’s responsibility for a policy that is not in place under her Government, and so I wish to raise concern about that being allowed through. An example from this Government such as decisions they have made—like tax cuts, for example—would have been in order. But, again, that was a supplementary question for the sole purpose of making a political point, and we didn’t need to wait for the answer to know that that was the case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, this is a current question, apposite today. What the Minister’s been asked, as Minister of Finance, is how she would have spent that money if she had it today rather than have it wasted previously when not one thing happened as a result of that $54 million expenditure on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. This is a corruption investigation that should be mounted right now because there’s nothing to show for it—nothing to show for it.

SPEAKER: Hang on. That wasn’t the matter of the point of order. You want to be precise about the point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The first part was.

SPEAKER: Well, OK, I’ll take the first point to save us going over the second one. Have you got—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You can’t allege corruption in a point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’d have to agree with the overheard comment there: you can’t allege corruption—that members have acted corruptly in the House. It’s not an appropriate thing. I would invite the member just to state the point of order again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the point of order, arguably, wasn’t a current-issue question. I was asking what would the finance Minister have done if she had that extra $54 million available today to increase the margins of the FamilyBoost families, and many, many more, hundreds and hundreds, would have been included. That’s all I said, because the $54 million was spent on the Auckland Harbour Bridge cycleway option, with nothing to show for it. Not one metre was built; $1.2 billion was spent on three waters—nothing happened.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. It’s not a speech—not a speech. You’ve made the point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s why the question becomes: is this incompetence or is this corruption?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know; you can ask yourself that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking them because they spent it.

SPEAKER: I’m not here to judge that particular point.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Can I just say before the member speaks—OK, I’ll hear from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When a member makes an allegation, either by way of an answer or by way of a point of order that is unparliamentary and that questions the character of other members, in almost every instance of that in the past, the Speaker has required them to withdraw and apologise, not given them an opportunity to withdraw the offending remarks and repeat a point of order which wasn’t, in fact, a point of order in the first place.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your advice. The way I heard it was that the word “should” was put in there; not a direct implication. I will check the Hansard to make sure I’m right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I indicated by way of a point of order that people “should” investigate whether the Government over there are full of pathological liars, would that be acceptable?

SPEAKER: Well, you’re not actually accusing anyone of lying in that event, are you?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: OK. All right then. Good to know.

SPEAKER: It’s akin to suggesting that someone is simply reckless with the truth. There are always ways to get around these words. But I didn’t hear the direct allegation made; I heard the word “should”, and I think that makes a slight difference. May I make the further comment that when the question actually asks for a response around waste, it does lead to the party being asked about that waste to determine what the waste is.

Question No. 4—Conservation

4. DARLEEN TANA to the Minister of Conservation: What does he say in response to the co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s description of his Government’s decision to allow commercial fishing within new marine protected areas as being “bewildering” and “catastrophic”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I would say thank you for your genuine and longstanding efforts to progress this important legislation. Tīkapa Moana, or the Hauraki Gulf, is an iconic and majestic place and it’s in trouble. This Government will take action to establish the highest ever protection in Hauraki Gulf, nearly tripling the area protected. With our proposed changes, we have balanced the needs of the environment with the economy and communities to allow a small number of known fishers who operate on very small waka no bigger than six metres between March and August to supply four species to local communities who have gone through a serious cost of living crisis and many of whom don’t have easy access to fish, in an arrangement to be reviewed in three years.

Darleen Tana: How, in his view, does the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill reverse the effects of overfishing and destructive fishing methods in order for New Zealand to meet our obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment as a signatory to UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Just as a couple of examples, we have extended the marine reserves both up at Te Hāwere-a-Maki up near Leigh and also at Te Whanganui-A-Hei near Cathedral Cove. We’ve also seen the proposed establishment of sea-floor protection areas that will stop bottom trawling and Danish seining. There are a number of ways in which this proposed legislation will progress protecting and supporting the Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana.

Darleen Tana: How does this Government plan to rejuvenate mauri within Tīkapa Moana, noting the evidence that crayfish is functionally extinct, that one in five snapper are so sick as to be referred to as zombies, and that kina is left to run so rampant such that rimurimu is receding at a rate faster than many honourable members’ hairlines.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: By progressing this proposed legislation through to second reading and third reading and into legislation; that’s how we will see better protection of Hauraki Gulf Tīkapa Moana te pātaka kai [the food storehouse].

SPEAKER: I’d just suggest the member asking a question doesn’t add little bits on at the end of it that are outside of what is acceptable commentary in the House.

Darleen Tana: How concerned is he that New Zealand may face litigation in international court of law, as did Germany, who were forced to ban bottom trawling in their territorial waters because they chose not to protect and preserve their marine environment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m very proud to be part of the Government that’s moving to protect the Hauraki Gulf and to triple the area or the rohe that’s protected under this legislation. We believe that it is a win for the environment, a win for the taiao, a win for the economies and communities that surround Tīkapa Moana, and we’re very proud to progress it.

Tākuta Ferris: Can the Minister confirm for the Hauraki iwi that the six-metre fishing boats he’s referring to aren’t small purse seine net draggers fishing from a mothership much larger than six metres?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we have mentioned both outside the House and now, we are really committed to the protection of Hauraki Gulf. There will be final advice and drafting done by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and we will ensure that there are relevant conditions that make this a very small and narrow exception to no fishing in the high protection areas.

Question No. 5—Customs

5. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister of Customs: What details can she provide about recent drug seizures at the border?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): Last month, a shipment of steel beams from the United States weighing more than 16 tonnes arrived at the Port of Auckland. Upon identifying inconsistencies with the shipment, customs officers took further analysis and discovered 515 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed within the beams. This discovery led a joint customs-police investigation that resulted in the arrest of five individuals. Investigations are continuing, with the possibility of further arrests. This is yet another example of the level of sophistication the criminal groups are using to try and pedal their misery in New Zealand communities.

Andy Foster: How many individual doses does that over half a tonne of meth represent?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m advised that 515 kilograms of methamphetamine amount to around 25.7 million individual doses and around $570 million in harm to New Zealand communities and our economy. We know the extreme harm that methamphetamine causes to people who use it, their families, and their communities in which they live. We also know that it is a contributor to the escalating violence in our communities. The exceptional work of customs officers stopping this scale of methamphetamine from entering our communities demonstrates the critical role they are playing in protecting New Zealanders. This Government is committed to being tough on crime, ensuring our communities are safe, and offenders face consequences for the harm they cause.

Andy Foster: Is it becoming harder to detect the importation of illicit drugs into New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups are sophisticated enterprises that will look for any weaknesses in our border system so they can exploit it. We’ve seen them actively recruit workers on ports and within airport facilities, employ technologies to hide their activities, and engage in increasingly daring approaches to avoid detection. It’s through the dedicated and diligent work, alongside coordination and information-sharing across agencies, that we continue to detect and disrupt criminal organisations and better protect our communities.

Andy Foster: What work, if any, is under way to make it harder for organised crime groups to operate in New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups represent a significant threat to New Zealand and pile misery into our communities, not only through drugs but through their activities like fraud, migrant exploitation, and tax evasion. These groups are sophisticated businesses that operate across crime types and across borders. This means we need a strategic coordinated response to detect and disrupt these gangs’ activities. While we have good foundations to build on, I believe more could be done to join up efforts across Government to tackle the interconnected nature of offending that transnational organised crime represents. That is why I’m progressing work that aims to strengthen operational responsiveness across Government and update the transnational organised crime strategy. It is critical that we have the tools and operational processes to detect, prevent, and dismantle organised crime in New Zealand, and I expect to be able to make further announcements before the end of this year.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the Waitangi Tribunal regarding his Government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Bill (MACA bill) that “the Crown’s actions are such a gross breach of the Treaty that, if it proceeds, it would be an illegitimate exercise of kāwanatanga.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as we’ve said before, what we’re achieving with the MACA bill is to make sure that it goes back to the original intention of this Parliament, which is balancing customary rights but also the legitimate interests and rights of all New Zealanders as well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the tribunal, who asked what the motivation is behind giving Paul Goldsmith free rein to act unlawfully and in flagrant breach of the Treaty to extinguish what are already very basic and limited rights?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the Government is proposing to amend the Act to ensure that it is interpreted and applied as Parliament intended back in 2011. Last year, as you know, the Court of Appeal ruling changed the nature of the threshold and materially reduced the threshold, and all we’re doing is putting it back to its original intention.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he see iwi and hapū rights as a barrier to multinational corporations pillaging, drilling, and mining our coastlines?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as you know, through the fast-track legislation, we’ll have an expert panel that will weigh up environmental and other concerns.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Government intent on reducing Māori rights down to almost nothing with the marine and coastal area amendment bill and the Fast-track Approvals Bill because Māori will not support projects that destroy our w’enua and our moana?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it’s been fantastic to see many iwi actually embracing fast-track legislation. At the end of the day, they understand that to build 55,000 houses, to have a 30 percent increase in our current electricity generation, to build 180 kilometres of new roads would be a good thing for New Zealand.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which iwi and hapū Māori support the destructive offshore oil exploration that will be enabled under the Crown Minerals Amendment Act and support Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I’m not going to comment on individual projects, but what I accept is that some projects will be controversial and they’ll also be criticised. That’s why we’ll have an environmental appraisal from an expert panel.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was actually which iwi and hapū Māori support it.

SPEAKER: Well, he made the answer that he wasn’t going to comment. So that kind of closes that off.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, he actually said he wouldn’t comment on the projects, but he didn’t say which iwi support.

SPEAKER: I think if you read the Hansard afterwards, you’ll find that it was an answer to the question—not the answer you wanted, but an answer to the question.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement in relation to heated tobacco products that “I wasn’t aware that … the products that were on the market were not going to be compliant with the 1st of October changes”; if so, why?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, at the time the excise on heated tobacco products was reduced. I was first informed by officials on 27 September 2024 that Philip Morris would no longer be able to sell their heated tobacco devices in New Zealand. I’m well aware that the member asked a question during question time on 23 July 2024 about whether it was correct that Phillip Morris’ product did not meet the child safety requirements. I have never been concerned about which companies will or won’t be able to sell their products. It has always been that suitable products are available to support smoking cessation. I have been attacked and vilified for my connections to the tobacco industry, and it now seems the member was concerned that I was unaware of negative impacts on the tobacco industry. I can assure you the irony is not lost on this side of the House. I cannot seem to win whichever side of the argument she positions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did the Minister, on 11 March, seek Cabinet committee approval to defer the changes to child-proofing e-cigarettes coming into force by two years?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the member is aware, there was a number of tweaks and adjustments to the vaping products availability. As we knew we would be introducing legislation this year, before Christmas, to ban completely all disposable vaping products, we were concerned about further adjustments continuing. It was not accepted by Cabinet, and therefore the deferral was not put in place and the changes were implemented on 1 October this year.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When she advised Cabinet that the deferral was necessary because “It is likely that higher quality vaping devices used by former adult smokers will soon be unavailable domestically as high-end manufacturers that cater to international markets may not make New Zealand specific models.”, what devices did she have in mind?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: At the time, I was referring purely and specifically to vaping products.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Well, can she name a specific product?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No, because I don’t vape.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: If she can’t name a specific product, who wrote in her Cabinet paper the following statement: “It is likely that higher quality vaping devices used by former adult smokers will soon be unavailable domestically as high-end manufacturers that cater to international markets may not make New Zealand specific models.”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The advice in the Cabinet paper is provided by officials from the Ministry of Health.

Question No. 8—Infrastructure

8. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What announcements has he made regarding the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Minister Jones and I were proud to announce a few days ago 149 projects with significant national and regional benefits would be included in Schedule 2 of the one-stop-shop Fast-track Approvals Bill—the first cabs off the rank in our unapologetic drive to grow this economy for the benefit of New Zealanders, to help rebuild the economy, fix our housing crisis, improve energy security, and address our infrastructure deficit.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: There should be a corruption investigation.

SPEAKER: We’ll just calm a lot of the comments down, given concerns expressed earlier.

Tim Costley: What benefits will these 149 fast-track projects have?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they have significant regional and national benefits. If they’re approved by expert panels, they’ll deliver jobs and growth and develop a pipeline of major projects. For example, the 44 listed housing developments will enable up to 55,000 new homes to be consented; the seven aquaculture and farming projects are expected to have an output of 143,000 tonnes per annum; 43 infrastructure projects resulting in at least 180 kilometres of new road, rail, and public transport; 22 renewable electricity projects to help electrify our economy, boost security, and help meet our climate change goals; and the 11 mining projects will help make a major contribution to our objective of doubling the value of our mineral exports, extracting coal, gold, iron sands, and mineral sands.

Tim Costley: What feedback has the Minister seen regarding these projects?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. To quote just a few, Business New Zealand said these projects will stimulate job creation and economic activity at a time when we need it most; Forsyth Barr said it has the potential to give a much-needed injection of energy into the downbeat economy; Infrastructure New Zealand said the list of projects was balanced; and let me quote chairman and executive director of the Environmental Defence Society, Gary Taylor, who says, “while I come from an environmental perspective, I am also a Kiwi interested in [the] economic welfare of our nation, and a lot of the infrastructure projects look good to go to me, subject to environmental assessment … a lot of the renewable projects, a lot of the housing projects … a lot of them are all good to go”. We are heartened by the support from both sides of the political aisle.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us what the next steps are for the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the 149 projects will be listed in Schedule 2 once the bill is reported back from the Environment Committee. Once the bill’s passed, projects that are listed will be able to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority to have an expert panel assess the project and apply relevant conditions. As we publicly said before, the Government is recommending to the Environment Committee that expert panels will have the ability to decline approval for projects. New Zealanders can expect economic growth to be at the heart of what this Government does, and fast track is just one very important part of that.

Hon Nicola Willis: To the Minister: can he advise the House that when it comes time to cut the ribbon on the opening of some of these extraordinary projects and when it’s time to celebrate the jobs that are created, the incomes that are rising, the growth that is delivered, and the renewable energy that is delivered, will he ensure that invitations are made to members of the Opposition to attend those events?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the House knows, I’m a generous man, and we want all New Zealanders—even the Labour Party—to share in the fruits of economic growth. So, yes indeed, I’ll be doing that.

Question No. 9—Children

9. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement, “If funding has been withdrawn from a provider, it’s because they are either under-delivering the services that children and young people need, or other providers are better placed to deliver those services, or it’s just not core business”; if so, is she concerned that the Auditor-General has opened an inquiry into Oranga Tamariki’s procurement and contract management practices?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In answer to the first part of the question, yes. And, in answer to the second part of the question, no, I’m not concerned. Public spending should be scrutinised, and given the hundreds of millions of dollars Oranga Tamariki spends on contracting services and the importance of these services, it is essential that they buy services that are actually delivered, the services are getting the outcomes that are expected, and they are receiving value for taxpayers’ money. I expect Oranga Tamariki to provide their full cooperation to the Auditor-General while they undertake this inquiry.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that Oranga Tamariki have followed a robust procurement and contract management process, have used evidence and analysis to inform their decisions, and that they have effectively managed their relationships with community providers, and if so, why?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think that’s something the Auditor-General is looking into right now, and I’ll comment once that inquiry is over.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question wasn’t about the process; it was about her confidence in Oranga Tamariki’s performance of the things that I listed—her confidence.

SPEAKER: That might be right, but the Minister has already said that she welcomes the investigation by the Auditor-General. It’s not unreasonable to say that she wants to wait till she sees that to make a comment. You’ve got to have some sort of basis to give an answer.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that Oranga Tamariki has used clear criteria and evidence for their contracting decisions, when Te Pai Ora Social Service Providers Aotearoa, which represents over 200 service providers, says, “For many contracts there appears to be no transparent process or rationale for cutting some services that have good evidence of their positive impact”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: If the member has a specific question about a specific provider, I welcome her to put that in writing and we’ll get the answers to her, but if the member is truly concerned about funding decisions that Oranga Tamariki has made, then she should come and see me, provide the details, and I can go away and look into that for her.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister not concerned that she inherited an administration, with respect to Oranga Tamariki, that has been sending off children to adults whilst, in so many examples, a massive percentage of those adults were never vetted as to whether they would be safe with those children in the first place, and is that a cause for serious alarm?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There is a lot that has been inherited, and a lot of issues that we are working through, and this is why I have set my expectation that Oranga Tamariki go back to their core purpose, which is the care and protection of our young people and making sure that they meet their obligations of the national care standards when it comes to our young people.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why will she not take responsibility for a shambolic contracting process that has seen the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Chief Children’s Commissioner—

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member. The House can be quiet while a question is being asked. Please start again.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why will she not take responsibility for a shambolic contracting process that has seen the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Chief Children’s Commissioner raising concerns and seeking clarity, and now the Auditor-General opening an inquiry?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Like I said, I am looking forward to hearing back from the Auditor-General around any concerns he may find. It is important that Government spending is scrutinised, and I welcome his report.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When will she admit that she forced Oranga Tamariki into a rushed and confusing contracting process that risks harm to our most vulnerable children because her Government wanted to save 6.5 percent for tax cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I will not apologise for putting children first and I will not apologise for not accepting the status quo. We’re not going to spend more money and more money and not get better results. There has to be accountability for money that is being spent. We have to bring back discipline to public spending. We have to make sure that we are providing the services that these children need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, point of order. I’m rather concerned at the way this question was framed. For a start, the honourable member’s putting a question that is not even grammatical, and the first thing we should do in this House is to be able to ensure that something makes sense. There it is on the fourth line—it’s not even grammatical. She never corrected it and nor did your office. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: There is a point of order being taken. If people want to remove themselves from the House to make their comments, perhaps on social media or some other such, they should do so, but don’t sit there chipping away while a point of order’s being made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that if one was paying attention, on the fourth line of that question there is a grammatical mistake and it should have been corrected. That’s what standards in this House represent. I can see why that party’s shouting out.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wish to draw to your attention that during a response that the Minister was giving to one of the supplementary questions, one of the members over here—I think it was Mr Ferris—made an accusation against the Government that the Government was racist. Mr Speaker, I’d just like to draw your attention to Standing Order 120, that that is an offensive and disorderly word which doesn’t just apply to the Government or Parliament but to all members. Mr Speaker, I’d like you to look into that, listen to the transcript, and see if that is worthy of action.

SPEAKER: I’d like the member to start his point of order again and the House will be silent listening to it.

Simon Court: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to draw your attention to the fact that I overheard, during the response from Minister Chhour to one of the supplementary questions, a member to my right, who I understand is Mr Ferris, make an accusation that the Government or that the House is racist. I’d just like you to look into that, look at the transcript, and consider the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that may relate to that matter.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Well, there was so much barracking going on during that answer that I didn’t actually hear any particular part of that barracking, but if any member did make that statement, then they should honourably stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order, can you consider that there may be systemic actions being taken by the Government that are racist and that that is different from a personal accusation that someone is racist?

SPEAKER: No, with all due respect, that’s not something that I can make a decision about. Thank you for your contribution, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that if there is a general statement made that members of this House are racist, that is contrary to the Standing Orders. I know what you’re suggesting—

Steve Abel: No, no—he said the Government was racist.

SPEAKER: —but I’m thinking about what he—I’d ask the member to take a seat. I’ve asked anybody who made that statement to withdraw and apologise. I’m not naming anybody who might have, because I didn’t hear it, but what I am going to do is ask the Hon Karen Chhour to stand and give her answer again in silence. Well, she won’t be silent, of course, but the rest of the House will be. We’re all quiet now.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not going to apologise for not accepting the status quo and I’m not going to keep spending more and more money and allowing the outcomes to be worse. This Government needs to get more disciplined when it comes to our spending and make sure that there’s accountability for contract spending, and I won’t apologise for putting the focus on young people.

Question No. 10—Health

10. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about increasing childhood vaccination rates?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, my colleague the Hon Casey Costello and I announced a pilot to boost childhood immunisation rates by training the Plunket workforce’s vaccinators. Enabling Plunket to deliver vaccinations allows us to reach into locations where vaccine coverage has been particularly low. That is why this announcement is a key part of our plan to increase vaccinations and builds on the work that we already have under way. We know that timely immunisations ensure that our children will be protected against harmful and avoidable diseases. We’ll continue to reduce the barriers that have prevented parents from getting their children immunised, to continue driving the target of 95 percent of children being vaccinated at 24 months of age.

Catherine Wedd: Why did the Government select Plunket to carry out this important work?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This was a common-sense decision. With their existing clinical infrastructure and professional networks, Plunket was well placed to put this funding to use. Immunisation services will be established at up to 27 Plunket sites across the country, with the first site in Whangārei expected to be delivering vaccinations by the end of 2024. I want to thank Plunket for all of the work they do to drive better health outcomes and for the new work they will be undertaking through this initiative.

Catherine Wedd: What else has the Government done to boost immunisation rates for children?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We are absolutely committed to improving childhood immunisation rates. The Government has already invested $50 million into two years to boost immunisations, which is currently delivering twice above target. We’re working to expand the vaccination workforce so that people can get immunised wherever they choose to access healthcare. We are determined to make it as easy as possible for parents to get their children vaccinated, because we know that vaccines can save lives.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the Government focused on health targets?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The past six years has shown the consequence of taking the focus off health targets. In 2017, over 92 percent of children were fully immunised at 24 months old. This number has since fallen to 76.5 percent—that is a long way from our target of 95 percent. Amidst topical concerns of potential measles and whooping cough flare-ups, we could not continue to allow this rate to fall when young New Zealanders are getting ill with vaccine-preventable diseases.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially the action that we’re taking through fast-track legislation. New Zealand needs more homes, it needs more infrastructure, more renewable energy, more jobs, and more growth. That’s why I was so pleased to see the scheduled fast-track projects potentially allowing for 55,000 new homes; 3 gigawatts of renewable electricity, or 30 percent of our current electricity generation; and 180 kilometres of new road, rail, and public transport routes. It’s probably why Forsyth Barr last week said that New Zealand was moving out of the slow lane and that the contours of an economic recovery are starting to take shape. I’d just encourage the member and her party to support the bill, just like the Environmental Defence Society does.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister truly feel that he has done everything in his power to demonstrate to Israel that there will be consequences for its murder of at least 42,000 Palestinian people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. This is a Government that has consistently called on all parties to de-escalate. The violence and the loss of life in Israel, in Gaza, and in Lebanon is absolutely horrific. That is why we have been reiterating and calling for all parties to agree to a ceasefire on the Lebanon-Israel border but also with Israel and Gaza too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has he seen on the news or in his newsfeed the video of an Israeli airstrike hitting the grounds of al-Aqsa hospital in Gaza, where flames engulf tents that were sheltering forcibly displaced Palestinian people, and the screams could be heard of civilians being burned alive, and can he truly say, in the face of all of that, that his Government is doing absolutely everything that it can?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I have seen those images; they are absolutely horrific. This conflict has catastrophic consequences on innocent civilians that are horrific. It is violence and a loss of life on a scale that is unacceptable. That is why what we are doing is urging all parties to de-escalate, to get around a table, to negotiate, to discuss, and to agree to a ceasefire.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is the point in those numerous international statements that the Prime Minister alludes to if there is no follow-through whatsoever when the Israeli State can attack a hospital sheltering civilians, with no consequences?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: New Zealand, as a small country at the end of the world, is doing everything it can. By partnering with other like-minded countries, we’re putting more volume and voice to our perspective and to our position.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he, then, follow other like-minded countries who have, for example, imposed sanctions on Israel?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, New Zealand has already put in place travel bans on Israeli extremist settlers, for example. Our most effective channel right now is actually communication—clear and consistent communication. That’s exactly what the foreign Minister and I have been doing over the last year.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will the Prime Minister expel the Israeli ambassador?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we believe in maintaining diplomatic channels to actually communicate our differences. That’s important. Our position is that the most important thing that we can do right now is to be clear and consistent in our communication. We’ve clearly outlined that to the Israeli ambassador yesterday, with respect to the attacks on the UN system. We’ll continue to make our views known. We also consistently constantly review our approach and the settings that we have.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah, and you’re doing nothing.

SPEAKER: Question 12—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What are you doing?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Asking you to do something. You’re in power.

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute—that’s enough. Question No. 12, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Use it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Posturing all the time.

SPEAKER: No, sorry, hang on. Do both members want to perhaps go out to the side galleries to have a discussion?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, thanks.

Hon Willie Jackson: She’s too young for you, Winston!

SPEAKER: Right, we’ll try again. Who made that comment? This is absolutely childish. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise, but it would only call attention to the stupid statement he made.

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by his statement that his Government is committed to “restoring the health and mauri of the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana” and that this will “enhance the area for generations to come”; if so, why is he proposing to allow commercial fishing in high protection areas?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): E te Māngai o te Whare. Kei te mihi atu ki ngā pōito o te kūpenga a Taramainuku.

[To the Speaker, I acknowledge the people of the Hauraki Gulf.]

The Government is establishing strong safeguards to deliver the highest ever level of protection for Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—nearly tripling the area protected. It’s a major win for the taiao—for the environment. Fishing will be limited in two out of 19 newly protected areas to a small number of fishers in very small waka between March and August to supply local communities, many of whom suffered through the cost of living crisis and don’t have easy access to fish protein.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What has changed to justify allowing commercial fishing in high protection areas (HPAs) since the Environment Committee’s report on the bill in June this year, which stated that “The proposed protection areas are the result of an extensive consultation period … we do not recommend they be changed.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As you will be aware, as Cabinet and Cabinet committees, we take a wide range of advice and opinions, and we believe we’ve struck the right balance between the economy, the environment, communities, iwi, and the people who live around Tīkapa Moana. And as a result, we’ve made some minor changes, but 95 percent of the legislation, as introduced, will be put to Parliament and be approved with minor changes.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does he agree with Kayla Kingdon-Bebb from the World Wildlife Fund, who said that over 80 percent of commercial fishing is exported, and, if so, how will this change benefit those local communities he mentioned and as Shane Jones has claimed.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I agree with the Environmental Defence Society, who has said in the last 48 hours that the actions of this Government to progress this Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill are simply fantastic. Ditto Sue Neureuter, one of the owners of The Noises, Ōtata/Motu Horopapa, who has said it’s absolutely great news that we’re progressing the nearly tripling of the protected areas of the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the Minister accept that allowing any fishing in a high protection area undermines its protected status and compromises the restoration and the recovery of biodiversity, which is the very purpose of designating an HPA?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned before, we have balanced the various interests, taken on a wide range of advice and opinion, and if the person who has asked that question was so invested in the outcome of this solution, the majority Labour Government would have passed this in the last term.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister: does he see value in inviting Mr Gary Taylor to a meeting, given that he seems to be the only one with a coherent view that this is a massive step forward for the Hauraki Gulf, unlike the banshee voices blighting us at the moment?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ve heard from many environmental—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those of us with a background and knowledge of Irish history will know that that term was clearly used as a slight on the member that has been asking questions up to that point, and it should not be tolerated. There was no ambiguity around that, sir. It was not framed in a way that was discussed previously, around the borderline suggestion of corruption. That was a straight-out personal attack on a member of this House; he should be made to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, sir, it is not unreasonable to deploy vocabulary that has wide application. At no point in that statement did I single out a member in the House. There are a wide variety of voices that are blighting the environment and spreading misinformation about the future health of Hauraki Gulf; at no time did I point or isolate a single member in this House. Over the last few days, there have been multiple voices of misinformation, and some of them have a phantom-like quality.

SPEAKER: Look, I’ll have to have a—

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Is there something that’s really going to add to all this?

Hon Nicola Willis: Well, I’ve just got the definition of “banshee”, for the information of the House—

SPEAKER: Oh well, that’s very good. I don’t need it, thank you. I’ll be making inquiries myself and will come back on this particular issue to make sure that we do get it right. Apologies for not doing something now.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In response to the question, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Tama Potaka—yes, you can answer the first part of the question.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There have been innumerable environmentalists, iwi leaders, and others who have congratulated us on our announcement and on progressing the nearly tripling of the protected areas of Hauraki Gulf—Tīkapa Moana—and doing more than ever before to enhance the mauri and restore the health and wellbeing of that great place, that iconic place, that we know as the Hauraki Gulf.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the Minister accept that significantly weakening protections for the Hauraki Gulf at the eleventh hour, 11 years into the process, is a slap in the face for Aucklanders and those who were part of the Sea Change process?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I won’t get into hyperbole competitions today, but what I will say is this. It is that we are absolutely dedicated to progressing legislation, that was left marooned by the previous Government, to its logical conclusion, which is elevating and nearly tripling the amount of protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf—Tīkapa Moana, Te Moana-nui-a-Toi-te-huatahi [the Hauraki Gulf, the Bay of Plenty.] Tihei mauri ora!

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Now, we’ll take 30 seconds while members go about their other business. Just leave the House without the discussions, thank you. [Interruption] I’m about to call a member. The discussion there is not helpful.

Bills

Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I move, That the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill makes permanent the existing temporary exclusion of class 3 lotteries from the definition of remote interactive gambling. In effect, it exempts charities who use lotteries to fund-raise from the prohibition on selling lottery tickets online. This permanent exclusion will ensure that the non-profit organisations delivering services to communities across New Zealand can continue to do so in a modern, fit-for-purpose way.

There are currently 46 registered non-profit organisations that are licensed to offer class 3 lotteries. These range from the well-loved Heart Foundation, who offer a house as their top lottery prize, through to Hospice Southland and the Samoan Catholic community of Newtown. A wide range of charitable organisations throughout New Zealand use these lotteries to fund-raise for their community work, and this bill will make it easier for them to do so.

I give my thanks to the Governance and Administration Committee for their consideration of this bill. They have recommended that this bill pass without amendment. Although the number of submissions was relatively small, I want to acknowledge all who did take the time to submit on this bill, adding their views to the process and detailing the positive impact of these lotteries on the organisations and wider communities.

Support for the bill was broad and generally reflected the view that these lotteries are an important funding mechanism for the non-profit organisations that do good work in their own communities. Submitters noted that it was a necessary modernisation of the Gambling Act to ensure that these organisations can continue to fund-raise and provide for their communities. I also note that the majority of submissions supported the time frame for the bill to pass by the end of October, because the existing exemption expires on 31 October this year.

A small number of submitters expressed concern that this amendment may result in an increase in harm from gambling or that the evidence against this is not currently sufficient. I am confident that the evidence is clear: this will not result in an increase in harm from gambling. I am advised by my officials and by problem gambling services that the temporary exemption has not increased the number of New Zealanders seeking help for harmful gambling. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s actually with pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, but I would just like to start by saying that I picked this bill up in my role as acting spokesperson for internal affairs just after it had had its first reading in the House. At that point in time, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, my colleague, was the spokesperson who was taking this bill on and, due to health, handed this over to me, so I would just like to take this opportunity to sing out to Lemauga and wish her a speedy recovery. We miss her in the House, Madam Speaker, so I just wanted to take—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We all do, thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —that opportunity. Labour supports this bill. It is following on from the work that I was working on in my time as Minister of Internal Affairs, and my predecessor as well, the Hon Tracey Martin, but then also my successor, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, around ensuring that there was a way that the class 3 lotteries could take advantage—I think is probably the best way of putting that—of the fact that the way that we interact with lotteries has changed in a very rapid space of time.

It particularly changed over the COVID period, where we were not being able to interact via paper any more, nor interact via cheque—it was more of a remote interaction in that space. As the Minister of Internal Affairs has pointed out, during COVID times, it moved to remote interaction, and these places, these charities—such as the Heart Foundation, such as the Royal New Zealand Coastguard, but others as well—couldn’t take advantage of that. The law was passed, firstly, for the three charities, and then in my time as Minister of Internal Affairs, we broadened that out for another short time to more class 3 lottery groups.

Now, the reason that it wasn’t made permanent at that point in time was to ensure that there were no unintended consequences that happened as a result of this—to actually see it as a bit of a trial, to see that the wider group could take this on so that we didn’t see a decrease in harm minimisation, because it is incredibly important that we’re keeping people safe from the issues that are caused through remote gambling in all instances. There wasn’t—and I have to say there still isn’t—good data around the class 3 area. While we rise in support of this, that is something that we still have caution around here in Labour. I know, on this full side of the House, there is that caution involved because we don’t have great data.

That is something that officials came to us at the Governance and Administration Committee and said. While they’re pretty confident—and I’ll take that on board—that it’s not a big concern, the intersectional data of those people that are being harmed by pokie machines or through casino gambling or other forms of online gambling is—we have an idea around that and it’s a pretty good idea, but we don’t have that idea whether class 3 intersects with that, because of the way that the data is collected. That is something that the Ministry of Health is very aware of and may be making some changes in that space, although we can’t say definitely that that is happening, but we can say that the there is an acknowledgment that there is not quite that understanding around the harm. It was a bit of a concern.

I know that there were only a small number of submissions. Overall, in this, we only had 15 submissions all up—mostly in favour of the bill. As I said, I really support that. There were those big groups, like the Problem Gambling Foundation and the Salvation Army, who did bring up some issues that they had with the bill as well and were against it at this point because of the fact that we just didn’t know the data. I have to say that I had a little bit of concern there around that because of that but also because we didn’t hear enough from people. That was because of that very short time frame that we were given for this bill. I get that; I get that we needed to have it done by 31 October. That is important because there is no way that we want to see those charities being impacted at all.

I’ve noticed very recently, in advertising that’s coming up on social media feeds, that some of these charities have lotteries that are running at this point in time, and I totally understand that we do not want to see that happening. However, I really just have a lot of anxiety about the fact that we just don’t know enough, in this space, to say categorically that no harm can happen. It didn’t give us enough time as a select committee to do that inquiry, and to work through that. I do think that there is future work that is needed in this area. While I say that we are very much in support of it, I do want to highlight that that data was inconclusive and not of a high quality, and that’s no fault of anybody in this House, but there is more work to do. So, while we are passing this here today, we do have more work to do in this particular area.

We did hear from some of those people, in the select committee, who are in favour of the bill, some of those people that run the lotteries, some of those charities who are already doing some of this work and sort of understanding the harm that might be being caused by those people who are buying their lotteries or wanting to know whether there is any harm in that case. I can see that they’ve already got some solutions that would be easy for this House and for select committees to look into for future changes to this bill.

The Heart Foundation did bring up how they monitor the big spenders that they see. They can actually reach out to those big spenders. If they see someone is spending lots of money on their tickets and on their lottery, they will reach out to them to ascertain whether they are people that are doing it because they are getting that rush from gambling and there’s an issue there, or whether they’re someone that just wants to really support the Heart Foundation. A lot of the places—I’m taking it that many more than just the Heart Foundation—probably do that. The answer was sort of given to us in there, but, unfortunately, as I said, we couldn’t put that within the bill, which was a bit of a shame, because we just didn’t have the time. It was sort of a missed opportunity that we could have had to actually make it a lot stronger at this point in time.

I know that Labour members did move in the select committee stage—and it says this in the work coming through—that they were in favour of including a clause in the bill directly addressing gambling harm minimisation. I know that the majority of the select committee wasn’t in favour of that, but I understand that too, because it’s very important that we do get this through by October 31. I am just signalling that there is more work to do.

I said that this work has to be through by that date, and it does mean that we need to see that those lotteries that are currently happening are happening within the law and legally, and that is incredibly important. Something that I’m not certain that people were aware of until this came up in select committee is that we now have a growing number of these lotteries that are actually happening online or in a remote way. From COVID times, when it was a very small number—or it was illegal at that point in time; so we went from there to COVID. It went from nothing, and now we’ve had an increase to 80 percent of these lotteries happening online. That is a really important statistic to show the importance of this particular piece of legislation to those particular charities and how absolutely important it is to them.

With that, I’ve outlined our concerns and how we see further work being actually needed down the track in this area, but I’ve also outlined the fact that we are very supportive of it because those charities do need certainty around the fact that they can continue to run those lotteries online. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party, too, supports this bill, but we would like to raise a number of issues and concerns, some of which are part of the existing bill but some of which were highlighted as part of the select committee process.

Now, first and foremost, as a vision, the Green Party believes that Aotearoa shouldn’t be a place where in order for people in the communities to get the kind of funding that they need to operate or to support members of those communities, they would need to resort to gambling in order to acquire some of this funding. Broadly speaking, the Green Party would like to see better avenues for these communities to be supported and funded rather than through this mechanism.

Let’s start with the select committee process. Now, the New Zealand public—and we have said this over and over again—was given a very, very short period of time to submit on this bill. One of the reasons and one of the excuses that we heard from the Minister was that the temporary allowance that has been given to the previous iteration was up on 31 October 2024 and that if we did not have a shortened select committee process, then it means that, for these operators, they wouldn’t know what they needed to do past that date.

However, I will once again argue the fact that the Government has known about this deadline for years in advance. In fact, it has stated on all of the websites that this deadline is imminent. It wasn’t a hidden date. This Government had the full ability to allow the New Zealand public the full submission period of six months, had they intended to introduce the bill much earlier. It is not a big bill, and it did not require that much effort; it just required the will of the Government to provide that time for the New Zealand public.

As a result, based on the select committee report, there were only 15 submitters, and out of the 15, the select committee only heard from three of those submitters because of the limited time. This is really concerning because, although it is to provide a permanence to a temporary measure, we have not been able to tease out some of the nuance around this, because the previous iteration was temporary. As a result of that temporary nature, we didn’t have the ability to look into the full extent of allowing remote interactive gambling for class 3 gambling operators.

We have seen in some of the reports, and also heard from the select committee, that there is no data existing around the fact that we don’t know what number of people have increased or the level of harm that could be introduced as part of the permanent feature. We have heard from the previous speaker in terms of the increase in the number of such operators who are now using the remote interactive gambling pathway as a way of engaging with potential people who might be contributing towards their charities.

There are some other technical elements that I think deserve some attention and that I am looking forward to discussing during the committee stage. I think part of that is in terms of what is included as part of the class 3 gambling operators. Now, according to the Gambling Act, section 4, in terms of what is considered to be both corporate society as well as society, it does cast a very broad net in terms of what is currently being captured.

Now, the other thing in terms of the corporate society and some of the things that also deserve some attention in terms of the kind of society and the approaches that we take in general, as part of the societies Act or the Charitable Trusts Act, is whether certain societies and certain charities should be made eligible to use this pathway in the first place. Understandably, there are a lot of charities that do a lot of good things for Aotearoa and specifically for various illnesses for children—to name a few, I think the Heart Foundation was one of the ones that did present at the select committee stage; the Royal New Zealand Coastguard; Countdown Kids Charitable Trust. They are doing what they can for the benefit of the New Zealand public and the New Zealand communities.

However, there are also certain charities that are included as part of the Charities Act. They are registered charities that may not be there, potentially, for the public’s interest. However, it does state that for a charitable trust to be included as part of the class 3 gambling operators, the money that is gained from such charities needs to be for an authorised purpose, and that could be incredibly wide in terms of what some of that can cover. I think some of the things that we have discussed in the House—for example, is a church considered a charitable trust? In all manners, they can now be considered as—if they should gain a licence—class 3 gambling operators and will have access to use this particular tool as well.

These are some of the things that I think deserve additional attention, because, although the bill itself is a tiny amendment to the Gambling Act 2003, in terms of the definition of what is considered “lottery”, the definition when it comes to, like I mentioned, “corporate society”, which covers much more primary legislation, and what is considered “society”, it does cover a much broader conversation that we should be having when we are going through the select committee for this particular bill. That is something that I am looking forward to asking the Minister during the committee stage.

Now, the other thing that I mentioned—let’s just quickly go back to the idea that, at the end of the day, there has been no real data as part of the select committee process that gives us any confidence around the ways in which the allowance for remote internet gambling has been used or can be used, or that there’s any preventions or precautions around the reduction of gambling in general. There has been a lack of evidence around the potentiality of increased risk for people who could potentially be gambling, or around the increase in their prevalence or susceptibility to gambling, as a result of this bill being introduced. I do admit that the temporariness of this bill has been put in place, so a lot of the operators may have some idea or some data around that, but, again, when we were making this bill or making this feature into a permanent feature, we have not had the time to collect those sorts of data and make an evidence-based discussion or an evidence-based decision on whether this particular bill or the permanence is the right approach.

A lot of this, again, in terms of the gambling aspect and the fact that we are looking at charities and also non-profit organisations or incorporated societies—the purpose of this—is on the basis of the need for these organisations to get funding but not in terms of what the society should be having or what our societies should be continuing while looking forward or going into the future.

Now, for the last bit, I just want to also mention that one of the things that we haven’t been able to tease out, as part of the process, is also the ability to collect payment via communication devices, under the definition of “remote interactive gambling”. There’s been no discussion around the privacy that is required around this and its compliance with the Privacy Act 2020. That, again, is something that I will be interested in asking the Minister about during the committee stage.

Overall, the Green Party is in support of this bill, but there are a number of concerns that we would like to tease out.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party is also happy to rise in support of the second reading of this gambling amendment bill. Looking back at the select committee’s report, we note that the Governance and Administration Committee has examined the bill and recommends that it be passed without amendment. I think it’s important today to acknowledge that around the House, while there might be some differing views at the edges, this bill looks set to be passed without amendment across the House. That is something that almost all submitters suggested, and that is something that the Department of Internal Affairs, in its departmental report, also suggested and recommended—that it be passed without amendment.

One of the sticking points was the aspect around gambling harm, but as officials told us and as submitters told us and as the committee examined and scrutinised, any potential gambling harm and risk is well mitigated within the Gambling Act and well catered for. In current legislation, current regulation, according to officials, according to submitters, and according to the majority on the select committee, they believe that it’s taken care of. It’s not hard to imagine why it is taken care of, just because of the nature of this class 3 gambling class. When you think about it, it’s those that are sporting organisations—the licence holders—hospices, religious groups, schools, non-sporting clubs, non-governmental organisations, and charities.

So, yes, we are moving to make that exemption a permanent feature so that they can do their fund-raising online via lotteries, but the nature of it, as far as gambling harm goes, is that it has a long lead. People are putting in $25 for Christmas cash or to win a house in Pāpāmoa or somewhere, and normally it’s not drawn for a month or two or three, so it doesn’t present the risks that can be heightened with the rush of gambling that you might see when it comes to the likes of casinos and horse racing. We need to consider the nature of these lotteries. As one submitter said, and I think a previous speaker alluded to, they have contacted those that might have, they thought, been buying too many tickets, and one answer they got, was that the person said, “Well, I’m actually not so interested in winning a house; I just want to support the Heart Foundation.” They said, “Well, there are other ways—you can do an automatic payment in other ways.”

We are very comfortable, as were the officials from Internal Affairs, as was the scrutiny of the committee, with this bill and the parental Gambling Act mitigating any risk around gambling harm. Without further ado, I commend this bill, the second reading, to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, this is a common-sense bill, and it is actually really good that it’s going to be supported across the House, but there are some of the comments which have been made about this which I do want to respond to. This is about allowing class 3 gaming operators to be exempted from the prohibition on online gaming and others to allow them to do online gambling.

I’d just like to remind the House that to be a class 3 gaming organisation, no machines are allowed. There’s the kind of thing that Cameron Brewer was talking about, about there being none of that immediate rush of a return on the gambling. They’ve got to be prizes over $5,000 and they’ve also got to be for authorised charitable purposes or non-commercial purposes.

Now, Lawrence Xu-Nan, when he was speaking, sort of questioned whether all of these organisations should be class 3 operators. Of course, that’s something that can be done from time to time. I note that some charities occasionally are challenged as to whether they are actually charitable or not. But I’d just invite the House to look at the six classes that there already are in the Act at the moment. The first two of them—class 1 and class 2—don’t actually need a licence. Then there’s this class 3, which is as I’ve just set out. Then you’ve got class 4, which is the gaming machines, which obviously is a much higher-risk sort of proposition, and we recognise that. Then you’ve got casinos in class 5, and then you’ve got class 6, which is lotteries. If you’re not going to be in class 3 and you’re in that category, what are you going to say? That you don’t need a licence, because you’re definitely not one of the others, or you’ve got to create an entirely new category. Lawrence, I can see you’re pondering this one now. Dr Xu-Nan is pondering this. You’d have to create an entirely new category for any of those kinds of organisations or simply say they are not allowed to raise funds through any form of gambling, which is maybe where he wants to go. That’s a pretty significant step for any of those kinds of organisations.

I’d also just like to remind the House that this class represents 1 percent of gambling, so it’s not a very large amount. We’ve already heard that the community organisations that are involved in raising funds in this way include sporting organisations, health and welfare organisations, hospices, etc. They are doing good work around our country. What we did hear from them in terms of the submissions is—we had 15 submissions. That’s not very many, but 13 of them were from class 3 operators saying, “Actually, this is really, really important to us. We want to be able to continue to do this.” Just two raised concerns.

Now, until COVID came along, all of that fund-raising was being done in an old-school way—door-to-door, postal, all of those kind of things—in really quite inefficient ways of doing things, I guess. What happened in COVID is that the Government of the day set up a trial of three organisations who were allowed to go online. We’ve already heard about those: Countdown Kids, Royal New Zealand Coastguard, and the Heart Foundation. Then, in 2021, that was extended to all class 3 operators. I guess the question I would ask the House is: has that resulted in a lot of gambling harm?

Now, when we had the submissions, one of the submitters who did appear in front of us was invited—in fact, I said to them, because they were concerned about the impact of gambling generally and online gambling generally and the potential for harm, “Specifically about class 3, is there any evidence that you can give to us as a select committee that it’s caused harm?”, and they weren’t able to do so. I think the key is there’s a significant difference between class 3 gambling and the other sorts of gambling—the machine gambling, the casino gambling—where there is that immediate investment return or loss of money. Those are quite different situations.

We had, as I said, 13 of the 15 submitters who were in favour—they were all class 3 operators. They said that it was essential to their effective fund-raising. I think it’s a recognition that the world has changed in the last four or five years. There is no going back on that. It will cost a lot more and be a lot less efficient for them in terms of raising funds if they were not able to continue. That is the key and that’s the reason.

Dr Xu-Nan again said this could have been done a lot earlier. Well, I’d just say to you that there is a lot of work that the Government is doing across a lot of different areas. I acknowledge that you don’t agree with much of it, but there has been a lot of work being done. The question is: where would you slot a piece of legislation like this in? Dr Xu-Nan did acknowledge that it is not a substantive bill. Maybe it could have been started earlier, but it’s been started now, and I think we’ve seen no evidence that there is a concern that needs to take six months. If we did take six months now, it would disrupt all the fund-raising operations of all those organisations for a very long period of time.

I invite those speakers on the Opposition benches to consider the balance of harm. The Department of Internal Affairs said there is no issue, the submitters were not able to identify any issue in terms of harm, and we haven’t seen any issue in terms of harm over the last four years of the operation of class 3 online. What that suggests to me is that there is very little likelihood of harm, but there is a huge likelihood of significant harm to all of those organisations were we to interrupt their ability to raise funds as they are doing at the moment under the temporary exemption if that was not able to be continued.

I guess what that says is that you either legislate to continue the temporary arrangement, then you have to come back knowing the likelihood is that you’d just want to make it permanent in a period of time when we’ve got some more evidence—whatever that might be—or you legislate now. Then, obviously, there’ll be monitoring over a period of time. If in the very, very, very unlikely circumstance that there was some harm that was found to be done, it is within the power of the House to legislate and say, “Well, maybe we do want to change that.” But I think that is very, very unlikely.

As I said, the Department of Internal Affairs said they had no concerns and that it’s very low risk, and that was around those issues of no instant gratification, no adrenaline rush. I don’t think that the concerns that are being expressed hold a lot of water, but I guess that is what the Opposition is supposed to do, to raise concerns about legislation from the Government. That’s what they’re doing, and good on them for doing that, but I don’t think that those positions hold a lot of water.

The Hon Jan Tinetti talked about the issue around harm, but I would also invite the Opposition to consider that the Gambling Act is not just about minimising harm; it’s also about raising funds for community purposes—so there’s a number of different issues—and also making sure that these things are well regulated so there is no corruption or anything else in the way in which money is raised through gambling. I’d invite the Opposition to consider the balance of the intent of the purposes of the Gambling Act, rather than just that one—important that it is—issue.

Finally, just consider that if we were to say to these organisations who are class 3 operators at the moment, “Look, for a while, we’d like you to go back to the old ways of doing things.”, it’d be a little bit like saying, “Well, for a while, just turn your email off. Turn your social media off.”—actually, that might be quite a good idea—“but turn all of those things off and go back to the old way of doing things for a while. Rely on the good old New Zealand Post and just see how you’d like it.” Now, I don’t think that many members of Parliament would think that that is a particularly reasonable way to go, and that is exactly what, in effect, a delay would do for these organisations.

The bill is common sense, it’s pragmatic, it makes permanent an existing temporary practice, and it’s a temporary practice that in the last three years has really seen no problems caused. New Zealand First is committed to policies that protect and enhance our communities, and I suggest that allowing these great organisations to continue to raise funds in this way in an efficient, practical way is good common sense. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call, and I call Takutai Tarsh Kemp.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Today I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, a significant and forward-thinking step in ensuring our charities can continue their wider work. This bill will make permanent the exemption of class 3 lotteries from the prohibition on remote interactive gambling, allowing our charitable organisations to thrive in an increasingly digital world and removing barriers to their fund-raising ability.

This legislation will directly benefit many community organisations, especially in Tāmaki Makaurau. Take, for instance, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, which provides lifesaving services to our whānau; and, similarly, Royal New Zealand Coastguard, another organisation that plays a critical role in keeping our communities safe; additionally, key organisations that are available to support whānau, like those in health, such as the Heart Foundation and the Kidney Society.

Many Māori-led organisations and initiatives rely on lotteries, raffles, and garage sales to support their community-driven projects, particularly the ability for our tamariki to participate in sports and extracurricular activities. Enabling these groups to fund-raise online opens up new avenues of support, making it easier for whānau and iwi across the motu to contribute to causes that uplift and empower our people.

A study from Te Rūnanga o Kirikiriroa does, however, raise issues around equitable access to community funding from the gambling industry, and the adverse effects that Māori suffer from gambling. This is witnessed with whānau still running sausage sizzles and turning up to sell chocolates. This must be a reminder for those charities to commit to honouring Te Tiriti and addressing their inequity.

Although the Minister notes that the temporary exemption did not increase gambling harm and although we support this bill, Te Pāti Māori acknowledges the negative impact this industry has had on our people and commits to monitoring the gambling industry in legislation made by this House to further enable it.

As the world shifts increasingly online, we must ensure our legislation reflects these changes. The temporary exemption introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that online lotteries can operate effectively and are fundamentally important to the ongoing operation and feasibility to support those who support us. By passing this bill, we are embracing the future and enabling our charities to continue the incredible mahi in an environment that suits the modern world. Tēnā tātou.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I take this call on behalf of te Rōpū Kākāriki, and we stand to support this bill.

But while we are supporting the bill, I’d like to reiterate concerns shared from this side of the House in terms of the way that the bill was progressed through the House, mindful that the six days that the community were allowed or enabled to provide submissions were short. For this type of issue, it would have been good to allow for more community voice to come into the select committee process, whether we could hear from those who have been impacted by problem gambling harm or those from the sector and community and more of our clubs and community organisations as well. With such a short runway, of course, community voice was limited.

Now, in considering where we’ve moved from beyond the pandemic, times have changed—absolutely—and this is an evolution in terms of the way that people can engage in these lotteries and support valued community organisations and sports clubs. Āe, tautoko, but we can’t get away from the fact that gambling does harm, problem gambling in particular, and I’d like to recognise those of the sector who did come before us to share their ongoing concerns, generally, around the way in which we have valuable community organisations and sports clubs who have to rely on this type of funding, generally gambling funding.

That creates a link between gambling and funding for community organisations. It’s like we can’t just justify that it’s for the moral good of our people when we know that there is still significant harm related to problem gambling and it’s created, actually, in our communities, a pro-gambling constituency who come into select committees and come into spaces to promote the fact that they need to access this gambling funding in order to be sustainable. I mihi to them, whether they’re a sports club or whether they’re a community organisation, because there just isn’t enough funding to sustain them. That’s a fundamental question for us all in terms of how we support our community organisations and sports clubs, such as these groups, to be able to be sustainable, to continue their good work in our communities.

Now, further, there was discussion around how there’s no evidence that the class 3 gambling actually does harm. Well, the officials did acknowledge within the select committee process that they don’t have the relevant data and that, in fact, the way that they gather the data from the problem gambling sector and those who do offer brief advice or counselling services, they’re not really able to differentiate, and that there’s like a section where you can write a narrative. Now, within that narrative, maybe there’s more information, but at a bird’s eye view of what was presented before us—I wouldn’t call it dirty data, but it was data that was not clear. We could not link how many referrals came through from this type of gambling into those organisations who offer problem gambling support services. I need to note that, in terms of some of what our colleagues have shared.

Finally, thinking about some of the submitters and acknowledging those from the sector who came before the Governance and Administration Committee, there is an opportunity for us to reflect as a House in terms of how we can not only look at legislation such as this to provide support to community organisations but also look to maintain the trajectory of reducing potential gambling-related harm. This bill does expand and provide access to online gambling, but remember that the Ministry of Health, right now, is consulting on their three-year strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm, which is actually looking at the regulation of overseas online casino gambling in Aotearoa, and yet we’re expanding on this form of online gambling. Where is the thinking in terms of the joining-up of these reviews and inputting into ministry strategy right now?

In conclusion, we don’t know the actual impact of lottery-related harm, because the data, the evidence, is not clear and it has not been gathered or the system actually needs to be changed so we can gather the relevant evidence, but the core of the issue is: how do our community organisations, our sports clubs, remain sustainable when it is such a limited funding pool right now for community organisations? Why do they have to rely on lotteries and pokie machine funding in order to put the lights on in the club rooms or to build a playground in their communities? Kia ora tātou.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): To be fair, I’m not a big gambling guy—not a huge fan of it in some contexts—so I had a little bit of sympathy for the Salvation Army when they came and spoke to us at the Governance and Administration Committee in opposition to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. I asked them about it specifically in the context of class 3 and whether there was something about this that they were specifically opposed to. They said no, it’s just their generic position that they don’t support gambling, because too often it takes from people that can least afford to give and, while some of that profit might go to do good, it’s taking from others. I have some sympathy for this.

Then I reconcile this against going to my local Returned and Services’ Association in Levin or Ōtaki, or Club Vista in Paraparaumu, and putting in a couple of dollars for a meat pack or a packet of Tim Tams or a supermarket voucher, or whatever the prize might be, and I think, like most people, that I’m not really doing it because I think I’m going to win or not—I haven’t ever won, to be fair; maybe that glorious day will come—but because we just want to contribute to a good cause and to the good work I believe they do in the community. Like the example we heard earlier, it’s a fun way to contribute. So there is a spectrum to this.

As I was reading the Kāpiti News last week, I read an article by Grace Odlum—well done, Grace—about Ngā Manu Nature Reserve. Ngā Manu is a great little asset to the Kāpiti Coast, and Anna and the team do a great job. In fact, they just won the tourism and hospitality award last week at the Business Awards—and it would be remiss of me not to take just 10 seconds now to congratulate all the winners from the Horowhenua Kāpiti Business Awards last week, in particular Peter Jackson Plumbing, which took out the top prize—and they have got an auction going on. They’re raffling a prize to win a trip to the Chatham Islands to fund the great work they do for conservation and nature there. They’re selling tickets in two ways: in person—which is not impacted by this, because this bill is about the online aspect, so it’s completely legit—and they’re also selling them online. That’s what this bill addresses. This allows someone like Ngā Manu to sell their tickets online, whereas they may not have been able to otherwise, for a great cause.

As Cameron Brewer pointed out, I think a really important point that may have been lost is that class 3 is about non-continuous gambling. It’s not like ones when you bid, you lose, you have another go, and it sucks people in—“I can win it if I just keep trying”—and people whittle away money that they maybe cannot afford to lose. In this case, you buy a ticket and you wait—in this case, until December. You’ve still got time, so head to the Ngā Manu website and support a great cause. You have to wait a number of months until you find out if you’ve won or not. As the Heart Foundation shared with us, they actually collect all the information they would have if it were done in person. They said they have names and addresses; they can really angle in on people to make sure there are no issues with problem gambling.

That’s what gives me a level of comfort that this is a logical thing to do—this is continuing what has been in place for a period of time—and, while I hear the comments about lack of engagement, actually, we’ve had a number of years to hear from the community what they think while this temporary legislation has been in place. So, because of that, because of the non-continuous aspect to it and the fact that it’s about supporting community groups and agencies that do good—it’s not about encouraging people to gamble in a continuous manner—that’s why I’m supporting this and commending this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. May I begin, as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee that oversaw the select committee process, by thanking other members of the committee for their hard work, thanking the officials for the advice they provided to us and their engagement, and, in particular, thanking the submitters who submitted on the bill and who spoke to the committee. Your contributions were very helpful in supporting committee members to form the views that they did and to put forward a select committee report and a recommendation that the bill should be passed, so my thanks to all involved.

May I begin my contribution just by acknowledging the former Ministers of Internal Affairs who initially brought this legislation to the House during COVID times. We’ve heard already from the Hon Jan Tinetti, who was the first Minister who brought the legislation to Parliament during COVID, and we’ve heard from other members also, during the first reading of this bill, that it was a solution to a very real problem for some of our large charities operating during COVID who were no longer able to undertake their fund-raising activities using traditional means.

We had organisations like the Heart Foundation, which has been mentioned tonight, like the Royal New Zealand Coastguard, who would often have raffles where they might be outside a mall, outside a supermarket, or at events where people could purchase these tickets and participate in a form of raffle, and often people would advertise in the newspaper. One of the things we heard from submissions was that a big part of it was putting an advertisement in the newspaper so that people were aware that these raffles were available for purchase.

Obviously, during COVID, when we were all in a lockdown period, we had charities that relied on this income in order to do their charitable work in a very difficult position, and the Government initially put in place a temporary exemption in allowing this to happen online for three charities and then a further extension to that which is due to expire on 24 October and which applied to all charities under this particular class under the Gambling Act. If this legislation wasn’t amended or extended in some way, it would put the potential for those charities to undertake those activities at risk. We did hear from some submitters that they’re due to have a raffle go live very, very soon, during that December period, and if this legislation weren’t extended further, it would actually put their revenue-gathering activity at risk right now.

Now, I did want to just pick up on some of the contributions about the lack of time during this process and some concerns that we raised as the Labour Party—and other parties like the Green Party also raised—which I do just want to put on record. These are around the lack of time for submissions in consideration of the bill.

One submitter told the committee that they weren’t able to put together a fulsome written submission to present to the committee. We offered them an opportunity for an oral submission, and they said they didn’t have time to prepare for that. That was very real, because we literally only had a couple of days for submissions to be presented to the committee. It is concerning to me, as the chair of the committee and as a member in this House, that we had so limited a time frame that we weren’t able to hear from people who were really keen to submit, who had something to say to the committee and did not have that opportunity.

Now, I note the comment from Andy Foster, which is that if we didn’t extend this, we would be in a position where we wouldn’t be able to have these operations for these charities. I accept that, but there is actually another option that could have been looked at by the Government. The Government could have said, “While we’re doing the policy work, let’s do a short exemption of a couple of months or so while we’re actually doing that policy work.”

They could have also brought the bill to the House a little bit sooner. They could have brought it a couple of months ago and that would have given the committee a longer period of time to examine it. We can appreciate that it may not have needed the full six-month process—because it is a pretty constrained, pretty tight, small bill—but there are some other things the Government could have looked at that would have allowed the community to have their say. As members, we should always be mindful that if we’re having people—particularly because this was an organisation with expertise in this area—saying that they didn’t have the time and the resources to submit, I think that’s something the House needs to consider when these types of situations arise in the future.

A few members have mentioned the submission from the Heart Foundation—an excellent submission—and they gave one example of where they had identified some potential harm. They were concerned about someone purchasing tickets repeatedly and discovered what hasn’t actually been mentioned—when they did some digging into this, did a little bit of sleuthing, they discovered that the person was a former winner of the prize. The person had won the prize before and obviously felt very lucky to have done so and wanted to continue supporting the Heart Foundation, so they did, as people have mentioned, come up with another method for that person to be able to contribute.

As a member of the committee, I was concerned, when I was asking questions of officials, that there hadn’t been enough time given to examining whether there is potential for harm, but I also don’t think the laws in place acknowledge that enough. I want to just read specifically from pages six and seven of the departmental report where, off the back of some questions we asked, we asked the department what current laws and regulations apply to class 3 lotteries to prevent and minimise harm.

I’m just going to read from the departmental report, which did bring up some concern: “There are currently no laws or regulations explicitly requiring specific harm prevention and minimisation practices of Class 3 lottery operators. There are specific sections of the Gambling Act which apply to the licensing of the Class 3 lotteries … which the Secretary of the Department could use to investigate an applicant’s approach to preventing harm. However, these do not explicitly outline harm prevention and minimisation approaches, and licence applications do not currently require such information. Additionally, section 313 of the Gambling Act … allow for the making of regulations for a range of harm prevention and minimisation purposes that could be applied to Class 3 lotteries. These are not currently utilised for this mode of gambling.”

It did go further to say that “Officials have not identified a need to exercise additional scrutiny”, and I do accept that that is the submission from officials, and officials have also made a number of other comments throughout the departmental report, which I did want to note as well because I think it is important to put this in context and not to, I think, make it appear that we have a concern so great that we wouldn’t support the bill.

The department did go on to say that their “examination of the licensing data held by the Department as regulator, and consultation on harm services client data held by the Ministry of Health … both demonstrate that there is no evidence for concerning industry growth or operations. We also do not find any evidence that Class 3 … is contributing to people seeking help for their gambling any more than prior to the temporary amendment.”, so that does give me some comfort, but as a legislator who has looked at this bill over what is a very short period of time, I think it is fair for us on the Opposition benches and for all members to be able to identify that this is an area where we think there needs to be some more work done.

I want to put on record today that I do support this bill going forward, because I think when you weigh up the benefits against the risks, I think the benefits far outweigh the risks that are there. That is our job as legislators sometimes, to make that line call, but I do still think there is still some potential for harm, and I don’t think it would be unreasonable for class 3 operators under the regulations to have to outline what is a basic harm minimisation approach. I don’t think that’s onerous. The Heart Foundation already do it. They told us, and other submitters told us, that part of this form of fund-raising does require them to collect the names and addresses of those who purchase a ticket. It actually would probably only be a one-page document on how to prevent harm. I don’t think it’s an onerous request for some of these large charities to have to do this, and I do think it’s something the Government should consider including in the regulations and the criteria for the applications for these types of activity.

On that, I’m pleased that the House is supporting this unanimously, because it will give that certainty to the likes of our charities who use this as a form of revenue gathering for their very, very important work. On that, I will finish my contribution and commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee that’s been considering this, this second reading is a really good opportunity to reflect on the submissions that we received during the period of time that we were open for consultation. There were two in particular that stood out for me. The first is from The Operating Theatre Trust. I just wanted to read their brief submission to the House so that we could understand, whilst we here may talk about this legislation, what it actually tangibly means to businesses such as The Operating Theatre Trust.

Their submission says, “We are The Operating Theatre Trust trading as Tim Bray Theatre Company. Auckland’s leading theatre for children. We are the longest running professional theatre company for children and have been making theatre accessible to all children and young people across Auckland for over 30 years. Being able to operate online is vital for us and many other charities to raise much needed funds. We ran a crisis campaign during covid and raised $100,000 by running an online raffle—which literally saved our theatre company. As we continue to navigate the current financial climate and funding landscape, it’s important to have this … option for fundraising.” That’s a really great submission from a local business that says these sorts of changes in the bill will have a real defining change for them in how they operate and will make a really key difference.

The other was from the Heart Foundation, who look after over 180,000 people who are living in New Zealand with heart disease every day. To do their lifesaving work, they said, “we [need to] fundraise and rely on the generosity and goodwill of people to donate and to buy tickets in our lotteries.” They also went on to say that when a supporter purchases a ticket—as the previous speaker, Rachel Boyack, alluded to—the Heart Foundation require the people providing the support to provide their name and contact details. “Unlike other forms of gambling, supporters are unable to play anonymously, and we know the details of everyone who plays.” And they said, “Since the temporary modifications that allow online ticket sales have been in place, we have had processes and measures in place to monitor lottery ticket purchases and minimise harm … Our research and the feedback we receive tell us lotteries run by charities attract participants who intend to participate for the purposes of donation. We are privileged to see and hear many stories of people who have themselves or have a family member or friend affected by heart disease. Many of our lottery supporters have this connection and their views speak to the support for our purpose, support for our charitable work and their support for change.”

This is a really pragmatic change to legislation to allow organisations like the Heart Foundation and The Operating Theatre Trust to increase their revenue and to continue to support the work they do. I commend the bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Kei te tū hoki au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire kei mua i a mātou i tēnei ahiahi. Heoi anō i mua rā, tēnei te mihi ki ngā mea o tātou kua eke ki te kotahi tau inanahi.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also stand to support this bill that is before us this afternoon. But before I do, I would like to congratulate those of us who turned one year old yesterday.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Kia ora.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to also make a contribution on this bill, and before I do, I just want to say happy anniversary to those of us who turned one yesterday. Let’s not behave as one-year-olds, eh? Though, everyone is behaving very politely because we are all in support of this bill today.

Heoi anō rā [In any event], while a house in the Coromandel Peninsula has eluded me, of course the Heart Foundation lottery is something I continue to support, as my father did. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to be able to do it virtually, because Dad used to send a cheque religiously in the mail. I don’t think any of us have any aversion to supporting these causes.

Another great cause, of course, is the Royal New Zealand Coastguard. That takes me back to the food festival in Whakatāne, where I was going diving for some kina in a marquee at one of the stalls there and came across the boat. I thought, “There you go, Russell; there’s your boat.” Did I want a boat? Of course I did. Did I win the boat? No, I didn’t, so that’s why I’ve got to go diving in the supermarket. But, of course, I’m happy to support the cause.

Everyone here has talked about this being about evolution, and that’s all we’re doing here today. We’re just continuing to allow us to move with the times, as we did with COVID, and allow these charities to continue. Everyone here today—especially the Hon Jan Tinetti, who gave a very fulsome background of this bill—has talked about what this means. That may go some way to allaying the fears of some of our whānau—i.e., there are no machines involved, this must be for a non-commercial activity, and, of course, the prize pool must be over $5,000.

That said, I do support everyone in the House today who has acknowledged the concerns of whānau. We know the damage that gambling has done to several of our families across Aotearoa, so I hope that the guarantees we’ve heard today and, of course, the steps that charities themselves are taking to keep our whānau safe from harm will go some way to once again allaying the concerns of our whānau and allowing charities to continue the good work that they do. I’m sure there’ll always be a place for the smaller organisations who rely on housing, etc., and they’ll be glad to hear they’ve still got a place, but it’s really good to hear that our major charities can go ahead and do their mahi.

Aside from the concerns that have been raised about the short time allowed for submissions, another tūpatotanga I want to put here today that I think we need to be prepared for is an influx of applications we’re going to have from charities who want to become eligible to raise funds in this manner. That’s something I think we should be mindful of, but, once again, I support that this is about evolution. It’s about continuing something that’s already been put in place successfully to allow great mahi to continue in Aotearoa. I just want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their recommendation and for achieving consensus, and we too, with caution, do commend this bill to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Obviously, I was not part of the select committee process, but I do also want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee on their work, and I’m sure it was a very heartening process to hear from some of the organisations that do benefit from this type of work. That’s really what I wanted to speak to in this position, because, ultimately, gambling is not a great thing. I’m not a gambler, and so I always think that the dollar is better in your pocket and being put to better use, but this is an occasion where this is a good use. This is a way for these charities to make some money.

We all know how hard it is to get money and raise money in these community organisations—and sometimes in these national organisations—and sometimes you’ve got to give a little incentive. To have a programme like this, these organisations have seen how successful this can be. We really need to be here to enable this, because the more these organisations can raise within their communities—and, hey, a little incentive of a house, if they can make it happen, or a boat, a bike, or whatever it might be—how good it is that we can raise funds for these amazing organisations. So, look, I just wanted to say that, of course, in this particular situation, yes, it’s technically remote and interactive gambling, but it is a lottery and what we’d consider to be a different thing in some cases. Like my colleague has said, it’s not a sugar-hit rush of the signs and figures coming up when you think you might win. You’re putting your money to a good cause, you know you’re doing that, and, hey, you might get something out of it, and someone has got to win, somewhere along the line.

I’d just like to acknowledge the Heart Foundation and one of the submissions made from the organisation at the very core of this, an organisation standing to benefit from making this a permanent arrangement for them. Look, they do amazing, lifesaving work and this fund-raising helps them hugely, and it helps them raise that goodwill of the people and raise awareness of what it is that they’re doing. These things serve two purposes: one, it’s raising money, and, two, it’s raising awareness. If they can use some of these exciting things that help people pay $1, $20, or however much it is to raise awareness for what it is that they’re doing, I think that’s a wonderful by-product.

Yes, it’s important for us to do this right and to make sure that there are strong parameters in place to ensure that this doesn’t take on a different life. I think that this is something really important for the charitable organisations in New Zealand and it is a way for them to sustainably raise money within their communities at a national level, so I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand to speak to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill.

I think the essence of this bill is that it’s a balance between backing groups to do good but ensuring that they don’t cause harm. If we just revisit the definition—and I know several speakers have, but I think it’s very important that we get the context of the definition for the bill—class 3 gambling is defined under section 27 of the Gambling Act. It is conducted without a gambling machine—and many speakers have acknowledged that—with the purpose of raising money for authorised charitable or non-commercial purposes, and with prize values over $5,000. Lotteries are the example that many people have used of class 3 gambling. Operators of class 3 gambling are required to have a licence, and the majority of class 3 operator licence holders are sporting organisations, hospices, religious groups, schools, non-sporting clubs, non-governmental organisations, and charities.

Now, many people have spoken about specific examples of organisations or charities that they’ve supported, and the good news is that I like long walks on the beach, and one of the great things about being the MP for the mighty Christchurch East is that it has a beautiful long beach.

Arena Williams: Stunning.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It is a stunning beach; it is a stunning beach, to confirm the assertion of that member. When you walk along that beach, at regular intervals along the beach, you come across surf-lifesaving clubs—bastions of hope in amongst the surf and the sand. Now, as you walk along the beach of Christchurch East, the first that you come to is the South Brighton Surf Life Saving Club, a fantastic club. Walk a little further, within eyesight, you will come to the New Brighton Surf Life Saving Club. A little further, again within eyesight, the North Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, followed by the Waimairi Surf Lifesaving Club, and then the Spencer Park Surf Life Saving Club.

Andy Foster: It’s a long beach.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It is a long beach. It’s a big electorate, a mighty electorate, in fact, Mr Foster. What these clubs do is very, very important work. These clubs literally save lives every summer with the people they have on duty on the beach. Not only are they saving lives and providing safe access to the ocean and the sea for not just the people of Christchurch East, but for anyone who comes to Christchurch or anyone who lives in Christchurch who wants to enjoy that long beach, but they are also teaching our rangatahi, our young people, amazing life skills and amazing leadership skills, youth leadership.

At the end of the season, I visited these surf lifesaving clubs and caught up with members, and some of these clubs are being run almost entirely by high school and university students, who are learning amazing life skills and who are showing great, great community leadership. These clubs are real assets to our community—we are very, very lucky to have them—but to come back to the point of this bill, which is to strike that balance between backing groups to do good but ensuring that we don’t cause harm, it’s ultimately about supporting and protecting community.

Now, if we look back, we saw that when we had COVID and we had to take the steps that we took, we did see changes to what we could do and how we could do it. One of those areas where we saw those changes was in fund-raising and gambling, and that was the point at which there were amendments made so that the organisations that do the amazing work that we’ve heard so much about from today from so many members in the House, and that I just talked about running along the long beach of Christchurch East, could move their fund-raising activities into an online format and could continue to get the funding that they needed to do these activities.

What this bill is about is the continuity of that ability, so we do need to see the continuity of that. We do need to see the ability for these groups and these clubs to continue to get the financing and the funding that they need. Although, I would note that three of those five amazing clubs that I talked about running along the beautiful beach of Christchurch East have had full rebuilds as a result of shovel-ready money from COVID, as well, so these are incredible facilities. For the ongoing costs associated with managing those clubs and with ensuring they’re supported, fund-raising exactly like this is really, really important.

I do understand the need for the continuation of these amendments and for the purpose of this bill, but I do raise the question: are we being careful enough? By doing good, do we in fact risk also causing further harm? We’ve heard a bit about the select committee process, and some members who’ve spoken in the House this afternoon were part of that select committee process, and they’ll be aware that Labour members at that select committee called for a specific clause to be considered or added to the bill to directly address harm minimisation. I think that would have been a responsible approach. In any bill or in any legislation that we’re shaping to manage gambling, to manage lotteries, and to manage the damage and the negative impacts that this can cause on communities, it would be good for us to ensure that we do directly address harm minimisation in these bills.

It’s disappointing to see that that’s not here in this case. It’s disappointing to hear that that call from the Labour Party members of that select committee fell on deaf ears and was not supported, but, ultimately, when we’re striking a balance between backing groups who can do good, without causing harm on the balance, I will support this bill. We do support this bill, but we have reservations about the process and the fact that harm minimisation couldn’t be included. We know that we need to manage the ongoing risks associated with gambling and with lotteries. Ultimately, Mr Speaker, I can commend this bill to the House, and I do commend the work of the amazing volunteers and clubs across the beaches of all electorates in New Zealand.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): It’s a pleasure to rise and close out the second reading of this bill, a bill I didn’t know too much about until I was offered the opportunity to speak on it. It’s been a delight to hear the contributions on this. What particularly delights me about it is the innovation that it guarantees to the sector that I care so deeply about, which is the charitable sector of New Zealand. COVID was a disruptive event that took much away, but it also gave us a couple of things, and one of them was innovation. We have seen the efficacy that it has brought to this particular area of fund-raising for that vital charitable sector. I’m delighted to see this House on the verge of keeping that innovation in place.

A couple of notes: two of the charities that have been mentioned throughout the discussion of the bill—the Heart Foundation, first of all, in the mighty electorate of Maungakiekie, that’s my electorate, which, therefore, makes this bill a great day for Maungakiekie. I was just opposite the Heart Foundation yesterday, so I gave them a wave while I was at the mighty Ellerslie primary school. I know their work well, and they will benefit enormously from us securing this ability for them to be able to run their lotteries online.

Likewise, I want to put a quick mihi out to the Coastguard Manukau with their new base—since their office out at Titirangi was devastated in the cyclone. But Titirangi’s loss was Onehunga’s gain, and they are setting up a new base there, down at the Onehunga foreshore. I was there, just last week, with our Minister for so many things the Hon Simeon Brown, and we were showing him their intentions there to build a floating wharf that will reduce their response time, in many instances, from the currently 45 minutes, while they get it off the boat trailer, to fewer than five minutes. All of that’s going to need to be fund-raised for, and, once again, this is where this kind of legislation is going to help them save more lives.

That is what this bill is, ultimately, doing. It’s helping the charitable organisations across New Zealand that do so much good work. It’s ensuring that they will be able to continue this excellent piece of innovation. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill

First Reading

International Treaty Examinations

International Treaty Examination of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime—Report of Justice Committee

Debate resumed from 26 September.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this important occasion. The House is debating not only the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill but also the international treaty examination of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. You’ll be well aware that these are two important pieces of House business for us as a Parliament to consider.

In 2001, the Council of Europe decided to progress its international treaty on the convention on cybercrime, and it was adopted by the 27 member States of the EU at that time, and then applied more broadly to signatories to the convention, like New Zealand. It has taken a long time for these conventions to be recognised in our domestic law, and successive Governments have been working through the arrangements that it would take for various agencies in our Government, like our police force, to be able to give effect to some of the provisions.

Some of these provisions are wide ranging and grant powers unlike Government agencies have held before. This would not only require, for instance, New Zealand Police to be able to require record keeping of companies and ordinary natural persons in New Zealand, which are unlike powers they’ve had before, but it would also then require international cooperation on these issues. It is something that this Parliament needs to be cognisant of when we have entered into an agreement which is now 24 or 25 years old. It also requires this Parliament to think about the updates that will be needed for that framework. When it was designed, it was in a world that was quite different from the one we face now, and the threats, in terms of cyber-crime, are quite different to those that were faced at that time.

Not only should New Zealand be continuing the work that was agreed to in 2001 at the Council of Europe level but we should also be looking for opportunities to improve our arrangements. The EU provides good examples for New Zealand to do this. For instance, organisations like FIMI, the organisation within Europe that deals with misinformation and foreign actors, are also relevant too when we consider the provisions that we have in our domestic law for cyber-crime here. We should be looking for opportunities to participate with the kind of legislative provisions that this treaty gives effect to and to do our part on the international stage as New Zealanders to improve the net around the world to deal with this kind of cyber-crime. It’s a pleasure to support this bill and to have had the opportunity to speak on it.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support this bill, the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. This legislation has to do with cyber-crime, which is not confined to borders. Those involved might be in one country and the victims may be in another, while evidence is kept on servers in a different location. The Budapest Convention, which this bill implements, provides a framework that allows countries to work together on investigations that cover cyber-crimes, such as the deployment of virus software, fraud, the distribution of child exploitation material, and terrorism.

Now, there are some challenges, because, of course, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. And that’s a less than trite comment, because, as we well know, right now, today, as the Israel Defense Forces are burning children in Gaza this week, the idea that we can simply designate a group as a terrorist organisation has its challenges because of the nature of alliances. We have to be very careful in these sorts of legislative frameworks that we actually uphold principles of international law, and those must be fiercely adhered to. I, sadly, do not believe that some of our traditional allies are adhering to international law currently. I have seen in this country myself—personally, in the case of Ahmed Zaoui—where someone is falsely accused of terrorism and gets on the wrong list and finds themselves in Pāremoremo prison.

We have some questions about how we uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) in terms of this legislation. It’s very important. There are some extremely valid concerns in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, human rights, and individuals’ rights to privacy. The potential for political refugees to be surveilled for minor offences and for people who there simply aren’t reasonable grounds for suspicion against—we must tread very carefully as to what we deem acceptable when someone’s right to privacy is breached, and the Greens feel the Justice Committee is the appropriate place to scrutinise and work through these issues relating to NZBORA and privacy concerns. We’re happy to support it to select committee, but we believe it needs thorough scrutiny.

Let’s take a moment to consider this bill in the context of one of New Zealand’s darkest days: the terrible atrocities of March 15, 2019. Fifty-one lives were lost, and we all remember how horrific that day was. One of the findings of the royal commission on the terror attacks was—there were 44 recommendations and only 18 of them have specifically been fulfilled. Recommendation 18 specifically called for New Zealand to join and implement the Budapest Convention as part of strengthening our legislative framework, and we support that for that reason—around terrorism and extremism—but here, we know, in the case of the Christchurch terror attack, that one of the failings of our way of seeing the world is that we can fail to notice, as our security services did, that the greatest threat was not coming from the Muslim community; it was coming from the white supremacist community. That is one of the risks with how we approach the designation of who is a risk to our society, who is a terror threat. Consequently, we had one of our worst modern-day acts of terrorism.

While this bill is a step forward, it’s not enough. This Government has chosen not to implement eight of the 44 recommendations of the royal commission, and I believe that is an affront to the victims, the survivors, and all the communities at risk of hate crimes in our country. If this Government is unwilling to take up key recommendations that could prevent such attacks from happening again, we must question their commitment to real change. The failure to implement stronger measures around hate speech is concerning. At the time when we are seeing an increase in online extremism, disinformation, and division, we cannot afford to ignore the root causes of terrorism. Terror doesn’t start with bullets and bombs; it starts with hate speech. Especially when left unchecked, it can lead to violence. We’ve seen that, and we see that all over the world, sadly, today.

Look, Aotearoa should not be taking half measures. If we take half measures and we don’t thoroughly address the causes of hatred and terrorism, then we end up with a worse situation. The principle behind this legislation is very important. We will support it to the select committee and we look forward to it having very thorough scrutiny there. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is important because it helps New Zealand move towards joining the Budapest Convention, the international agreement to fight cyber-crime. Cyber-crime is a big problem here, and I think, as Minister Penk mentioned in his opening speech, it affected 11 percent of New Zealanders just in 2023 alone.

The SecurityBrief New Zealand report reported a total of $6.8 million in losses to cyber-crime between 1 April and 30 June 2024—so it’s a six-month period of this year. A significant portion of this amount totalled $5.5 million and stemmed from 11 large incidents, which were a reported loss exceeding $100,000. Only, really, 11 of those were really large attacks.

The thing is that by joining this convention, we show our commitment to fighting cyber-crime and we align with our international partners. It will also help our law enforcement gather evidence, especially digital evidence stored overseas, which is often necessary for solving and prosecuting crimes.

The former speaker, Steve Abel, discussed the March 15 attacks, and having that valuable information and being able to share data is extremely important. I mean, it may, in fact, help us prevent further disasters like that.

The bill makes some key changes, including adding a preservation direction to prevent important evidence like digital records from being deleted before law enforcement can seize them. This is especially useful for records held by banks or telecommunication companies; while these companies won’t have to hand over the records immediately, they must ensure the evidence isn’t destroyed while the legal process is followed.

The bill also introduces new rules to prevent people from disclosing that they’re being watched by police, which could ruin investigations. It makes it illegal to tell someone that the preservation direction or a surveillance warrant exists, unless the risk to investigation is over. This is important because it stops criminals from being tipped off too early.

Additionally, the bill allows New Zealand to help other countries with their investigations and request similar help in return. This includes applying for surveillance orders in response to foreign requests, ensuring that international cooperation in fighting cyber-crime is fair and reciprocal.

The bill contains safeguards to protect human rights. It ensures that mutual assistance requests can’t be used to persecute people based on their race, religion, or political beliefs. A High Court judge will oversee these requests, and people affected by searches will be notified before any material is sent overseas.

In conclusion, this rule strengthens New Zealand’s ability to fight cyber-crime, both domestically and internationally, by protecting human rights. It gives law enforcement the tools that they need to investigate crimes in the digital age. I support this bill being passed. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I also rise to support the bill, on behalf of New Zealand First. This is about aligning our laws with the Budapest Convention. As best I could see, we weren’t actually a signatory of the convention, but the signatories cross every continent of the globe, except Antarctica. This is about us working with other countries to try and investigate and prosecute cyber-crime, and to do so more effectively.

We know that cyber-crime has an increasing impact on us all. This Parliament itself has been subject to a cyber-attack, and we’ve heard from other speakers that the perniciousness and the amount of cyber-crime and the effects of cyber-crime are only going to grow.

I just wanted in a few brief words to say that I think that the way in which people are abusing the wonderful technology that we now have in the, if you like, electronic communication—the internet, and so on—just undermines its overall effectiveness. You can look at so many places where you have communication and you don’t know where that communication has come from, and people immediately have to mistrust it. You kind of have to mistrust it, so these things are important.

I also wanted, in talking to some of my colleagues, just to reflect on the issue of identity theft, and that is something which has certainly affected some of my colleagues. It is where people have used the internet, social media, etc., to act as though they were somebody else and then to portray somebody in a way in which they are not, and it takes a lot of effort and a lot of work to try and undo the damage of doing that.

Suffice it to say that cyber-crime is real. It’s something that affects us all, and it is a very sensible thing for us to be involved and to be aligned with the signatories of the Budapest Convention to align our laws with the Budapest Convention. I know that it’ll be a complex process. There’ll be a lot of technical and legal submissions involved in it, and I wish the select committee which is hearing these submissions all the very best in trying to work their way through this. I commend the bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau, kua riro māku ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori e waha, e whakatakoto ki mua ki te aroaro o tēnei Whare, he whakaaro mō tēnei o ngā pire e kīia nei ko te Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill.

Ko te tikanga o te pire, mō te hunga noho ki te kāinga, he pire karo i ngā whiunga kino mā runga i te ipurangi.

[I stand, it is my responsibility to represent Te Pāti Māori and speak to what our thoughts are. To speak before the House today to the bill that is before us, the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill.]

This bill is for the people who sit at home. It’s a bill to parry off the bad remarks made via the internet.]

The Budapest Convention is known as the convention on cyber-crime. To all our whānau who are at home who might not get it from the title, it’s a bill about combating cyber-crime, and it’s an international treaty—an international treaty—aimed at addressing crimes committed via the internet and other computer networks, obviously. It’s good to see that the House is interested in upholding its international treaties, and we look forward to seeing that spread across all of the treaties that pertain to the House and the Treaty partners in it.

From a mana Māori or Te Pāti Māori policy position, we’re fundamentally opposed to the bill—we’ll just make that clear; fundamentally opposed—and we’re opposed on the basis of mana motuhake, in as much as Te Pāti Māori policy is to establish a Māori governance entity to hold authority over the collection, analysis, and use of all Māori data. Māori data sovereignty is paramount for the Māori future. We oppose it on the basis of mana ōrite [equal rights]. Mana ōrite is the guarantee of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Given the history of Māori being falsely accused of terrorism and other crimes, there need to be some protections to ensure it is not used to collect data or illegitimately target Māori independence leaders, like we saw in the Tūhoe raids, in a shameful operation that inflicted intergenerational trauma into the Tūhoe people and the Māori people at large. It wasted $8.5 million of the country’s money while they were at it. We are fundamentally opposed to the bill, but in aspects like mana mokopuna, where there are protections providing safety for mokopuna, then there is space for an ongoing kōrero.

To address the concerns around Māori data sovereignty, in the debate pack, a professor from Waikato University says, “The New Zealand Government should have sovereignty over its own data. The Government should have the right to determine who and what data is shared with overseas partners to investigate cyber-crime.” Kei te pai tēnā. [That’s fine.]

He goes on to say, “But Māori should have sovereignty over Māori data. Māori should be the only entity that has a say on who and what data is shared.” He goes on to say, “Examples exist in crime and health and education, just to name a few. We need the Government looking at Government data, and a Māori entity”—nē [right]; a Māori entity—“looking at Māori data from a Māori perspective.”

Te Pāti Māori policy states that Māori data sovereignty is critical to the success of Māori self-determination for whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori business. Unlocking economic and social potential is enabled by Māori data collection and analysis. Māori must own Māori data.

Māori data also underpins the development of the Māori economy. I reflect on the comments of Adrian Orr, the Reserve Bank Governor, regarding the latest Business and Economic Research Learning report, and, most recently, the report on the Māori economy, which calculated that it grew at nearly twice the rate of the total economy between 2013 and 2018. Māori data underpins the ongoing development of that economy, and that economy plays a significant role in the future of the country. So we look forward to this side of the House supporting it. Tēnā tātou.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A number of speakers have covered, at length and breadth, the content of the bill, so I wanted to confine my contribution this afternoon to a couple of aspects of it—first of all, just generally, the purpose of the bill in terms of supporting the Government and New Zealand’s efforts to combat cyber-crime. What we’re talking about here is international cyber-crime, because, as we will all be well aware, a good proportion of the crime committed online will be coming from jurisdictions outside of our control, so it’s important that these laws are in place and aligned across the world so that we can have a joined-up, consistent approach to that effort.

The second thing I wanted to talk very briefly about is what the bill actually does. Of course, as my learned colleague His Worship mentioned, New Zealand is not a party to the convention, but it is a signatory to the Budapest Convention. Of course, with all conventions and international treaties, those conventions and those treaties do not have force of law in New Zealand unless incorporated into domestic statute and domestic legislation, and that is what we are doing here today. We are taking a position as a Parliament and as a House of Representatives to incorporate provisions and to align our laws and to make sure that the strands and the parts of these conventions are able to be implemented in domestic law. The only way we can do that in a way which is proper and enforceable is through the Parliament, by giving Parliament sovereign right to determine the laws and incorporate international conventions and international guidance into our domestic statute.

That is what we are doing here today. That is what we are doing when we specify in legislation that parts of these international conventions apply and that parts of our statute book should be interpreted consistently with those conventions. It’s important that we do that, because it should be Parliament that determines what international treaties and international conventions apply. Of course, the executive have the right under our constitution to sign up to these and to accede to these, but it is the Parliament, it is the House of Representatives, that gives them force of law, and so that is what we’re doing here today. It is a genuinely honest and good effort and attempt by this House to combat the growing issue of cyber-crime across the international community. With that, I commend it to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak to this bill. This bill is really about joining the club that keeps Kiwis safe online. It’s pretty simple in principle, but the actual reality of keeping New Zealanders safe in online spaces, as we know, is not a simple one. There are a lot of examples of exactly why it’s not simple and not straightforward.

The 2024 technology, media, and telecoms risk report by Willis Towers Watson highlights cyber and data privacy risks as the primary concern for the technology, media, and telecommunications industry. The report surveyed the global industry and indicated that heightened cyber-threats accompanied reliance on artificial intelligence and machine learning for growth. Specifically, 51 percent of media and telecom businesses and 46 percent of technology firms identified cyber-security as a major risk.

More locally, Kordia tells us that the independent research commissioned by Aura Information Security tells us that more than half of businesses in New Zealand have been targeted by a ransomware attack just in the past year, and one in five of those businesses have said that that attack caused serious disruption to operations. One in five of those businesses estimates their organisation is affected by 16 or more ransomware attacks not per year but per quarter—that’s 64 per year. And two-thirds of businesses—and this is quite concerning—admit that they would pay a ransom to retrieve data after a ransomware attack. One in 10 of those would consider paying more than $50,000.

You can see why bad actors are motivated to do the attacks, to act in bad ways online, when companies and organisations see that the easiest way out is to pay the money and get their data back. That’s why it’s so important that New Zealand takes a step forward to join this club that’s about keeping Kiwis safe online. I guess you could say that it’s a coalition. It’s a group of countries coming together to keep people safe. It’s a really good coalition. It’s a coalition that’s been created for over 20 years now, and we’re invited to be members of it, and we should. It’s good to have a coalition that does good things. We don’t have really any recent examples in New Zealand of such a thing, so it’s good to be able to talk about a positive coalition in this House.

I am supporting this bill and Labour is supporting this bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s the continuation of the work that we started in Government. Importantly, it enhances support for victims of cyber-crime. We’ve all seen lots of stories about the really negative personal impacts that cyber-crime can have on people’s lives, on their businesses, but also on people’s health and mental health. For that reason, we really support the victims of cyber-crime.

It allows for ongoing updates to keep pace with technological advancements. I think it’s important that we think about that in legislation, particularly with the speed at which AI is rolling out across the globe and here in New Zealand—that we have legislation that’s future-proofed to be adaptable to address the challenges that AI will face us with, as well as the manifold opportunities.

Really importantly, as both a Christchurch resident but also as a New Zealander, it fulfils Labour’s promise to implement the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terror attack. I think that it’s really important that we follow through on those steps and honour those that we lost, but also take steps in every possible place to keep New Zealanders safe. It’s good to see legislation being progressed through this House that does that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me pleasure to rise on the first reading of the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. I don’t think, in the history of the New Zealand Parliament, we have talked so readily about the beautiful capital of Hungary, being Budapest. For those who are interested, this omnibus bill is 75 pages. It will take a lot of reading, but it’s available on the parliamentary website, for those who want to see what this is for.

This 75-page bill will ensure that the New Zealand legislation, as my colleague James Meager has said, fully aligns—fully aligns—with the requirements under the Budapest Convention, improving international cooperation, which has been well canvassed, against cyber-crime by providing a consistent framework for defining computer crimes, enabling lawful access to evidence, and outlining expectations on how relevant international agencies assist each other.

As has been mentioned, it’s had a long gestation, a 20-year gestation—back even further; the convention was signed in 2001—23 years ago—and now has 65 member States, predominantly from Europe but also from Asia, North and South America, Australia, and the Pacific. It entered into force in July 2004. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade wrote to the Council of Europe in 2020 expressing interest, and so today we are beginning that pathway of ensuring that our legislation, that our commitments, fully align with the Budapest Convention. I commend the bill to the House.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. And so it is right that I acknowledge the House.]

I join with colleagues around the House to support this bill on the Budapest Convention. I’ve actually had to look that up for myself—I wasn’t expecting to take a call on this bill—but what I found interesting was not only the number of countries that have signed up to it but the active cooperation, and this time around the world is really important for this matter. We are increasingly doing everything online, and the number of bad actors out there seems to get more and more each time I turn the computer on—and I’m not that person!

I think it’s really important that we make a distinction also about what’s happening here. To me, it’s a matter of cooperation around the world with like-minded States to address cyber-crime, because, at the moment, we can’t always do that. We’ve got to have that framework in place and the mechanisms available to us for us to be able to deal with it, and this bill delivers that.

There are some other things too, and my colleagues have mentioned also for us here in Aotearoa the recommendations that have been made on the Christchurch terror attack. It’s really important that this House continues to acknowledge that and passes this type of legislation, which addresses it. Those were the recommendations—to do that.

I am struggling a little bit with the notion of Māori sovereignty of data. It’s not the sovereignty—I get all that and I accept that—but this is about protecting it from overseas people. There’s a whole different conversation about the protection of data in New Zealand compared to data that has been accessed illegally and having a framework to be able to address that with other nations. That’s a totally different issue. That’s about our sovereignty in our country, not about the way that we interact with other countries around the world to combat cyber-crime. I think that that’s an altogether different conversation that we need to have; a valid one, none the less.

Anyway, it’s important, I think, that we do get collective agreement on this. I look forward to seeing what happens at select committee and whether Māori organisations around the country have the same view or what their views are on it, and that will be interesting to see, but, from my view, I don’t think we would separate that out or that we would need different kinds of protections, because there’s only one kind, and that’s cooperation between our nation and other nations to combat cyber-crime. Kia ora.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to have the opportunity to rise and speak in support of the bill before us today in its first reading, the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. As my colleague before me, the excellent, hard-working MP for Upper Harbour, Cameron Brewer, mentioned, this is an omnibus bill and that means it affects a number of bills, and that’s what we’re dealing with here today.

Look, I think my colleagues across the House, most of them at least, have given a good synopsis of what this bill is about. What I’d like to add is that, essentially, cyber-crime is crime that takes place via the internet. What we know is that cyber-crime and fraud at this stage makes up 11 percent of all scam victims in New Zealand and is increasing rapidly. I know that when we speak to police people, they tell us that as well. We do all make jokes about the prince from Nigeria, but that alleged prince from Nigeria is part of the 11 percent of people that have been scammed. In pursuit of finding where this alleged prince is, we commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the report be noted.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Tana.

Noes 6

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It’s a privilege to make the second reading speech on our first amendment bill for the Resource Management Act (RMA) in this Parliament. Well, it’s not quite true to say it’s the first RMA amendment bill—we repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act before Christmas last year—but it’s the first bill that makes substantive amendments to the existing RMA. I’d like to thank the Primary Production Committee for their excellent work reviewing this bill.

As members will know, the Government’s taking a three-phased approach to reform of the RMA. Phase one started less than a year ago, with the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act and the introduction of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which is currently before the Environment Committee. The purpose of this bill is to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on key sectors to promote development and investment in infrastructure, housing, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and mining. As part of phase two of our reform programme, we’re making quick and targeted changes to give councils and consent applicants the certainty they need to operate. We’re also speeding up the process for developing and amending national direction under the RMA. This bill changes both the RMA and several pieces of national direction, which are the instruments for nationwide policy and environmental standards that determine how the resource management system functions on a day-to-day basis. It also continues the Government’s drive to ensure regulations are fit for purpose and don’t place undue compliance costs on several key sectors that make an important contribution to the economy.

The national direction changes that are included in this bill are very important, because the Government—as part of the rest of the work we’re doing in phase two around national direction, which we intend to carry through to phase three of our reform programme—is keen to make greater use of national direction, national policy statements, and national environmental standards as part of that work. They are powerful instruments, used well, and, if I reflect back, one of the failings, I would argue, of the RMA in 1991 to actually operate properly is the failure of successive Governments to use national direction properly. That has changed, to be fair, in the last few years, most notably the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) 2020, which, of course, actually started life in 2016 but was significantly strengthened in 2020 under the previous Government. We, of course, are making further changes to bolster the NPSUD, which will come forward as part of that national direction programme of work next year.

We’re also looking to make changes to significantly strengthen the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation. The 2011 version was OK, as far as it went, but it’s now 13 years out of date and doesn’t reflect the environment which we are in now, where we have significant climate change obligations and a real need to make it easier and quicker to consent new renewable generation right around the country. The previous Government—and I see previous Ministers here in the House—did consult on a 2023 exposure draft of the renewable energy generation national policy statement. We have taken some of that work, and, in the new year, the public will be able to see a consultation draft on a strengthened national policy statement on renewable generation. It’s very important we make it easier to consent renewables; fast track is part of that, but we also have to fix the underlying RMA structure.

Anyway, in relation to this bill, this new bill will exclude Te Mana o Te Wai hierarchy of obligations set out in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) from resource consent applications. It addresses concerns about the way the hierarchy is being applied to individual resource consent applications, while we undertake a review and replacement of the NPSFM. The bill also amends stock exclusion regulations to remove the map of low-sloped land and associated requirements. The Government’s view is that the last Government’s policy was well-intentioned but took a one-size-fits-all approach. As a result of the changes in this bill, regional councils and farmers will decide where stock needs to be excluded based on risk and a catchment-focused approach, reducing costs for farmers.

Thirdly, the bill repeals the permitted and restricted discretionary activity regulations and associated conditions for intensive winter grazing from the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater. Feedback from councils and representative groups show there’s been significant sector-led improvements in winter grazing practices in recent years. It will still be managed through regional council plans and national management practices such as those outlined in the Ministry for Primary Industries’ intensive winter grazing module and agricultural sector initiatives. The bill now introduces two new regulations. The first requires minimum setbacks around waterways, and the second requires the protection of critical source areas.

The fourth change is to align the consent pathway for coalmining with other mineral extraction activities under the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and National Environmental Standards for Freshwater. This simply means that coalmines will be treated the same as other types of mining with similar environmental effects.

Fifthly, the bill suspends councils’ requirements to identify new significant natural areas (SNAs), for three years. This is to allow time for a thorough review of how they are operating, and my ministerial colleague the Hon Andrew Hoggard is working away on that. The criteria for identifying new SNAs was an attempt to standardise the approach towards identifying our most important areas, but there are real concerns that less significant areas are being captured, placing undue restrictions on how that land is used. Many landowners are investing quite a lot of time and resources into protecting native biodiversity, actually, and our Government’s view is we should be working collaboratively with landowners to incentivise more of this work, rather than a prescriptive, blanket-approach that dictates in a burdensome way to landowners what they can and can’t do with their land.

The final changes in the bill are about streamlining national direction, as I’ve talked about. It is, I think, a bit silly that under the RMA it’s typically a two-year process to amend or make national directions. We are removing, in this bill, the process of using a board of inquiry process. From memory, there hasn’t been a board of inquiry process for national directions since 2005. Instead, successive Governments have opted for a Minister-led process, which I think is the right way to go. We’re getting rid of that, out of the bill—oh, I’m sorry, my notes tell me 2010 was the last board of inquiry process. We are removing that.

We’re also removing section 32 reports. Section 32 in the RMA requires an evaluation report to be prepared when the national direction is made or amended. We’ve thought quite hard about this. The Government’s view is that they are largely duplicative with regulatory impact statements that the Government already has to provide through officials and then to Cabinet. They’re not quite the same, but they are largely duplicative, and so the bill will remove that duplication. It also provides a more straightforward pathway for smaller updates to national directions. It shouldn’t take two years to make minor changes.

One thing that has been added to the bill since its introduction is changes to section 107 of the RMA. Section 107 restricts when a council may consider a discharge permit—

Steve Abel: Lobbied by industry.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, actually, lobbied by regional councils as well as industry. There is widespread support for this change. It’s not just industry—you’re letting your prejudices get in the way of a good story there. Section 107 restricts when a council may consider a discharge permit, which is a resource consent for discharge activities, and before they can grant a discharge permit they have to be satisfied that certain listed effects are unlikely to arise in the receiving waters as a result of the discharge. It became clear, following recent court decisions that I don’t think were expected, that time-critical amendments to section 107 were needed to give councils and consent applicants from several sectors clarity about the law and the certainty they need to plan.

The change enables councils to continue to manage certain discharges under section 107, while ensuring that granting a discharge consent can be consistent with improvement and allow for that improvement to occur over an appropriate time frame. It applies to all discharge permit applications, including those that are under way. It’s not ideal to make changes to substantive legislation by way of, essentially, insertion of a select committee process, but that is the path that was, essentially, put before us by a result of, I think it’d be fair to say—most reasonable commentators would say—an unusual interpretation by the court. So the Government—well, the Parliament and the Government, I hope—is acting.

This is bill No. 1 of our quick and dirty—well, not quick and dirty; quick and targeted changes to the RMA. Bill No. 2 is under way, which will make more substantive changes to the RMA. Then, of course, we’ve got phase three coming in the new year, and I’m looking forward to seeing that under way. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I don’t have time to address all of the things that are in this bill. I’m not going to be able to deal with the biodiversity issues. I don’t have much time to deal with, even, the wetland change here, which is an exception to—I’ll go back a step.

Most of New Zealand’s wetlands, more than 90 percent of them, have been lost; 10 percent within that figure are the wetlands that are left in national parks. In non - national park areas, wetlands are even rarer, so nixing them should be hard to do. The sad reality was, until we moved against the nixing of wetlands, a further 5 percent of the remaining proportion had been lost in the last 10 years. We went hard on that. We thought we needed some infrastructure exceptions because it turned out we went too hard, and so we reinstated the ability to nix a wetland when you’re expanding a quarry. But you don’t need to do that for coalmines. Why are we doing that for coalmines? That’s what this legislation does. It’s terrible.

We’ll hear them say, on the other side of the House, as they did in the House today—the Prime Minister said, “We’ll need to import coal from Indonesia for Huntly instead.” It’s a different sort of coal. The coal that they run on the West Coast is hard coal for coking purposes; it’s not the sort of coal that you’d poke through Huntly in a dry year.

I’m going to spend most of my time on what’s wrong here on the water front. Now, to understand the water story, you have to go back in history. What went wrong in New Zealand that this country, when I grew up, that had these sparkling waterways, regenerated every second of every minute of every hour of every day fresh water coming from the mountains, flowing to the sea—sparkling rivers over beautiful gravel bases in the South Island—a bit different up north, I know, where they’ve got muddy-bottom rivers.

What happened? Well, what happened was the economics changed. The Uruguay round of the GATT capped the amount of exported dairy products that World Trade Organization countries could export to the rest of the world, that was subsidised. Therefore, there was no more extra subsidised production going into growing Asian markets, and that increase in demand fell to the lowest-cost producers in the world, which were New Zealand—which were New Zealand. A wonderful thing—a wonderful thing. As a consequence, the economics of dairying, relative to other land uses, changed. We also had technological advances with advanced pumps, centre pivots, k-line irrigation—the economics of irrigation changed. As a consequence, we had a rapid increase in dairying, which surprised everyone—including regional councils and including farming groups—the rapid pace of change.

The Growing for Good report came out in 2002 from the then Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Morgan Williams, reporting that we had a growing problem. In a couple of decades, we had something like a 600 percent increase in nitrogenous fertiliser use in New Zealand, and an increasing intensity of farm practice, particularly in dairying. We also had the economic benefits that came out. It became our greatest export earner, and there’s been a lot of wealth generated for New Zealand and a lot of jobs that are well paid for New Zealanders, which I celebrate, but we did have a problem with declining water quality. By the time we took Government, we had some standout examples of that, sadly. We had problems with intensive winter grazing.

Now, as the economics of farming changed, dairying spread into areas that can’t grow grass in winter, and they’re reliant upon winter crops to be grown. We had some poor practices. I see other members in the House deny this.

Mark Cameron: No, I’m just a farmer. I understand how it works.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, we’ve had lots of farm leaders acknowledge that this was a serious problem. I’ve got some photographs of how bad it got in New Zealand. These are photos of intensive winter grazing before we regulated the practice. Cows up to their udders in mud—appalling; I know the farmers here would not approve of that. I’m not saying the majority of the farmers did, but some farmers did and did it repeatedly.

This got so bad that the estuaries have been filling up in New Zealand. The worst one is probably the Southland estuaries, where they’re very reliant on intensive winter grazing. The recent sediments—if I can find the photograph of that, maybe my colleague will find it; a picture paints a thousand words. As a consequence, those estuaries are full of recent sediments that are 18 inches deep. The cockle beds have been dying. These are all photos of around the same time. We’ve got areas in Southland where we’ve got records of mackerel invertebrate health—these are the little critters that live under streams. We’ve got records that go back many, many years, and we know that, in those areas, compared—oh, here goes the photo of the estuary; this is the estuary behind Invercargill. It’s putrid. There is nuisance algae that grows. You walk across it and your gumboots get sucked off and the cockles are dead.

This, as another member would be aware, led to Jacqui Dean interjecting on me asking why do I hate farmers, and put on her record “Jacqui Dean says I hate farmers”, and that video clip was, by some in the farming industry, clipped to David Parker saying, “I hate farmers”, and produced on the internet, which is why some farmers still suffer under the misapprehension that I, one of the founders of the A2 Milk Company, somehow hate farmers. I do not hate farmers, and I object to the way I was misrepresented by members of the then Opposition at that time. That led to a change in the Standing Orders, actually.

It’s not only that that’s bad; it’s got so bad that we’re losing our kelp beds. This picture here that members won’t be able to see shows kelp beds in recent memory in yellow, and in the red we’ve got where kelp beds are now. We have lost most of the kelp beds around the Otago and Southland coast because turbidity has increased and, therefore, there’s less photosynthesis and the kelp beds are gone. We haven’t lost them around Stewart Island, because they are not subject to the same pressures. We’ve always had, after storm events, sediment, but we have a lot more of that now.

Now, in response to this, the Labour Government said, “Look, we actually have to regulate some of these intensive winter grazing practices.” We came up with a first module and it was criticised by the rural industries as not working.

Mark Cameron: It didn’t work.

Hon DAVID PARKER: There were some fair criticisms made of that. We worked with the Southland Regional Council in league with DairyNZ, Federated Farmers, and Beef + Lamb—Beef + Lamb because a lot of these problems are actually not on dairy land; they’re on land that’s used for winter grazing, which is sheep and beef land elsewhere—and we developed a new variant of that that did work. It said, “Look, if you do this properly on low slopes rather than steep slopes—if you do it on steeper slopes, then you increase by a multiple the amount of sediment that’s gone, plough along the land rather than vertically up and down it.” Simple rules like that—all sensible stuff.

We always agreed that this would transition into farm plans once they were stood up and had some force behind them, and that’s a good thing, and I still agree with that. Why get rid of the rule, in the meantime, which is working? I know the ACT Party, to get elected, went around the country and said, “Tens of thousands of New Zealand farmers were going to have to get a resource consent.” No, they didn’t; it was about 100 people who had to get a resource consent because the permitted activity pathway worked and was practical.

What else are they doing here? Te Mana o Te Wai is a concept which was originally a National Party term. They’ve turned against it now because it’s a Māori phrase, I think; not because of what’s in it. It, essentially, says, “Look after the health of the river first; then human uses, like drinking water; and, thirdly, commercial uses.” The select committee has pretended that that was an absolute standard and that everyone had to have the health of the water protected before you could do subsequent things. It never was—never was. In fact, the advice from the officials to the select committee confirmed that exact point to us.

Miles Anderson: Tell regional councils that, David.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Regional councils know that too—and regional councils—

Hon Member: Oh, rubbish.

Hon DAVID PARKER: They do—they do. They submitted to the select committee that they knew that. Were it to be otherwise, it would be an absolute nonsense argument because, otherwise, all of the other detail in the national policy statement becomes irrelevant. In any event, we left it for councils to sort out how they were going to clean things up over a generation.

When you hear this Government talking about balance, you know that it’s not right. They talk about balance, when, really, what they mean is more pollution. This should have been let to run—this should have been let to run. There are improvements being made; a lot of them are being made through catchment management groups. Who funded them? The last Government was the one that funded them. They’re great for peer pressure, they’re great for education within the farming community, but they do need to be underpinned by either farm plans or regulations. Until you have decent farm plans in place, there is a need for some regulation.

It’s a sad day when this Government is actually now legislating for more pollution of our rivers, when even now we haven’t got some of these problems under control. It’s going to take a generation to clean up, but at least under the last Government we were actually on a track to start that cleaning up. This Government has cleaned out the background regulation and they’re allowing our rivers to be further polluted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired. Members, 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 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House is resumed. Members, we are on the second reading of the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Quick and dirty is what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform called it, and that was absolutely correct—quick and dirty. It gets rid of unnecessary regulatory burden. It’s an omnibus apocalypse bill, this one. The unnecessary regulatory burden is the protection of the environment. It turns out that safe drinking water is an unnecessary regulatory burden and it is a barrier to the exploitation of nature. This Government wants to get rid of any barrier to exploitation of nature, and it turns out environmental protections are those barriers.

Safe drinking water was something that we thought was an important priority after the disaster in Havelock North, where people got very sick—people died, in fact. It was a terrible event. It was a consequence of agricultural contamination of drinking water, so under Te Mana o te Wai a hierarchy of obligations was created that said that you must first protect the health of the water; you must, second, at least protect safe drinking water; and, third, you must seek to see what are appropriate exploitations of water for other purposes. This legislation gets rid of that Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy, because safe drinking water is a barrier to exploitation.

In fact, that’s true, in some sense. That is true because the biggest cause of freshwater contamination is agricultural intensity. We know that. There’s lots of science on that. We know that the biggest cause of nitrate contamination is dairy cow urine. What I would love tonight is if the farmers in the room can get their big-boy pants on, because what we need to be able to do is have a mature conversation in this country about the system causes of harm to our environment and the system causes of climate contamination without people feeling like we’re making a personal affront to farmers. We love farmers and we need farmers. We need to be able to have a big conversation about the worst effects of agricultural intensification on our fresh water, on our marine coastal environment, and on our climate.

Now, this bill, if you look at the catchment, it turns out that you put a whole lot of sheep and a whole lot of cows and a whole lot of fertiliser in a catchment and you get increased nitrate in the drinking water. That’s one of the effects that you get in Southland with intensive winter grazing. Southland has had a hellish winter, let’s be fair—a miserable winter, no fun for the animals; no fun for the farmers either. Let’s be clear: farmers are not sociopaths. They do not want to see their animals suffer; they do not want to see their animals die, but they have died in vast numbers in Southland this winter because of what a miserable winter it’s been.

One of the effects that this bill gets rid of is the intensive winter grazing rules that go some way to protecting animals and protecting water and fresh water. The regulatory impact statement from the Ministry for Primary Industries said, “if done poorly or too extensively, … winter grazing can have serious negative effects on both animal welfare and the environment, particularly freshwater and estuary health.” It can increase the “discharge of nutrients, sediments, and microbial pathogens into surface water and groundwater.” by stripping the land of its vegetative cover. Forest & Bird says, “winter grazing had disproportionately greater adverse effects on freshwater, and therefore on whatever marine environment it drained into.” Te Ohu Kaimoana, representative of 58 iwi, pointed out that “loosening [the] restrictions on land-based activities, erosion of soil and the subsequent pollution of coastal marine areas would in fact ‘achieve the opposite’ ” to supporting the fisheries and agriculture sector, “ ‘undermined the rangatiratanga of iwi/Māori and failed in its obligations as a Treaty partner under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.’ It violated these obligations”—the Crown, that is—“by failing to seek feedback, … also by neutering Te Mana o te Wai, a move the New Zealand Māori Council called ‘absolutely outrageous and unconscionable’ ”.

These things—Te Mana o te Wai, protection of the marine coastal environment, protection of fresh water—are a barrier to the exploitation that this Government wants to facilitate. The quick and dirty—the quick and dirty and the dead, you could say, in terms of the consequences of water contamination. That’s what they want: exploitation of nature. The barrier to it is protection of nature. That’s the intensive winter grazing. That’s Te Mana o te Wai.

Wait, there’s more—can you believe it? Yes. What about the negative effects of climate change on the environment? It turns out that one way that you make more extreme weather events such as we saw in the South Island this year—not that we expect to see any more of those; that was a one-in-100-year thing! Yeah, right. One of the ways you make that worse is by putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Hey, I know—we could mine more coal, and we could do it by destroying one of the most effective means of sequestering carbon there is on the Earth: wetlands. We could destroy wetlands to mine coal. That’d be good! That’s why I’m calling it an omnibus apocalypse bill, because that is exactly what this legislation does. It says that, though we’ve destroyed 90 percent of our wetlands in this country, we’re going to make it easy to destroy some of the last 10 percent to mine coal—true story. You can’t believe it, but it is what this Government is doing. Indeed, as the Minister put it, it is quick and dirty.

What about significant natural areas? Significant natural areas are areas where biodiversity is of high value, and they are designated as that for very good reason. I just want to acknowledge something here in terms of the farming community. There are many farmers who do incredible work on their land with protection of significant natural areas. They gazette those as Queen Elizabeth II National Trust covenants. There are farmers who protect gullies, who do riparian planting, who restore wetlands. I even know farmers who’ve created new wetlands on their farms, so all credit to them and big ups to them. That is absolutely awesome, and we want to see more of that and we want to support that.

One of the challenges we have in a global biodiversity crisis is identifying those precious areas of biodiversity that have not yet been destroyed and harmed, and, to be clear, New Zealand has cleared more of its lowland rainforest than the United States, than Canada, and than Australia. We have 7 percent of our lowland rainforest left. Extraordinary, isn’t it? But those are the facts. Most of that lowland forest is cleared for farming, so where farmers are protecting that lowland forest—absolutely important, but also we need to identify where those vital biodiversity areas are. Otherwise, we are going to get what? A return to the general clearance of land out of an ignorance of where the really valuable land is. As Forest & Bird pointed out, the pretext for the idea that we have to get rid of these significant natural areas is in fact incorrect. In fact, there is a lot of work done with farmers identifying their significant natural areas and highlighting to them the bits that are most valuable to protect and should most be looked after. This legislation, believe it or not, pauses the identification of significant natural areas—yet another example of diminishing our action on climate change and on biodiversity protection.

Another thing that was extraordinary that we experienced on the Primary Production Committee is section 107, amended by clause 23A. It was a court case that was held—actually, I might leave it to my colleague to speak to this. It was a court case that was held and it found that there was a necessity to ensure that there was mitigation of pollution put into significantly polluted rivers. At the last minute, after the hearings had been held, industry groups got hold of the Government and said, “This is a problem. You need to get in the way of this and stop this from happening. You need to make sure that this court case finding is not upheld, because it’s a barrier to our ability to continue to exploit fresh water.” Now, as Forest & Bird said about the significant natural area thing, it was deliberately inaccurately politicised. It misrepresented how significant natural areas are identified, how landowners can input into significant natural area identification processes, and what the implications are of having significant natural areas identified on a person’s land. It removes the critical tools of councils in their planning tool boxes for protecting nature as part of a sustainable management. “They are [efficient], as they make a move back to general vegetation clearance rules inevitable”. That’s what this legislation does.

What we see here is an omnibus apocalypse bill. It is indeed quick and dirty. It is an example of how this Government, on many counts, sees the protection of nature as a barrier to exploitation. It is a truly regressive, backwards way of looking at nature. We are going to see more degraded waterways, we’re going to see more contaminated drinking water, we’re going to see a more polluted marine coastal environment, we’re going to see more misery and suffering for animals, and we’re also going to see more destruction of biodiversity. In all counts, it is disastrous. We condemn this bill.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I always enjoy the opportunity to debate my colleagues on the left side of the House, and doing this tonight, to speak to the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, is certainly one of those opportunities.

I don’t enjoy conflation in this House, although I’ve just heard a fair amount of it. I’ve heard language like “barriers to exploitation”, as if somehow this Government is hell bent on destroying the environment. What we are trying to do is speak to pragmatism, and I just want to touch on previous remarks by the former Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, who did speak to a perceived animus that rural New Zealand had for that gentleman. I don’t believe that is the case. I think the perceived animus was from farmers who were disgruntled by lawmaking that didn’t understand causality—cause and effect—and some of the hyperbolic statements from the member Steve Abel just now insert a sort of rationale, you might say, that we’re hell bent on destroying the environment. What an absolute nonsense. We live in the environment.

The member spoke about significant natural areas, and I want to delve into that. I want to delve into intensive winter grazing. I want to delve into the national policy statement (NPS) for 2020 and what that looks like, and stock exclusion rules. I’ll start in reverse order, if I may, about some of the remarks pertaining to not caring about animals, and animals being knee deep, or hock deep, as we would call it—udder deep—in mud in intensive winter grazing. That is a reality. In regards to the stock exclusion and intensive winter grazing legislation framework that we have proposed in this, that affords farmers a reality to feed their livestock to mitigate concerns about animal welfare. Feeding caloric value is what it’s actually called—so we can introduce enough calories to our animals on a daily basis, because that part of the world doesn’t grow at that time of the year.

Steve Abel: Isn’t that—

MARK CAMERON: No, let’s debate this. That member has made some pretty flippant remarks, saying that we don’t care about the animals, and I think that out of ignorance—I think was the terminology; that is a nonsense.

The NPS, when we are talking about fresh water, remarks about Te Mana o Te Wai—now, if I can frame that for this House. When you’re a farmer, when you’re a rural person, and when you live in rural New Zealand, you hear all the time of a hierarchy of obligations and what it means in rural New Zealand, and it’s predicated on, in descending order, a set of “thou shall not do”, if you might like, principled on spiritual, then cultural, and then economic. Well, I’m sorry, Mr Abel, and to others here, but we’re an economically hamstrung society. Rural New Zealand is the first to bear the brunt of this stuff. Legislators in this House come into my backyard and say, “You can’t do that.” That is a nonsense—that is a nonsense.

The mauri, or the life-force, of the water—former Minister Parker mentioned that somehow it wasn’t being exercised by councils. Councils can’t even interpret this themselves. They’re saying to us that they don’t understand it, and it quite literally could mean—in some of the submissions we heard—changing the watercourse to alleviate said flooding is changing the mauri, or the lifeforce, of the water, and yet that member over there and others say that Te Mana o Te Wai is not a problem, with the adherence to the hierarchy of obligations. Well, I’d wager anyone that it absolutely is.

Cultural next—I’m sorry, but if we are in the red, as farmers—we are certainly not in the black and investing in the kinds of things that Mr Abel asserts we should otherwise care about. Stock exclusion rules and intensive winter grazing was canvassed ad nauseam in the select committee. I just want to commend all my committee. They work collegially, they work hard, we debate the issues, and I think we represented New Zealand in our capacity pretty well, but I make a couple of observations. I am a farmer. That is a practical reality of feeding animals in a part of the world that has limited growth at that time of the year. It is a nonsense that the members opposite would assert—former Minister Parker referenced this before—sedimentation loss. We as cow cockies, wool growers, farmers, everyday people, talk about the top four inches. That is gold to us. I don’t need to have evangelical sermons from said member lecturing me on how to plough a field. I do it daily. Why on earth would farmers in rural New Zealand want to see their sediment wash down a waterway?

To Minister Parker and other members that criticise and critique, I would say that is a nonsense. We don’t do that. That’s the kind of asset we’ve spent an inordinate amount of money on a mortgage trying to preserve. It is a practice, and we do everything to try and alleviate that: riparian planting, buffer zones, minimum areas that we would not otherwise, you might say, harvest for winter grazing purposes, or certainly cultivate. So, sorry, sir, I maintain that some of your remarks are something of a factual nonsense. It’s not actually something that we do. We live in the world of reality.

Hon David Parker: A picture paints a thousand words sometimes.

MARK CAMERON: Well, I’m sorry, Minister Parker, you and I certainly disagree on this one.

I just want to tie off with a couple of other remarks, if I can. When it came to significant natural areas, Minister Hoggard and I traversed and talked about this ad nauseum, at length. It’s something that farmers took huge umbrage with. I have known and spoken to many people, both in the submissions process and post that, where they have said whole areas of their farms were encapsulated in a significant natural area—not parts of it; the whole blessed thing. Now, you try and reconcile that when you’re a rural New Zealander, when now the council has veiled the entire property, which you own a mortgage over, and said, “Factually, the way you farm is going to have to change because it is deemed a significant natural area.”

That’s why we changed the legislation. That’s why this gentleman beside me worked so damnably hard to put some common sense back into the conversation, giving council that extension period so they wouldn’t rush to judgment, they wouldn’t create a significant natural area just because they could; they would actually ascertain whether it needed to be done—was it, in fact, something that otherwise would not need to be caught by the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity? That’s the kind of pragmatism that this country needs. We are economically depressed. I am tired, as a rural New Zealander, having been beaten up by people that do not understand my life, that farming people are not being listened to.

Causality, cause and effect—and I’ll tie off with one other final remark. There have been assertions made that we have to do more to care for the environment, whether it’s significant natural areas, whether it’s issues to do with intensive winter grazing, whether it’s to do with fresh water and the NPS for fresh water. All of the above are the kinds of things that we as farmers, wool growers, cow cockies, we live with every day. We don’t need to have it lectured to us by this place. We live with it. That is our backyard. We own a mortgage that protects it, and we do damnably well to try and create tomorrow being a little bit better than today. This legislation affords that. It creates the environment that somehow will get a little bit more economic security, you might say, with all the difficulties that are being thrown against rural New Zealanders. Some of it is climate, some of it is market driven, some of it is silly lawmaking, both current and former, all of which we have to reconcile and debate.

I will not apologise to this House and anyone in it for standing up for rural people and an outcome that creates a slightly better tomorrow than today. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and may I start with congratulating the previous speaker, Mark Cameron, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, and the select committee for the work that they have done on this omnibus bill. Planning law of this type—Resource Management Act stuff—is highly complex. They have gone to work, they’ve put a practical lens over it, and I think that that, essentially, was what was missing from the earlier version of many of these measures that we’re discussing today. I will congratulate the committee on that.

I too would like to reflect on some of the comments that the Hon David Parker made in his address, which was interesting. He talked about the sparkling waterways of his youth. Actually, if you go back in history, Mr Assistant Speaker O’Connor, I know that you are from a dairy farming background on the West Coast, and I’m sure this wouldn’t have applied to your property, but all the piggeries and all the dairy sheds were on the creek banks so that they could just wash the effluents directly into the creeks. All of the factories were by the creek banks, so any waste was disposed of right into the waterways. I think some of the utopian views of how we’ve managed water in the past are somewhat overblown, although I do take the former Minister’s point. I think his overall history was correct in that we did have an intensification of farming—particularly around the dairy industry—in quite short order.

I don’t think we quite understood what those implications were and, in some cases, we have reached or exceeded the ecological limits, and we should not be in denial about that, but the bit that the former Minister missed was the response to that. Things have changed remarkably—the attitude. We’ve come to terms—as I say, we’re not in denial about some of these things, and where we’ve had issues, we have moved dramatically, as an industry. Whether it be sheep and beef, whether it be horticulture or dairy farming, the management practices have changed dramatically.

You only have to look at the catchment groups, and I can’t speak highly enough of the catchment groups. There are 290 catchment groups now around the country doing actual, practical things on the ground, not because they’re regulated—and I do take the earlier point that they were initiated and supported in some cases by the previous Government, and that is a good thing. Those are the measures that will actually move the dial. There is some absolutely incredible work going on out there, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has identified that in his latest report. It’s actually finding out where the critical areas are and working collectively on a catchment by catchment basis. This is how we reverse and engineer our way out of any issues that we might have.

In terms of the bill itself, I’d just like to go through some of the key points. Te Mana o te Wai: we’re excluding that from the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management in terms of that hierarchy. This was an incredibly dangerous piece of planning law. It was so vague, it would have been great for Steve Abel and his mates over in the NGOs and the Green Party, because every time they got to the Environment Court, they would have just had to put up one phrase and they would have won because it was a catch-all. It’s not good planning law to have such a vague and nebulous term. We have come back to a more structured and balanced approach.

In the low-slope maps, those indicative of the one-size-fits-all regulation that was so heavily criticised by the farming community—those low-slope maps often mean that, actually, quite extensive farms with very low stocking rates would need to fence off enormous lengths of territory, especially if you had a number of tributaries going through your farm. In some cases, it was hundreds of thousands of dollars per farm, often at very low stocking rates and for very little environmental outcome. It takes away the fact that we do recognise the issue and that we have fenced off many of our waterways, and certainly in more intensive areas, almost all of them, but there is also the innovation—the collars. There are companies like Halter, Gallagher—whatever—that have got these collars now, which use high-frequency sound. This innovation is actually like farming by magic. You can actually draw a line on a map and the stock won’t go past that point. It has now been rolled out in the beef industry. With beef cows on hill country, you don’t have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fencing; you can merely keep them out by putting a collar on them.

There is so much innovation and stuff we can do, and this is not just being driven by regulatory requirements; it’s being driven by our markets. We’re an exporting nation. We’re trying to get premium products into higher-niche markets, and we absolutely understand the imperativeness of looking after our environment and looking after our animals. As Mark Cameron pointed out, looking after our topsoil—no farmer wants to have their topsoil degraded by poor management practices.

The other thing too is the unintended consequences around this because of the winter grazing rules. Farmers trying to get round the need for resource consents and the like for their winter grazing—actually, in some numbers; in Southland, in particular—have gone to bale grazing, which is all-grass wintering, where they put bales of hay out and the stock gather round and chew on the hay or the baleage. That has caused enormous damage, far greater than any properly managed winter grazing system.

There are unintended consequences from some of this stuff. The practical people on the Primary Production Committee would recognise those things and could see those unintended consequences, and that’s why we’ve got a much better set of regulations coming in.

Minister Jones would want me to reference the coalmines and the standardising of those regulations with other mineral extraction. That is just a sensible provision and it was something that was skipped in the early drafting of the bill that the Primary Production Committee has picked up.

The review of the significant natural areas (SNAs), at its core, is a property rights issue—absolutely a property rights issue. I noticed that Mr Parker had plenty of photographs, but Minister Hoggard has held up a few of his own, showing areas of very sparse scrub or matagouri, essentially, that is being captured as SNAs, and it had just gone too far. We do need to have a look at that. We have pressed pause.

Steve Abel, in his address, actually mentioned the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust covenants (QEIIs)—what is it, Minister Hoggard; is it 280,000 hectares that’s in QEIIs—

Hon Andrew Hoggard: It’s enough.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: —and, of course, a third of New Zealand is actually in the conservation estate, anyway. Internationally, comparatively speaking, we’re an absolute ecological wonderland, but we do have to make a living in the world and we do that by farming. We’re the best farmers in the world and the most efficient farmers in the world. We’re the best at growing grass and we have to lean into that. We have to accept that that’s how we pay for our social services and the like. Essentially, 82 percent of it comes through our primary sector still. We cannot be kneecapping these industries unnecessarily. They do need sensible and measured regulation.

I did want to speak to the amendment to section 107 and the court—again, we’re having to react to this through court rulings. Essentially, there was a vast group of farmers in Canterbury that just would not have been able to farm under this, because, technically, their regional council would not have been able to roll over their resource consents. The Minister himself, in introducing the bill, suggested that it wasn’t an ideal scenario to be bringing it in in this way, but our hand was forced and we have acted. We have been responsive to those regional councils that have come to us.

Farmers are absolutely committed to better environmental outcomes. We, as a Government, believe and trust in them. We will work with them, and this is why New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute, split call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Tēnā koe, te Pika. I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori as, actually, the nation’s first rural people. All our marae, our papakāinga, are in the rural area so I feel that we are more than equipped, with thousands of years of experience, to talk on behalf of the rural community. Let’s go there—before we have this argument about how only farmers have an affinity with the rural community, most Māori are some of the largest shareholders of the largest milk providers in the Parininihi Ki Waitotara and the Fonterras. None of us stand here alone without other economic interests, and I think this analogy that I can only be representing one sector of a community is short sighted—as short sighted as those who are talking about the removal of Te Mana o te Wai.

Had it been called something else, I wonder if we would be even here debating the exclusion and even having it excluded. Te Mana o te Wai is a world-leading—absolute world-leading—policy, simply because it protects the health of our water, not just for me as the first rural community but for all people’s mokopuna, for all of the community. What we are seeing is that ditched for the interests of commercial exploitation or interests.

Te Mana o te Wai was about lifting the level, lifting the standard—dare I say, lifting the game. I don’t know how many in this electorate live in rural areas, but in my rural area we are constantly told to boil our water, not to swim in this awa, not to take kai from this awa, not to go near this stream, and it is because of pollution that comes from sectors that should and could be doing better.

Now, I want to talk about the bad rural farmers, and they are bad farmers who don’t give a hoot about the protection and the stopping of pollution of our wai. That is why and that is how significant this kaupapa was. What we have now is a bill that is excluding Te Mana o Te Wai, again, for no other reason than because it is a Māori policy, even though it’s a Māori policy intent to protect everyone.

We have freshwater management from resource consenting processes that are simply, in the national policy statement, being replaced. We have to seek to align a whole consenting pathway, so that—let me be really clear to our whānau who are watching this; bored, thinking, “What the heck are they doing now?” They are wiping things out to make it easier for the consenting pathway for coalmining and other mineral extraction. This is another commercial ploy. It is about profit before people and profit before planet, nothing else; there’s no other way to explain this. It’s amending the Resource Management (Stock Exclusion) Regulations 2020 in relation to sloped land. OK? It’s repealing the permitted and restricted discretionary activity, and it’s also making it easier to speed up the process to amend the national direction. Everything is about easy, fast, for one reason and that is about economic desire—profit, profit, profit.

Our primary concern with this is the cost of that profit and what it means to the devastation of our wai for future generations, because the profit that we see coming out will only benefit those who have the mortgages today. It’s not intended to be looking after anyone else in the future. As one of those very first original “OG” rural people, I get extremely concerned when we see that the removal of Te Mana o te Wai is about not only removing the ability to protect all citizens’ rights to have healthy wai for future generations; it’s also about diluting mana whenua. It’s about making it easy to mine and to destroy tangata whenua taonga, indigenous taonga, impacts on significant natural areas. In short, for us, that’s wāhi tapu.

This is a really bad, bad bill, but I guess we’re used to hearing that come out of Te Pāti Māori. When it comes to us being really clear on what we stand for, we will always challenge—and it doesn’t matter which party’s in Government—anyone that is relegating their profit and greed needs over the needs of future generations’ desire to be living well and to be living in a community and an environment that is well.

This is a bill that is about making it easier for bad farmers and, sadly, we still have that in Aotearoa.

LAN PHAM (Green): There’s so many decisions made around the world today that show we humans are not the sharpest tools in the shed. We’ve created these bizarre systems and we permit behaviours that harm not only ourselves but our environment, and therefore the very foundation of our existence. But, despite these flaws, we do have the capacity to evolve, to actually improve the way that things are. And that’s what makes this bill so incredibly disappointing.

You see, with the previous Government’s freshwater reforms—and I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker in this—we were evolving. We had our heads up out of the sand. We were actually looking around and we could see the vast swathes of Aotearoa where we had polluted and contaminated streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and beaches. We were realising that we actually didn’t have to cement this legacy of disconnection with our environment, where we’re leaving to our kids and grandkids a place where they can’t swim in their local river, where we can’t safely get kai for our whānau, and where people need to check the council website for the level of toxic cyanobacteria to check whether it’s safe to actually take their dog down to the local river track for a walk.

The country saw all of that and we took the lead from iwi Māori, with them saying, “Hey, there’s a solution here.” It’s one that’s known, it’s one that’s been practised, and it’s one that has always been in their exercise of rangatiratanga over fresh water. And that solution, as was outlined by my colleague, is Te Mana o te Wai. It was translated into a legal hierarchy that then shaped freshwater legislation in Aotearoa. It protected the mana, or the hauora and the health, of water, and it made sure that that came first above human needs, which was so important and what we so need today.

It would have then been translated into council plans and into consenting decisions. Among the many aspects of the legislation that are now being dismantled, weakened, or outright cancelled in this bill, be it the stock exclusion and winter grazing regulations as part of it, the pathways for allowing coalmines in and around wetlands and significant natural areas, and the delay in the identification of those areas—those aspects remaining intact would have gotten us closer to actually turning the tide on our bleak and rather shameful, actually, track record of ongoing freshwater and environmental declines.

Now, the worst part of this bill is the part that changes section 107 of the Resource Management Act. Section 107 is this fundamental baseline protection for freshwater ecosystems. It currently provides a backstop of very minimum water-quality standards that councils can allow, where they actually draw a line where we cannot keep polluting in perpetuity. Amending it, as proposed in this bill now, actually weakens protections for freshwater ecosystems and allows councils to permit higher levels of pollution in some of our most degraded waterways. It’s a completely undemocratic, kneejerk reaction from this Government and it will take freshwater protection backwards.

I say “undemocratic” because I was around the Primary Production Committee table when section 107 was brought up by a number of submitters, and the chair made it really clear that changes to this were out of scope for this bill. Not only was that misleading to those submitters but including this amendment shuts out public, iwi, hapū, environmental groups, and everyone who cares about the dire state of freshwater protection in Aotearoa and their right to actually engage in the legislative processes that will influence it. This bill is removing and eroding the protections for fresh water, wetlands, and areas of precious, significant biodiversity. Te Pāti Kākāriki do not support it.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Look, I’m quite happy to rise here and talk to the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There’s been quite a lot of discussion around a lot of things tonight, and most of them are quite misleading, I believe.

The first thing I’d like to say is that farmers are sick to death of being lectured to by people who know nothing about farming and continually paint a narrative where the farmers are out to destroy the environment, so we’ve had quite a bit to go through here. I suppose one of the best things that we can be doing is taking a catchment-by-catchment approach, which is what a number of our side of the House talked about tonight. A one-size-fits-all, overarching piece of regulation that has been implemented has not worked, and, in fact, what we’ve got is perverse outcomes where things—

Rawiri Waititi: That’s why the Māori Health Authority was established.

MILES ANDERSON: This has got nothing to do with the Māori Health Authority, mate.

I guess there’s a number of areas here that are frustrating. The significant natural areas (SNAs) that were implemented under the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity were not implemented by councils as one would think they should be. They were done by a blanket mapping, without anyone actually going physically on to properties to see whether the mapped areas were in fact SNAs. What we’ve got in a number of councils in the South Island is huge areas of farmland being captured under the SNA provisions. These areas of farmland, if they’re covered within, for example, the Otago Regional Council, are now being proposed to have all sorts of restrictions placed on them. The council’s deciding how much fertiliser you can put on. The council’s deciding how many stock units you can run per hectare. The council’s deciding all these things which, if they go through, will make those particular farms uneconomic and therefore those people will be driven off the land.

For the Opposition parties to be talking about how the SNAs are a great thing, that is not the way the farmers see it. The way we see it is that, currently, if there are SNAs on your property, it’s because generations have looked after those SNAs and that’s why they’re there. Currently, if there are SNAs on your property, I guarantee you that most of the farmers are actively managing and looking after those SNAs. Currently, we have in New Zealand 2.8 million hectares of farmland on sheep and beef farms in woody vegetation, and that represents 25 percent of the country’s woody vegetation.

Mr Abel talked about animal welfare and how the changes that we’re proposing are going to have negative animal welfare outcomes, and that’s just a nonsense. If you look at past practices in farming—and I could take you back to the 1970s where a lot of the rolling country was ripped up during the summer for winter cropping, and over time it was recognised that there was a lot of sediment loss. So what happened? Roundup. Roundup happened, and huge areas of the country were sprayed with Roundup where in the past they’d been cultivated, and—

Scott Willis: Don’t worry; we’ve got GE coming next.

MILES ANDERSON: That’ll be good. That’ll be great. Because of that, the minimum tillage practices that were undertaken have really decreased immensely the sediment run-off from those properties.

As time goes on and the science becomes available, farmers change. Mark Patterson alluded to this in his speech, and I believe that these changes are more than needed, because the costs associated with these current rules are excessive. They’re driving farmers out of business and they’re driving poor farming practice. I guess one quote from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was “profit, profit, profit”, as if profit is something to be shunned. If you’re not making a profit, you’re not feeding your family. If you’re not making a profit, you’re not paying your bills. If you’re not paying your bills—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If you want to quote me, quote me correctly or don’t quote. Keep my words out of your mouth—profit before people and planet.

MILES ANDERSON: —you’re not on your land. The banks won’t tolerate it. You really believe that?

Another quote from Steve Abel was about wetlands and how they’ve been decreasing. Well, the New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Inventory reports a net increase of 3,000 hectares between 1990 and 2007. That’s a net increase. If you read the report, you’d know that. I am very happy to see these first lots of changes come through, and I look forward to the second and third lots of changes to make life easier and to make pragmatic and smart decisions around this and to actually involve the people who know about it rather than people who read about it in a book or hear about it at their NGO meeting. I commend this bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ka pai, Mr Speaker.

Ko Waiapu te awa, Ngāti Porou te iwi

Ko Waiapu te awa, Ngāti Porou te iwi

Taku manawa ko Te Tairāwhiti

Taku manawa ko Te Tairāwhiti

[Waiapu is the river, Ngāti Porou are the people

Waiapu is the river, Ngāti Porou are the people

My heart is the East Coast

My heart is the East Coast]

Kia ora tātou.

Rawiri Waititi: Kia ora, kei te aha?

[Hello, how are you?]

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Kei te pai rawa atu, whanaunga, hoki mai.

[I’m well, cousin, welcome back.]

That song has become something of an anthem in Ngāti Porou, and the Waitoa brothers and their mother, when they composed it, chose to start—rather than with our mountain—with our life flow, our life force: our Waiapū River. Partially motivated by the fact that it’s also the name of our rugby club, perhaps, but also because, like I said—

Rawiri Waititi: They could improve.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: —ha, ha!—they understand that the water is our life force.

We’ve heard a lot of arguments in the House tonight, and I thought that I didn’t actually need to go far; I’m just going to talk about my own backyard. I respect that everyone is talking about their reality, so I’ll talk about mine and, therefore, ours.

I’ve talked about the river. When Māori stand up and say pepeha, they start with an identifying maunga or hill, or the land; then they go to a body of water typically—ocean, river, lake, stream—and then they identify themselves, because that’s who we come from.

The Minister spoke earlier and announced that the purpose of this bill is to reduce the regulatory burden on key sectors, including farming, mining, and other primary industries. At what cost? How can you farm without healthy land, how can you mine without healthy minerals, and how can we have other primary industries without fresh waterways and a healthy environment?

This is not just about water, and, of course, to imply that we don’t want industry is ridiculous. To imply that we don’t want people to make money and have a good lifestyle is also ridiculous.

I’m not here to belittle people’s experiences on their land, but I actually live rurally as well—actually, more rurally than Rawiri Waititi, and that’s saying a lot. This notion of who is a farmer and who isn’t is getting a bit tiring. I think we need to concentrate on the key issue here, which is the land that we’re farming and the waterways we need for our whenua to thrive, because if we don’t have healthy whenua and healthy wai, we don’t have industry. Now, when I was talking about how I don’t need to go far to look, I’m not going to stand here and blame industry, but we know the situation we’re in now.

My river is called Waiapū. He wai apu whenua, he wai apu tangata, which means, literally, that it’s the river that eats land and people. Until recently, drownings used to be a regular topic, but that’s a whole other show—we’ll talk about that another time—and over even my lifetime, I’ve seen the riverbed just broaden. We can almost walk across to Tikapa now—across the river. That’s the reality. That’s what we know. Why do we want to keep promoting practices that are going to make that worse?

We already know that. In Tairāwhiti, we’re dealing with erosion. It’s quite unique on a global level—we’re getting famous for it. That’s why the Raukūmara Pae Maunga Restoration Project is so important. I mean, it’s nothing to be proud of, but we’re there, and we don’t want to go any further.

Rawiri Waititi: They broke it and we’re fixing it.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Kia ora—and by returning to nurturing our whenua who’s nurtured us for so long.

Like I said, I do not begrudge you wanting to make money on land that you own, and that’s the difference in perspective: it’s about ownership and whose responsibility it is to nurture whom. Well, in our world view, it’s a mutual benefit, and that’s why, like the tuahine over here has said, there are a lot of huge Māori land corporations—Māori farms—and the responsibility goes back to not just their iwi and the economic development. We’re not scared of those words “economic development”. We need that because we’ve got so much recovery to do and development, but we have to remember how we do that. We’ve got to nurture the whenua so that the whenua is in a good position to nurture us back, and to give you those profits that you want from your land that you’ve mentioned earlier.

I just want to go back to the wetland areas that came up recently. For obvious reasons, they’re important, but we’ve just had so much flooding recently. We still haven’t recovered from Cyclone Gabrielle—and just a big mihi to our whānau in Te Wai Pounamu, who are also in a state of recovery now. I’m not the expert, but I just want to acknowledge Tui Warmenhoven, who’s been doing research in Te Tairāwhiti for many years, and acknowledges that wetlands are a natural flood mitigation response. We could be saving billions in infrastructure if we just restore Papatūānuku to look after herself.

These are things: farmers and the stock exclusion. We’ve just had a fabulous—well, it’s still going—kaupapa in Te Tairāwhiti called te mana o te Waiapū, where they’ve fenced off about 55 kilometres of waterways. That might seem like small fry to you, but that’s a big deal for small-scale farmers like those in Te Tairāwhiti, who don’t make massive profits. They are surviving off their land, they are feeding their families, and they are contributing to a small local economy that helps people stay on their whenua. They’ve undertaken that, and not only did they fence off 55 kilometres of waterways and plant 155,000 natives; they also employed 43 people. These are not pie-in-the-sky, ridiculous, romantic notions that we’re promoting here. These are practical solutions that can be done, and we can find the balance between economic benefit and restoring our taiao.

There’s more, but I do want to acknowledge the people who are actively doing this, not only in Te Tairāwhiti, but around Aotearoa whānui who are restoring Papatūānuku, Tangaroa, ngā wai katoa o tō mātou nei whenua [the earth, the ocean, and all waters of our country].

The last thing I wanted to raise was the submission process. Even very apt submitters found the deadline oppressive, especially when you’re dealing with groups like Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou, who, while sophisticated and very experienced submitters, are under-resourced. They don’t have the huge teams who can go and do the research for them, etc., and I think the quote that their project manager, Agnes Walker—I hope you don’t mind me mentioning you, Ag—made that was probably the most apt was “It wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t so much.” Every day, a new submission. Every day, another takatakahi on ngā rōpū Māori, and, on that note, I just can’t help but wonder if things would have been different if this was just called three waters and not Te Mana o Te Wai, which is a shame, because who doesn’t want to acknowledge the mauri and the mana of our life-giving force? What next? Well, we are worried about the air already.

In conclusion, I just wanted to acknowledge all the whānau out there who are looking after our taiao, and I want to acknowledge the sentiment in this House, too. Yes, everybody has the right to do well on your whenua, but at what cost? We’ve talked about cost. That’s the cost: we’re going to have nothing to farm soon, we’re going to have nothing to mine, and we’re not going to have any water to drink and any waterways.

Finally, it’s not just us; it’s the biodiversity in our ecosystems and our waterways. On that note, I just want to acknowledge the kōkā in Tāngoio, who is rebuilding their tuna [eel] stocks in their river after the floods. We do not commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I’d like to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their heartfelt, reasoned, practical contributions this evening. This omnibus Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill amends the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and various national direction instruments necessarily. It proposes efficient, targeted changes which give certainty to councils and resource consent applicants.

The Government is taking a three-phrased approach to much-needed reforms of the resource management system. We replaced the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act in December as part of phase one. Phase two began when the Government introduced the Fast-track Approvals Bill in March. This bill is part of the second phase to make targeted legislative changes to the RMA in 2024. We also plan to amend or develop new RMA national direction as part of phase two, which will make it easier to consent new infrastructure, get more houses built, and it will enhance the primary sector.

This bill, the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, proposes quick, targeted changes which will reduce the regulatory burden on key sectors, including farming, mining, and other primary industries. Farming is the backbone of this country. It underpins our economy, it’s a significant contributor to GDP, and directly employs over 360,000 people. This bill will make a difference to Rangitīkei’s farmers and fruit producers. Indeed, farmers across the country are reassured and delighted by this Government’s common-sense approach. It’s part of our plan to reduce the regulatory burden on our nation’s farmers and food producers, our plan to get Wellington out of farming and to allow our farmers—the most efficient and sustainable farmers in the world—to get back to what they do best: farm.

How? Let me count the ways. This bill includes provisions to exclude the hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management from resource consenting, which Minister Patterson spoke so logically and succinctly about. It repeals the contentious low-slope map and associated requirements from stock exclusion regulations, thereby reducing costs to farmers. It repeals the permitted and restricted discretionary activity regulations and associated conditions for intensive winter grazing, and suspends, for three years, requirements under the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for councils to identify new significant natural areas and include them in district plans.

The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 28 May. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow members of the committee—the best select committee. We called for submissions on the bill, with a closing date of 30 June. We received and considered submissions from 1,997 interested groups and individuals. We heard oral evidence from 123 submitters at hearings in Wellington and via video conference.

Advice on the bill was provided by the Ministry for the Environment, with support from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Primary Industries. The Office of the Clerk provided advice on the bill’s legislative quality. The Parliamentary Counsel Office assisted with legal drafting. And I thank them all for their significant and valuable contribution.

As a result of a robust select committee process, we have some proposed amendments to the bill, including amending clauses 41 and 43 of Schedule 1 to make clear that the bill’s provisions would apply to all resource consent applications rather than only applying to applications lodged with a consent authority after the bill commenced, saving time and money. In relation to the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity 2023, we recommended amending Schedule 2 to extend the time frame for councils to confirm their original methodology to identify significant natural areas from four to six years—again, improving efficiency.

The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill proposes targeted legislative changes that can take effect quickly—changes that give certainty to councils and consent applicants alike. These changes will have real impacts in the short and medium term, while the Government develops new legislation to replace the Resource Management Act. This bill enables economic growth in key sectors, including farming, mining, and other primary industries, by relieving regulatory burden. These sectors are crucial to growing New Zealand’s economy. The bill’s about efficiencies. It’s about saving time and money, cutting red and green tape, backing our primary industries, and backing our farmers and food producers. It’s about getting Wellington out of farming.

I’m a proud sheep, beef, forestry, and maize farmer, and wetland creator from Turakina in the mighty Rangitīkei. I commend this bill, which is about getting the regulatory framework, farming, and New Zealand back on track.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I wonder, Ms Redmayne, as a member of the whips’ team, you might like to set a good example by not reading your speeches in times to come.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I’m a bit confused this evening, to be honest, about a number of things, but one is, when the members of the Government talk about getting Wellington out of farming, I’m actually unsure what that even means. Because I think that when we talk about Wellington, I guess we’re talking about this place and talking about Parliament. This is the place we come to, to create a better New Zealand and to put regulations and things in place. When we talk about getting Wellington out of farming, it almost feels like going backwards—back off track—to a world where, yeah, there’s no rules, where they get to do what they want on their own terms.

I think the challenge we face—and it is a challenge of ideology on either side of the House tonight—is around the conversation of water, around the conversation of our environment. It’s not either/either; it’s not actually about the fact that because we’re standing up and wanting to protect our waterways, because we’re standing up wanting to protect our environment, that means that we’re anti-business. It isn’t that at all; it’s about how do we actually do this right.

Clean water standards and having Wellington involved in the protection of our waterways, of our wetlands, isn’t just around environmental stewardship; it’s actually about good economic decisions. It makes good economic sense for New Zealand to ensure that we have regulations, that we have policies, that we have laws in place that ensure a prosperous, a vibrant, a clean Aotearoa New Zealand.

Now, as we go around in this debate tonight, we’ve obviously all tried to sort of grasp some kind of localism, and I will do the same, just to play along. I live in Taranaki, which is beautiful, but it also has its issues. I think, if you look around New Zealand, it’s around 90 percent of New Zealand’s wetlands that no longer exist; in Taranaki, that’s 98 percent. We are over proportion in terms of our wetlands that have been drained, whether it be for agricultural purposes, whether it be just for urban development. This is something—because Wellington wasn’t involved for 100 or more years in these spaces, that was allowed to happen.

We need to ensure that this place has legislation that fights for those wetlands, that fights for our waterways, that fights for our environment, but also fights for our economy. We can’t stand here and sit here and debate tonight and say, just because we want to talk about how we do water better, how we make sure that we protect water, that that means for some reason we’re anti-business, we’re anti-progress, because we’re not. We are very much standing up around environmental degradation, and this piece of legislation—the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—is something that takes us backwards.

The previous speaker just praised things like the fact that they are bringing in the Fast-Track Approvals Bill and they’ve disestablished the Natural and Built Environment Act and that mining’s coming back and that means that, you know, progress and business is all here to happen, but I guess that’s partly why 40 percent of the country thinks we’re in worse shape a year on since this Government came into being. It actually is, I would see, an attack not only on our environment, on our waterways, but actually an attack on our economy and how we actually do it properly.

I looked at the report from the Primary Production Committee, and the officials in that report noted that the effects of these proposals remain uncertain; it’s not clear. They’re rushing through, they’re pushing this through for the sake of, I guess, their mates. We need to have better conversations about this and how we do water well, around how we look after our environment, around how we do business better. That’s why we, on this side, cannot support this legislation.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise in support of this bill, and as a very proud member of the Primary Production Committee, where we heard the submissions on this bill and we heard a lot of the primary industries’ concerns around the previous legislation and that top-down, centralised approach from Wellington, where they were being told how to run their farms. Well, on this side of the House, we are aspirational for our farmers and our growers and our primary industries. This piece of legislation is about taking Wellington out of farming and is about ensuring that we get rid of the red tape and the regulation that has had the brakes on, and ensuring that we get our primary industries moving again, we take those brakes off, and we’re aspirational.

The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is part of our Government’s clean-up job. It’s about changing restrictive resource consent processes, local authority obligations, and stock exclusion regulations. It’s part of our Government’s plan to get Wellington out of farming and make practical decisions and stop that avalanche of red tape and regulation which is holding our country and our economy back. We need to make practical decisions and it’s time for our farmers to be able to do what they do best, and that is farm.

We’ve had some great, constructive debate tonight. Listening to the Māori Party talk about putting profits over people and talking about the bad farmers in New Zealand is really, really disappointing and so sad to hear because our farmers are doing a good job. They are the backbone of our economy and they are what gets the wheels moving in our country. They’re providing hundreds of thousands of jobs and the exports that the rest of the world relies on.

The bill will also speed up the process for preparing or amending national direction. The current process for making or amending national direction is unnecessarily onerous, costly, and it just takes too long, and we need more localism. The member who just spoke before spoke about localism, because that is what this bill is about. We need to power up provincial New Zealand once again and get back to localism because we are backing our farmers, who are the world’s best producers, and we are producing high-quality, safe products that are sought after globally. It’s about improving the profitability of our primary sector, and we are cutting that red tape.

Look, this bill does many things. One of the main areas that we discussed very thoroughly through the select committee process was about excluding the hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management from resource consenting. We heard many submissions about the hierarchy of obligations and how they were preventing many consents, they were vague, and they are not a good piece of legislation. So that is why this bill is going to be excluding those, and making things more clear—practical solutions where we can see some sense.

This bill will also repeal the contentious low-slope map and associated requirements from stock exclusion regulations, reducing costs for farmers. During the campaign—because I’m in a very rural electorate, the mighty electorate of Tukituki, Hawke’s Bay—this was a real concern for farmers, all of the costs and the compliance and these unnecessary rules that have been inflicted on our rural sector.

This is about getting rid of those stock exclusion rules, but also the winter grazing, because that was another area that was discussed very thoroughly. It’s really interesting because most of the councils across the country supported this. The reason they supported it was because they supported localism and making local decisions for the farmers and for the growers in their regions, and this is what is happening now. Why create rules and regulations from Wellington that do not work in provincial New Zealand, in regional New Zealand? This is why this is a great bill, and that is why I commend it to the House.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Catherine Wedd, the member who just resumed her seat, talked about that side of the House, this Government, being aspirational. “Aspirational for whom?” I ask you, because this is not aspirational for the environment or, I would argue, for New Zealand, at all. I mean, what we have from the other side of the House is a conservation Minister who says that it’s too expensive to save every species or to protect our biodiversity, and that protecting 30 percent of our oceans—which New Zealand signed up to, is not a legal obligation—is just aspirational. Then we have, of course, their Cabinet, which is weakening protections for the Hauraki Gulf. So, aspirational for whom? The whole argument pitting the economy versus the environment, it’s tired—and it’s really a false dichotomy because without the environment, you have no economy, as well.

Over the recess, I visited three different wetlands in Whangārei. One was the Wairua River floodplain, which was, I guess, an example of how few wetlands are actually remaining across New Zealand. This was a little sliver that was in the middle of a dairy farm, and it was explained to me that when it was thought to be productive to give away land for dairy farming, we lost a lot of our wetlands across the country. I also visited the Jack Bisset Wetland and the Underwood, both man-made wetland restoration projects—the Underwoods in partnership with the Department of Conservation, as well. I heard a fair bit about how important wetlands are to protecting our biodiversity and how little—I think my colleague David Parker said we’ve lost about 90 percent of our wetlands. With this bill and with the amendments that this Government is making to the Resource Management Act (RMA), we’re going to have even less in future.

I want also to point to one of the main changes that I’m opposed to in this bill, and that is allowing coalmines on wetlands, basically, and significant natural areas (SNAs).

Steve Abel: What year is it?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Honestly, we’re going backwards about 40 years with this Government, frankly. I mean, currently, new coalmines are unable to lodge consent applications if they would impact an SNA or a wetland, and that is for good reason. It’s because opening this up will actually open us up to devastating our biodiversity. We are in the midst of a biodiversity and climate crisis, and this Government does this? Existing coalmines, as it stands, can apply for an extension, but only for thermal coal used for heat, and that has a sunset clause of 2030. For coking coal, it’s a little bit different—there’s no sunset clause, for specific other reasons—but what this amendment bill does is do away with most of these restrictions.

Now, there’s been a specific coalmine that’s been quite controversial for a number of years. It’s called Te Kuha and it’s in Westport. There’s been a whole process of the Environment Court coming out and, basically, saying that consents should not be granted, mainly because of the legal protections of biodiversity values and wetlands. It’s, by and large, understood that an area like where Te Kuha would go protects a huge number of threatened species—bird life, flora, fauna—and allowing coalmining would cause irreversible and permanent damage to the natural environment. That’s why, sometimes, we have regulation, and so this whole narrative from the other side of the House that people just want to make money and that things are too difficult and too costly and take too much time—sometimes, we have regulations for a purpose. For this reason, it was actually to protect the environment, which this Government is completely doing away with.

I just want to touch on also some of the process elements of this particular amendment bill. Now, my Green Party colleague Lan Pham had mentioned quite eloquently the issues around section 107 of the RMA. Really, the issue there is it is an important environmental safeguard that has existed since the RMA has been enacted. Some submitters were told not to submit on section 107, because the bill as introduced didn’t include amendments to section 107. They were told to save it for another day, apparently. Now, we see amendments to section 107, which perhaps raises issues of a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness, frankly, because those particular submitters were not allowed. I would really be keen, at some point, for a member on that side of the House to explain, especially those who wax lyrical about being on the Primary Production Committee. Perhaps they could elucidate for us and explain why this particular thing happened: basically, where submitters were shut out of submitting on this particular section.

I’m just quickly looking through the supplementary analysis report from the ministry, on this particular bill. Now, it’s not just Te Kuha that might be allowed to mine, or that area to be mined, as a result of this amendment bill. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has clearly said here that it’s not possible to quantify how many new coalmines or extensions for existing coalmines would be impacted by the proposed changes, and that it’s likely that, following the change, some consent applications that were previously prevented will now be made as well—so, no proper analysis on just what the impact of this will be.

Then, as we’ve seen with so many bills introduced by this coalition Government, limited consultation was undertaken. No consultation with stakeholders was undertaken on the coalmining provisions included in the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity. As policy decisions were taken by Cabinet at pace to allow for the changes to be included in the bill, there was no time for consultation before these decisions were taken.

Then the report goes on to talk about the Treaty of Waitangi considerations—the fact that there are broad obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to engage with Māori on matters that affect them but also that the Crown has specific commitments through Treaty settlements to engage with post-settlement governance entities—but they haven’t done this either, and so there’s no analysis of the risks of that to the Crown, and no consultation because it was rushed through so quickly.

This is a bill that is devastating to the environment, and, along with everything else that that side of the House is doing to degrade our environment in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, and for the reasons that I’ve outlined around the process of this amendment bill, I do not commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou, e ngā hoa. Te whenua e tau nei, e noho ana ahau.

Ko Grant McCallum ahau. Tino hūmārie, ko ahau te mema Pāremata mo Te Tai Tokerau. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the esteemed, the representatives, and many leaders, this is the warm acknowledgment to you, dear friends. The land below, here I sit.

I am Grant MacCallum. Very humbled, I am the member of Parliament for Northland. And so I thank and greet you all.]

This whole debate makes me really quite sad. It takes me back to the period of 2017 and the election leading up to it. It reminds me that during the election campaign, as a farmer—and I’m privileged to be on the side of the House tonight with most of the farmers that are representatives in this House. I go back to that campaign specifically because during that campaign we were the ones that were vilified and dragged through the—actually, through the rubbish because we were seen to be the enemies of the country by the people on the left. It was actually really sad. What it led to—you could feel it as a farmer. We took it personally. We were basically being accused of not caring about our land, not caring about our waterways, which is just rubbish, right? It was really hurtful.

As a member of the National Party at the time, with the support of others, we coordinated a protest in Morrinsville. That gathered support from all around the country to highlight those issues, right? I knew at that point, we’ve got to stop doing this. All I’m hearing tonight is we’re having the same polarising debates, and it’s going to be that same polarising debate. Unfortunately, what it shows me is that there’s a complete lack of understanding—complete lack of understanding—of how farmers see their place in New Zealand. I’m a fourth-generation farmer. Both sides of my family go right back, and many of the other farmers in this room are the same—they’ve been in the farming for generations. This country has grown its economic wealth on the back of the farming community.

How did that come about? Various Governments of all colours have encouraged us to get out there and develop our land, and we’ve responded to that. We’ve responded to the economic drivers. Then—and I think it was 2002—at the peak of all the whole, you know, dairying explosion, particularly in the South Island, the “dirty dairying” campaign was launched. To be fair, at the time, a lot of us felt quite insulted by that. Then, we actually stepped back and thought, “Actually, let’s have a look at how we’re doing this. Can we do it better?” And yes, we can. And guess what? We are. That’s what we’re doing now. We’ve taken the lessons on board from that and said, “Well, how can we do it better?”

Quite recently, I was privileged to host the first meeting of the Aotearoa New Zealand Community Catchments group in Parliament, right? This to me is the way of the future, and I’ll just quote a couple of things from the speech I gave that night, because I think they’re very, very relevant. The whole purpose of the community catchments group, their whole mission statement, is empowering communities through collaboration, applied science, and local landowners—namely, urban and rural working together. Because guess what? This is not just a rural challenge. Urban people also have their challenges. And guess what? They have to pay for it too. All you have to do is look at some of the challenges that have been highlighted in the various small communities around New Zealand where their sewerage schemes aren’t up to scratch. How are they going to pay for it? It’s a real, real challenge.

What frustrates me is that whole thing’s painted as just the farming community. It is not. The beauty of the community catchments group is the word “community”, right? It’s through the power of the communities that we can improve the quality of our environment, right? For too long, the farming community has been seen as a problem rather than part of the solution, right? Once upon a time, as farmers, yes, we drained swamps. Guess why? We were encouraged to. That’s what the country wanted us to do. But now? We build wetlands. That’s what we’re doing now. It’s all turned around. We understand the value—where the value sits in New Zealand for our exports. The environmental value of our products is seen as high and is the direction that the world is moving in, and we’re up for that and we’ll continue to do it. What is not helpful is being demonised by people on the other side of the House who refuse to understand the challenges that we face. It’s taken us generations to end up where we are now with our challenges with our water and water quality. It needed to take time to move forward.

There was a real discussion about Te Mana o Te Wai and the priorities—that’s the issue. When they all sat together and considered together, then we can work with that. We can all work around and say, “OK, yes, we’ve got to have good quality drinking water. Yes, we’ve got to look after the health of the rivers.” Yes, but we also need economic development for everybody to be able to get ahead and for our families to be able to thrive and do well and support our economy so we can support our schools and our health system. That’s what we need. But when it’s in a hierarchical system—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You compromised it.

GRANT McCALLUM: Yes, it is about compromise. That is what life is about. Puritanical approaches to things lead to the arguments that we’re having today. From where I’m standing, if I—you know, it’s interesting: no compromise over there. Well, that makes life difficult for us, right?

In Northland, the regional council went part way through this process, and basically 40 percent of the land in Northland was going to be very hard to farm livestock on—you were going to need a consent to do it. That was going to create all sorts of issues. You would probably wind up with 30 or 40 percent of Northland going into a pine forest. Is that what we want?

Steve Abel: No.

GRANT McCALLUM: I don’t think so, right? What I implore people is they need to step back from this discussion and stop just throwing rocks at each other. I could quite easily throw rocks at people on the other side, because I’ve certainly had my arguments with them, but what we need to do is actually find solutions, and what we’re doing as a Government is taking a pragmatic approach and saying let’s actually support the economy of New Zealand, support our farming communities, and our urban communities. They have to actually pay for their things as well, right? So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

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

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): I present a legislative statement on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill.

It’s a privilege to bring this bill to the House. The purpose of the bill is to improve the dairy export quota allocation regime by broadening access to dairy export quota markets to a wider range of dairy exporters, including those that do not collect milk solids, small-scale dairy exporters, and non-bovine dairy exporters.

The dairy industry is a cornerstone of the New Zealand economy. Dairy exports generate over $25 billion in export revenue each year. The changes being progressed in the bill will support the Government’s priorities of maximising added value before exporting, doubling the value of exports over 10 years, supporting economic growth, and growing the economic prosperity for all New Zealanders.

The current dairy export quota allocation system dates back from 2007. Under that system, dairy export quota is allocated to processors based on the proportion of bovine milk solids that each applicant collects from New Zealand dairy farmers. Between 2022 and 2023, the Ministry for Primary Industries reviewed the current system for allocating dairy export quota. The results were interesting and revealing. A key finding was that the current system had not kept pace with changes in the New Zealand dairy industry since the system was last reviewed in 2007. Since 2007, business models in the dairy industry have become more diverse. Many dairy companies are manufacturing niche and high-value products but not collecting milk directly from farmers. The current system excludes these businesses from the dairy export quota allocation, which is a lost opportunity for them and for New Zealand.

In addition, some quota allocations are too small to be commercially viable. This is resulting in some quota holders for smaller allocations opting not to use their allocation. The system also does not allow for non-bovine dairy producers to be allocated quota, such as sheep, goat, or deer milk processors. This is in spite of the fact that some quotas include non-bovine dairy products.

Finally, some businesses are eligible for quota that can include products that they may not necessarily export, while others that do export these products cannot be allocated quota for them due to not meeting the current milk collection requirement.

The bill will alleviate these barriers, allowing access to quota markets for a wider range of New Zealand dairy exports. This will open doors for new exporters and allow different parts of the industry to showcase the innovative products that New Zealand companies have to offer.

I’d like to draw members’ attention to some of the key features of the bill. Firstly, the basis for dairy quota allocation will change from a company’s proportion of milk solids collected to its share of exports of the relevant product. Using export history for dairy quota allocations will allow a wider range of exporters to explore new opportunities and markets that historically they have been unable to access. This includes through our new free-trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union.

It also provides a clear pathway for exporters to grow their quota share by building up their export history across markets. For those businesses already eligible, the change will better align the allocation exporters receive with the products that they actually produce and export. This will mean that new and existing exporters can access a larger share of quotas that are relevant to their specific export focus and capabilities.

Secondly, there is a new regulation-making power to enable portions of individual quotas to be reserved for otherwise ineligible exporters or for exporters who are only eligible for small volumes. Where reserve portions are created, they will enable commercially meaningful quota access for exporters of low-volume, niche products that may not ever become eligible due to their small scale. In addition, some companies that are eligible on the basis of their export history may receive too small a quota allocation for it to be commercially viable for them to pursue exporting. Reserving a portion of individual quotas will allow those who are ineligible for quota allocation and those only eligible for low-volume allocations to have access to quota allocations of up to 200 tonnes. This will give them access to commercially viable quantities of quota and help them to develop their export history as they scale up. Quotas will be reserved on a case by case basis in consultation with existing users where there is clear evidence that there is unmet demand for exporters. Reserve portions of quotas will provide our small exporters with more opportunities to generate value for them and for New Zealand.

Thirdly, these amendments will enable non-bovine animal dairy exporters to access dairy export quota on the same terms as bovine dairy. Access to quota will allow these exporters to explore markets that may not have been commercially viable in the past. These amendments will allow non-bovine dairy exporters to apply for quota alongside bovine dairy counterparts where international trade agreements permit. This will open the door for potential export opportunities for new and innovative non-bovine dairy products.

The bill resets our dairy export quota allocation system to reflect the capabilities of New Zealand’s dairy industry. Times have changed and there are exciting new opportunities for New Zealand dairy exporters. These amendments reflect the diversity of dairy exporters; recognise the potential associated with the new trade relationships between New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and New Zealand and the European Union; provide broader access to a range of different types and sizes of businesses; and support small companies to scale up.

Building confidence and trust in overseas markets can be an involved process but with these changes, I have no doubt that our exporters will make the most of these opportunities and do what they do best: represent New Zealand as a top global competitor in dairy, and growing our exporters.

With that in mind, the Government is committed to doing what we can to support both new and existing exporters to capitalise on their dairy quota usage and access to overseas market. This will sit alongside our wider trade and export growth agenda, providing an environment where exporters are free to foster relationships with our trading partners. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I say thank you to the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, and to the Government for bringing this piece of legislation in. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill is a good piece of legislation, and it will help the dairy industry move into its next phase of development. Like most good things for the dairy industry, in fact, it was initiated by Labour. This was a piece of legislation that we in Government pushed the Ministry for Primary Industries to investigate, off the back of new and emerging opportunities through new free-trade agreements with the UK and the EU and the reality that quotas were not being utilised as was originally intended when negotiated.

What we have at the moment—and that will shift over time—is, of course, China being the single biggest market. Other quotas into the US, small ones into the EU and the UK, and some to Japan have not been all taken up, because there’ve been greater returns in other markets. That will change over time. One of the questions we had to ask is: are we maximising the value of that? I’m not going to run through the piece of legislation the Minister has very ably outlined but to say that the original intent of the quota allocation was, of course, firstly, to ensure that maximum value was retained for New Zealand exporters, that we had in place a system that was fair and that was based on who was producing the milk—a history of vertical integration, actually, through the Dairy Board ultimately, and then we had, through the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, other exporters, but for the most part a vertically integrated industry; as I say, almost $26 billion of exports. It is important that we continue to grow the value of that.

Peak cow was reached in about 2015-16. There may be more cows in New Zealand. There will be more milk as farmers innovate and both the breeding capability and the feed conversion of the cows improves, but it won’t be huge growth. If we’re going to get more value, it will have to be through more high-value products. The allocation of quota access on the basis of the volume of the milk collected from farmers is the historical way of doing this. The new and emerging innovative players in dairy exports—and we’ve got a number of them. I won’t list them, but Lewis Road Creamery is, I guess, one of those getting very high value for its butter in the US market, vertically integrated back down through Southern Pastures. They weren’t able to access—because they’re a relatively small company—the advantages of getting into quota markets. Clearly, there was a need to change for them and new and emerging players who will use small amounts of milk or take raw milk or raw powders from the bigger players and turn them into high-value specialty products.

The quotas are quite substantive in some markets—20 percent, 30 percent; even 15 percent. It makes a difference, and ensuring the quota management is retained with New Zealand—not all of that is the case. In fact, other countries manage access into their markets for some of our quotas. This bill does not deal with them. It deals with quota management within New Zealand and making sure that we allocate the additional opportunities or the reduction in the barriers into those markets to the people who are going to take them up, for a start, and those who show innovation and get more value from the raw materials that we have.

This is a good piece of legislation. It also opens up to the new emerging areas of goat milk and sheep milk. They’re going through a rocky road at the moment, the goat industry in particular, but I have no doubt that we will be significant players in both goat milk exports and sheep milk as we work through land-use diversification. Ensuring that this process enables them to have access to these negotiated markets is great.

I’m not going to say too much more other than Labour is proud to have helped develop this piece of legislation. It will be happy to assist the passage of this through the House to ensure that the dairy industry can grow, innovate, and add value to the raw material that farmers produce in this country. Labour has always supported the farmers of this country. We’ve shown innovation, we’ve developed the progress for them, and I’m happy to do that once again.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to speak to this legislation. It will be terribly disappointing to the members opposite to find that we’re going to be supporting this legislation, because we’re not those radical anti-farming guys that you think we are. It would be so much simpler if we were, wouldn’t it? It’d be so much simpler if you could just lump us in a box and say that we are anti-farmers, when, in fact, farmers are vital to the survival of all of us on this planet, and, in fact, farming, I would say, is the opportunity that New Zealand is uniquely placed to actually make transformational change in for the good of the environment and the good of the climate. We are more relevant in farming than in any other matter, I would say.

Let’s be clear: the reason that we are passionate about getting farming right in this country and why we have an environmentalist on the Primary Production Committee in myself is because we see farming as a huge opportunity for how we solve some of the planet’s greatest challenges, including the existential challenge of climate change. Why we’re supporting this legislation to the select committee is that it gives an opportunity for those farmers—[Interruption] Pardon me?

Hon Mark Patterson: This is the speech you should have given to the last bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, but then I would have pulled him up, because he’s speaking to this bill right now.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you. I really appreciate it. The last bill, as I was asked about just now, was about removing protections for the environment, which is why we’re so against it. This bill is about doing exactly the sort of thing that we need to do. There are some really cool innovations happening in the farming sector in this country. There are some people who are working out, for example, how you can be producing sheep milk. I know Mark Patterson will love me mentioning that.

The potential limitation to innovation, as the regulatory impact statement says, is the current way the quota allocation is done. Those people in the industry who are trying to find ways to produce a viable economic product that is perhaps more sustainable because it doesn’t have the same impact as perhaps in other intensive forms of farming don’t have access to markets. This legislation is enabling a better and more diverse distribution of that quota, and that is a good thing. That means that we might have a current situation where there are 94 dairy companies operating in New Zealand, but only 10 of them are currently eligible for dairy quota allocation. We have farmers who are producing sheep milk as an export. There are two processors with significant Māori ownership and stakes which identify as Māori and are the two largest New Zealand sheep dairy businesses.

It is a good thing if we have greater diversity in our production systems. It is a good thing not just for the planet but it is a good thing also for our own domestic resilience in our production. If we are able to utilise arable land and fertile land for producing a greater diversity of products, we are going to end up with a more resilient food system for ourselves and for the planet. If we are able to move to less impactful forms of farming that are still profitable for farmers—because we want farmers to make a good living. You’d be shocked to hear that, Mark Cameron; we actually want farmers to make a good living, and you know well that there are farmers who are making a great living and having less impact.

It’s about decoupling the dollar from the harm to the environment. Think about it like that. If you can make two bucks out of producing something on a hectare of land that does less damage to the environment or you can make two bucks out of producing something that does more damage, maybe you should do the thing that produces less damage, and that is what it’s about when we put in place environmental regulations that one of the members mentioned opposite. Also, this legislation is about finding a pathway to getting more diversity in the allocation of quotas.

We want to see it go to the select committee. We want to make sure it doesn’t get simplified down to just being about only growing markets. It needs to be about the diversity of production in this country for the good of all, for the good of our agricultural sector, which we do want to thrive in a way that doesn’t harm the environment and the climate. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill. Just to correct the previous speaker, Steve Abel, an economic farm surplus of $2 a hectare is not going to make you a profit. It’ll be pretty hard to make two bucks a hectare.

Look, I think this is a very good bill. It may seem quite dull, technical. It’s probably the first time in history in New Zealand that anything related to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA) has been called dull, but that probably shows how we’ve matured as a dairy industry in terms of farmers’ appreciation for this piece of legislation and the aspects to it.

I think it’s so important to New Zealand, as has been mentioned before, our dairy industry. It’s our largest industry here in New Zealand. It is so vital to us, and trade in particular is so vital to the dairy industry: 95 percent of what we produce is exported. Now, over the years, we’ve managed to gain access across all parties to foreign markets and have been able to get benefits from that. Often, this access has come in the form of quotas of how much product we’re allowed to put into those markets. Historically, that quota and how it was divvied up between the various companies was managed by the Dairy Board back in the day and then through the DIRA legislation that created the formation of Fonterra.

This has, obviously, remained, as has been mentioned, unchanged since 2007, and obviously the industry in that time has changed markedly. As has been mentioned before, we now have a greater diversity of companies. We’ve got more different types of milk—sheep milk, goat milk, even deer milk in a few strange places; definitely wouldn’t want to milk them myself. We’ve got to move the legislation forward so that we respect these new, emerging industries, give them opportunities. As has been mentioned before, the current status quo legislation, effectively, was just, “How much milk you produce, that’s your share of the quota.” We know that that’s not a good way of going forward. It’s not driving innovation. That’s what we want to see: companies that are thinking about how they can export more niche products, getting more value from the market. That is the key for success for the dairy industry going forward and for all these new, innovative start-ups.

It was mentioned Lewis Road Creamery—you know, go back to 2007, every dairy company out there that was exporting was doing it because they had a supply base. That’s another thing that’s changed. We’ve got people that are exporting dairy products now that don’t have a supplier base. They may have a few farms of their own, but they’re purchasing milk from others and they’re turning it into products. We’ve got to move the legislation forward to enable all of this to happen. It’s a very good piece of legislation. It will help the dairy industry. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I too rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill. I, like the previous speaker, the Hon Andrew Hoggard, got pretty excited when I saw the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act—that’s the granddaddy of all dairy Acts and probably agricultural Acts; of course, the formation of Fonterra. I thought the Minister may have been stepping in to stop Fonterra selling off their brands but, alas, that doesn’t appear in this bill. What it does do, however, is make some changes to how dairy quotas and export licences are granted, and we have heard extensively already that this has not kept pace with the changes in the industry and hasn’t been revisited since 2007. In the EU and UK trade deals, there is a high level of interest all of a sudden in these quotas, that perhaps there wasn’t previously when a lot of product was moving up to China and South-east Asia. Now there’s more interest in that diversification and, of course, taking advantage of those lower tariff rates.

I do too want to pick up on the issue of the enabling of innovation that this bill brings for those smaller companies. It’s about maximising value. It’s about identifying niche markets and just enabling some of those smaller companies to get a foothold. Who knows? We’ve heard Lewis Road mentioned, but maybe Lewis Road will shortly be at the scale of Tatua and Miraka and maybe up to Open Country at some stage. No one’s going to eclipse Fonterra, but it gives a pathway to open up some export markets, to build a brand, to build a business, to give us some diversification of businesses exporting into these markets.

I would also like to recognise the diversification into goat milk, sheep milk—I don’t think deer milking is of a scale that would see exporting. I think the biggest threat for the sheep milking is that soon wool will be so valuable that they probably won’t want to be bothered milking them, but for those who do want to persist with the sunset industry that would be sheep milking, ahead of the pending wool boom, there are some opportunities for them.

We do have, as a Government, a target of doubling exports over the next 10 years. This is a modest start. I mean, at the big end of town there’s Fonterra, Open Country—those big players—but this is a multifaceted approach. It’s not just the big players. We can’t just double the commodities or the ingredients side of the business—that’s going to be very hard—but some of these smaller players in the ecosystem can grow, and grow quite quickly if they’re given the opportunity to access export markets.

I commend the Minister for bringing this bill forward. I’m pleased it’s got widespread support across the House, and that includes that of New Zealand First. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō te Pāti Māori i te pō nei. Ā, e mihi ana ahau ki te Minita nāna i kawe mai i tēnei o ngā pire, ā, ki rō Pāremata i te pō nei.

[Thank you, dear Speaker, and greetings to all in the House. I stand to represent Te Pāti Māori this evening. Also, I would like to acknowledge the Minister who bought this bill before us here at the Parliament this evening.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to support this bill in its first reading in order to take it to select committee so we can hear from the many different perspectives in the select committee process. However, I do want to take this opportunity to add my own flavour, as I usually do, and add my two cents on the broader context of how this affects us in our rohe and our electorates as Māori, and the different kaupapa that we face in this industry as a whole.

Te Pāti Māori wishes to voice its overall concern that entrenching status quo arrangements will make it more difficult to transition to the new, sustainable economies of the future. We express our ongoing concern that as sustainable farming and food security come under significant pressure, tamariki here in Aotearoa continue to go hungry. It is unacceptable that Aotearoa exploits this environment to provide food for the world while so many whānau are experiencing food poverty due to the expodent—can’t even bloody well say that Pākehā kupu!—exponential increases in cost on top of generations of entrenched poverty.

We need to find more sustainable ways to provide more food for everyone in Aotearoa while also breaking up the stranglehold that monopolies have on food supply while it can be in production, distribution, or retail. The vision for Te Pāti Māori is to facilitate and support the transition of Māori in kai dependency to kai sovereignty. Our vision is to feed the community, teach the community to feed themselves, and empower them to feed each other.

While we support the use of quotas to ensure that the people of Aotearoa continue to have access to these products here at home, we recognise that more information is needed to understand the impacts and opportunities for Māori dairy farmers. That’s why Te Pāti Māori are supporting this bill through its first reading, in order to hear from a broad range of views from the sector as a whole and the place of Māori dairy farmers within that.

The people of Waikato have a complicated history with milk. Like other iwi, our lands were illegally, excessively, and unjustly confiscated to provide for New Zealand dairy and larger export growth. The predicament that we face as Waikato is the mere fact that 1.2 million acres of land was wrongly confiscated off us and the majority of our land is being used for farming. The majority of our people are the kaimahi—the hard-working factory workers—in these industries, like AFFCO, Open Country, etc. I find it ironic that our country is one of the largest food providers in the world, exporting the world’s highest quality of dairy and meat, yet its own workers can’t even afford the very own bread and butter that they make on their own land.

Now, don’t get it twisted: we do support development in these industries. However, we don’t need to look at the stats to know how devastated our environment is and how hungry our people are in Aotearoa. I think there’s just a clear power imbalance here. We must hear more from Māori from within the sector.

To close, I refer to an exchange between Kiingi Pōtatau and Governor Grey that I consistently go back to, and the tongikura that has led me here today. Governor Grey said, “I have in my possession a cow of great progeny. I shall send this cow into the Waikato to drink your waters dry.” Kiingi Pōtatau responded, “Just as the rains fall from the heavens and just as the waters spring deep within the earth, our people, like its water, shall never dry. We come deep from beneath the earth. We are Waikato.” Governor Grey responded, “And after my cows have eaten your crops, what else then will you have to eat?” Kiingi Pōtatau responded, “We shall be nourished by the traditional foods of our ancestors contained across the land.” Governor Grey continued, to say, “And when the foods of your ancestors are destroyed, what then will you have left to eat?” He then said, “You—I shall eat you.”

Te Pāti Māori longs for the day kai sovereignty delivers a reality where the people of Aotearoa continue to be nourished by the food grown from its own soil. We must work together to transition as a competition to resources.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in shock as we’ve reached some “Kumbaya” moment here in the House where everyone seems to be agreeing—

Glen Bennett: You’ve got the wrong party—join the Greens.

MILES ANDERSON: —on a farming-related bill. I do suspect there may have been a couple of head knocks over in that corner. As has been said before, this bill will encourage innovation, increase competition, and increase value returned to farmers. That is a good thing. I think the Primary Production Committee will really look forward to having this bill before them and deliberating over it and having various submitters before it. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I too rise in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Bill. We heard the word “aspirational” come from that side of the House, and I thought, “This is aspirational.” Then it was confirmed that it, indeed, originated from the Labour Party. Tēnā koutou, but we can still “Kumbaya”.

First of all, obviously, I want to acknowledge the opportunities this provides for Māori in the industry. It’s going to be fantastic for Māori to go from not only being at the beginning of the value chain—i.e., land ownership and milk supply—to being further up the chain, hopefully, to be able to do some processing and some more innovation.

Speaking of innovation, sadly I’m too young to have remembered the luscious creaminess of Nati Butter that was produced in Ruatōria back in the day—good for the hips, no doubt. You can’t tell that I didn’t have any! But this may provide, indeed, an opportunity for industries such as that to maybe not come back in Ruatōria—but they probably will want that, no doubt; I’d certainly encourage it—but wherever people want to do this on their whenua throughout Aotearoa.

I really like the notion of diversity. Recently, I had the privilege of going on a Speaker’s delegation where part of the visit was to Fonterra in South-east Asia, and prior to that, Sri Lanka, where there was a lot of talk about the value of our dairy products and the opportunities to add value at both ends of the trade relationship. Given that Fonterra are now looking at selling some of the consumer value-add items, it’s another opportunity, of course, for our producers here in Aotearoa, where our reputation proceeds us all around the world.

On that note, there’s been some jokes about the different types of milk we can produce, and while a few years ago I thought it was horrid to consider consuming goat milk even, I think there’s also the benefit there, because there’s a high prevalence of asthma and eczema amongst Māori, for example, and the consumption of goat products has increased in our communities. Who knows what innovation this will provide throughout Aotearoa.

That said, I think the Hon Damien O’Connor did a really good job of outlaying Labour’s position on this bill. I certainly endorse the opportunities for diversity in the industry, the opportunities for all innovators, but, of course, Māori producers to become processors as well and get further into the chain. I think this is going to be great for Aotearoa. It does promote innovation, it is aspirational, and I commend this bill to the House.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a “Kumbaya” moment, isn’t it? It’s fantastic. This bill will open up quota allocation access to a wider group of dairy product exporters than the traditional cow milk traders. It’ll modernise our export quota system and grow export and farm-gate returns. It’ll drive efficiency and it’s a really important part of our plan to grow agricultural export receipts in the next 10 years.

I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Damien O’Connor, who initiated a Government review of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act in 2023, the first in 17 years, which is what identified the opportunities to improve the quota allocation and better reflect the diversity of our dairy industry now. It found, amongst other things, that quota was being completely underutilised. The system was limited to the extent—we’ve got a much wider range of dairy products now, and this is going to allow people to grow their export base. It’s a big deal for farmers across the country. It’s certainly great for the 500-plus dairy farmers that live in the mighty Rangitīkei electorate.

The review found a number of things. One was that 10 of the New Zealand dairy processers met the requirements for a share of quota, but only half of them were actually using it. This is going to share that quota amongst other people. I think the other thing that was really interesting is that it now opens it—because of the diversification out there now, it’s going to allow sheep milk, dairy milk, and goat milk to be included in the quota system. This bill is about maximising potential, it’s about driving efficiency and innovation, and it’s about backing our primary producers and returning value at the farm gate. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a bit tempting—I could break out into song tonight. We could all sing “Kumbaya”. I’m not—

Hon Member: Go on.

RACHEL BOYACK: A little bit tempting—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go on, it wouldn’t surprise us.

RACHEL BOYACK: No, I won’t, Madam Speaker. What I will do is—[Interruption] Oh, people think I should—no, I’m not going to, Madam Speaker.

Look, it’s a great bill that has been brought to the House tonight. I, like previous speakers, do want to acknowledge my colleague Damien O’Connor. Reading through the regulatory impact statement (RIS) was a really useful read in terms of understanding the technical components of this bill. It was produced for him prior to last year’s election, so it’s really good to see that the Government has picked this up, and I’m sure that the Primary Production Committee will do a good job of listening to all the submitters.

There has been a significant amount of consultation, and I just wanted to pick up a couple of parts of that consultation just in my contribution tonight because it will be important for the committee to reconcile some of these matters. I do note that there were a number of different options considered by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) in producing the regulatory impact statement and making recommendations on what changes to make to the quota system. I won’t go into all of the ins and outs of that quota system—it’s been quite well covered tonight—but one of the matters is that dairy exporters who did submit had different views. MPI landed on the option to change the basis of the quota allocation from what’s collected to what is actually exported in terms of the export history. That’s been the suggested change. I do note from the RIS, just reading through it, that it appears that Fonterra weren’t in favour of changing eligibility away from the status quo. I think that’s something that’s going to need to be teased out through that select committee process in terms of submissions and making sure that there’s good consultation.

As other speakers have mentioned, I think one of the most important benefits is to ensure that we can get the most out of our updated and new trade agreements that have come into force. Obviously, the UK and the EU free-trade agreements will bring significant opportunities into those markets, so being able to ensure that we’re fulfilling all of the quota that is available to our exporters is going to be really important. It would be a real missed opportunity to not be meeting the quota that’s available when we know there are actually players in the industry and in the market here in New Zealand who actually wish to participate in it.

I noted from reading through the RIS that there were some scenarios where people weren’t using their entire quota, but also where people had a quota and could actually go above it, so being able to actually make adjustments to those quotas for businesses so that new entrants can access those quotas, but also if there needs to be a rejig of how the quotas are allocated within the market to ensure it’s actually reflecting what is being produced here in New Zealand—it’s going to be a really a good opportunity for that to happen. As others have noted, that hasn’t happened since 2007.

I will admit, like my colleague previously noted about herself, I am a big fan of dairy milk products—probably a daily consumer of, thanks to my grandmother’s influence when I was very young, making sure I had my daily glass of milk so I didn’t end up with osteoarthritis like she had. For me, the concept of goat milk and sheep milk isn’t as inspiring to me—certainly not oat milk and definitely not soy milk—but I do think that in a country like ours, where we have opportunities to grow markets and to innovate, it’s excellent to be able to look at how we can start to expand the quotas that we have so that people and farms who are producing for export markets can access those export markets and can access the benefits of the quota system. As we know, consumer preferences are changing, we’re able to grow into new markets internationally, and so it presents a great opportunity.

It’s an excellent bill, I commend the Government for picking up the work of my colleague Damien O’Connor, and I commend it to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Well, it’s really interesting to be in this debate tonight and hear the other side of the House talking about aspiration for farmers and the dairy industry and talking about trade deals and innovation and all the great stuff that we’re focused on, on this side of the House, and recognising that the dairy industry is actually a massive driver in our economy. In fact, it’s worth $25 billion in export earnings and it employs over 55,000 people—55,000 hard-working people across the country that are working in our dairy industry—so it’s really, really important that we support our dairy industry and support the adding of value to our products overseas, which Damien O’Connor spoke so rightfully about. The way that we’re going to drive our industry forward is to add value to our products.

This is what this bill is all about. It is about supporting our hard-working dairy farmers out there, and I must say, my sister, actually, and my brother-in-law were the Taranaki Dairy Farmers of the Year. That was great because in the school holidays, I send my four children off over to Taranaki to work on the dairy farm with their uncle and auntie. They love getting up at 4 or 5 in the morning, getting out in the dairy shed, and producing some of that liquid gold that we export to the world, and that’s what it’s all about.

We have navigated a lot of different parts of this bill tonight. I’m on the Primary Production Committee, so I’m really looking forward to discussing the certain areas of this bill and ensuring that, you know, we are opening up more opportunity for some of those smaller exporters and some of those exporters that do add a lot of value to our products.

We have talked about the diversity that it will also give to other dairy products such as sheep milk and perhaps deer milk and goat milk. Sheep milk is actually quite a big thing in Tukituki, in Hawke’s Bay. I’ll just do a bit of a shout-out to the Craggy Range Sheep Dairy, and they milk sheep. They’re actually in the thrust of milking sheep at the moment. They produce some of New Zealand’s best cheeses and provide a very, very good export-quality product right here in New Zealand, and add value to it, and that’s the opportunity that we want to provide by ensuring that we’ve got really good practical legislation that will enable our exporters and enable our very, very important dairy sector to help strengthen our economy and get this country back on track. With that, I passionately commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licenses Allocation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

Contracts of Insurance Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 September.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we last had this bill in the House, we were up to call No. 3 and the speech is for the Green Party.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just acknowledge that the last time we were debating this bill, urgency had just lifted just as I was rushing to the House to take the call on this bill. I want to start by acknowledging that modernising our insurance laws is really critical at a time that New Zealand is experiencing more natural disasters and weather events now than we would have done, say, 30 years ago.

The Christchurch earthquakes showed us just how important it is to ensure that, as legislators, we keep looking at insurance law to ensure that it adequately protects people and ensures that when, for example, people face a natural disaster, they’re able to recover promptly and that there are no undue barriers for people to stay well—acknowledging, none the less, that insurance law will cover a range of other issues, including health insurance, life insurance, etc. I do think it’s really timely to speak to, for example, what some communities in places like Auckland, Dunedin, and other parts of the country have experienced over the past couple of years in their interactions with insurance companies, and many communities are still waiting to receive financial support and payments.

This bill is quite topical, and I want to thank every submitter who has contributed to this bill, because I think it’s quite a dense bill, and to make contributions to this bill would have required quite a bit of intellectual grunt. There’s been a few themes that have arisen through the consideration of this bill by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. A lot has been talked about on how this bill drew from the work of the previous Government. I do want to mihi to former Labour Ministers who had done a lot of work in this area, which has been acknowledged by previous Labour Party speakers in their contributions. I do wish that this current Government had retained some of the spirit from the work that had been done in the previous Government, and that’s reiterated in our differing view in the select committee report on this bill.

Part of what the previous Government was trying to address was around insurers completing claims in a timely manner, and this has been something that was brought to the forefront during the Christchurch earthquakes, but I think that it is really clear—well, I don’t think it’s really clear that, actually, right now, the time to complete a claim is really delayed at the moment. Having something like a 12-month period to have those issues addressed would have been a much better way than what we’ve got in this bill, and just having some sort of vague stuff in the bill to try to address that does not do justice to our communities who deserve a bit of certainty and clarity should they end up disputing some of these processes.

The other thing that came through really strongly in the select committee was around how genetic testing would play out in relationship to this bill. We’ve had a lot of submitters who had really, really passionate and informed views around the dangers that the use of genetic testing poses to consumers, and we were fundamentally disappointed that the select committee, instead of heeding those warnings from submitters and putting, basically, a prohibition on the use of genetic testing for the purposes of insurance, left it up to regulations.

There’s two reasons for this that we’re concerned about. One of them is that submitters did actually present really good evidence as to why a prohibitive approach would’ve been better. I think genetic testing, ultimately, will end up discriminating against disabled people when it comes to health insurance, and when disabled people already face huge barriers to a good quality of life, the use of genetic testing will be problematic.

The second is that many times when we have left controversial issues to regulations, it really relies on the Government of the day resourcing the entities that then will be in charge of adequately addressing the nuances that are left to those regulations. We have seen in other forms of legislation how simply leaving something to regulations actually ends up creating almost like the worst of both worlds, where you don’t end up having adequate engagement between Government and departments and people on the ground to then lead to regulations that reflect the evolving situations and lives of people. We have seen this with issues around medicinal cannabis. We also had issues around how this would play out in the Therapeutic Products Bill. I really worry that we could end up without commitments from this Government to adequately ensure that—

Hon Andrew Bayly: Well, you don’t need to worry.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, it’s good to get the Minister’s assurances; none the less, the Green Party’s position is we would have backed this bill if it had a full prohibition on it.

Hon Andrew Bayly: Ye of little faith!

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Look, it’s good to have the Minister here engaging so not constructively on the issue, but there are other issues that I wanted to unpack.

Arena Williams, from the previous contribution, already talked about it, and this was around particularly the contribution from the Insurance Council of New Zealand, and they talked about how fraud and dishonesty are two different concepts. The changes that we put in as this bill evolved actually leaves us, again, relying on a less clear definition, which is “dishonesty”, which actually is, when it comes to how we define things in law, more vague than, say, “fraud”. There’s a different intent with dishonesty and fraud. I think, to me, what this move does is it weakens the protections that consumers would have had.

The whole intent of this bill was not just to modernise and acknowledge that, actually, we’ve got different pieces of legislation that interact with insurance companies and customers but, actually, to strengthen the rights of consumers. We do think that, on balance, the way that this Government has moved on with this bill has actually weakened consumer protection rather than strengthening it.

It is also important to note that a lot of how this plays out relies a lot on case law. There will be a lot of unchartered territory here as well in how some of this bill will come into play. With some of the new additions, we think that will take some time to also figure out whether these things are working, and this is why we should have taken a consumer-centred approach to legislation in relationship to insurance policy.

Just to conclude, we’ve got two amendments that we look forward to discussing in the committee of the whole House. If those amendments are resolved, we will be in a position to feel comfortable supporting this bill, but right now, the bill as it is is not something we can go ahead and support, despite our initial excitement about modernising insurance law. For that reason, the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill at second reading.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of ACT on the Contracts of Insurance Bill. I do want to acknowledge the hard work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I was a member of, and I also do want to acknowledge that a lot of the work and thinking was done under the previous Labour Government, and particularly the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. He was a passionate contributor to the select committee as we worked through what is quite a substantial bill and, in some respects, quite technical but is actually making some improvements—necessary improvements—to our insurance sector in New Zealand.

What this bill is designed to do is, really, modernise the settings under which different insurance products are offered in New Zealand. Interestingly, it is actually an omnibus bill. Again, if you look at the commentary on the bill, you can see it is actually amending a whole lot of Acts, and tidying up actually a whole lot of Acts, some of which are quite old—one is from 1908—right through to 1994. It really is an attempt to modernise, bring the insurance industry and sector into the modern age, and actually make it much easier for consumers to understand what is going on, and also it puts in place the necessary requirements for insurers to make sure that they’re properly disclosing what needs to be required. Really, it is a focus on this clarity around disclosure—what people have to provide to insurers, and the information that insurers have to provide back—and really trying to decrease the burdens on all parties and actually make things much more seamless.

It was nice to hear the contribution from the last speaker from the Greens, Ricardo Menéndez March, talking a little bit about this issue of genetic discrimination. In fact, this is a really interesting issue that was not originally included in the bill. It’s actually an area that is very dear to my heart, because genomic medicine is actually the way of the future. It’s going to become more and more important in healthcare settings, and, obviously, genetic testing also allowing us to understand diseases you might be susceptible to or you are living with and how they can be treated is extremely important. It was through the advocacy of submitters, people actually engaging in the select committee process, that this issue around genetic discrimination and how it kind of links in with the insurance industry was uncovered. Our committee spent some time considering this very, very important issue and what we could do.

It was quite timely, as well, that as we were considering this our neighbours across the Tasman were also having a discussion, because, again, their stakeholders have been lobbying their Government for a long time to actually look into this area of genetic discrimination and how the insurance industry may or may not require genetic tests and their results to be disclosed. That conversation was going on and, in fact, it was announced only a few weeks ago that they will be undertaking some reform in Australia. In a sense, we have kind of beaten them to the punch by actually updating this bill and making this very sensible provision.

I was surprised to hear from the Greens that they couldn’t support it because a full ban wasn’t legislated. I’ve got to say that their advocacy tonight was probably more fulsome than it was during our discussions at the select committee, but I do think we’ve come to a sensible position where we’re actually allowing genetic discrimination and the kind of use of this information to be banned by regulation. I think that was a very sensible place that our committee arrived at, given that this issue was one that wasn’t originally in the bill and wasn’t considered.

With that, I’m going to end my contribution. ACT will be supporting this bill on its second reading, and we look forward to further discussion on it. I’m sure the Minister will have many more things to say in the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.