Tuesday, 19 November 2024

Continued to Wednesday, 20 November 2024 — Volume 780

Sitting date: 19 November 2024

TUESDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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

Privilege

Conduct of Members in the House—Consideration of Question of Privilege

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received letters from the Hon Shane Jones, Suze Redmayne, and Todd Stephenson raising a matter of privilege around the conduct of some members during the vote on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on 14 November 2024. In line with usual practice, those members have been asked to respond to me by 1 p.m. on Thursday. I’ll then consider whether a question of privilege has arisen, and whether that question will stand referred to the Privileges Committee in each case.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Shane Jones—well, let me sit down first.

Hon SHANE JONES: You’ve earned it. I don’t want to comment on anything that may or may not make its way to the Privileges Committee, but I’m concerned, based on what happened—the coordinated level of disruptiveness and the prevention of votes being cast—at whether or not the Standing Orders that we currently have are still of the level of robustness that will provide protection to the essence of our democracy.

Separate from the Privileges Committee, I’m asking for you to consider whether we’ve reached a point where you should invite a number of very senior parliamentarians to consider whether the Standing Orders are now incapable of dealing with the event that took place last week. That event will no doubt be dealt with in some manner or form after a view has been formed by you pertaining to privileges violation. I’m not seeking a response today, but it is very important, in my view, that the House and New Zealanders see you take this position and this issue incredibly seriously and provide back to us a level of guidance, whether or not the deterrence, the range of censure options, are such that we now need to reform, sharpen, and bring the Standing Orders into a world where it is apparent that a host of members no longer fear the consequences.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I’d like to very briefly offer support for that course of action, understanding that there’s a course of events that need to take place. I think some of the changes, particularly around the use of social media, have changed the incentives for people’s behaviour around the rules of Parliament and that perhaps an early Standing Orders Committee could be convened to address those changes.

SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments. Can I just make the first comment to the Hon Shane Jones that it would be unfortunate if some aspects of your contribution today were to be construed as some critique that I was not taking this matter seriously. That is not the case—I take it very seriously. You and the Hon David Seymour quite rightly point out that there are limitations on what a Speaker can do within the Standing Orders. Last week, one way or the other, both at the time of the incident and matters subsequently, that position was significantly challenged. The right place, as the Hon David Seymour points out, for this discussion is the Standing Orders Committee. That committee will convene at the earliest convenience to the House; obviously, not in the recess week, but perhaps the week after, as a bit of dust settles, to work out exactly what might be a better set of rules—which the Standing Orders are—should events like this occur in the future.

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

SPEAKER: Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Hugh Donald requesting that the House urge the Government to establish a royal commission of inquiry to investigate what the petitioner believes are miscarriages of justice by ACC to claimants and entitlements

petition of Geoffrey Mortlock requesting that the House urge the Government to impose sanctions on Israel until Israel has withdrawn from all Palestinian territory and has reverted to the borders established for Israel in 1947.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 20 papers.

CLERK:

2023-24 annual reports for:

Antarctica New Zealand

Crown Infrastructure Partners Limited

Education Payroll Limited

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Board

Privacy Commissioner

Rau Paenga Limited

Real Estate Authority

Transport Accident Investigation Commission

Maritime New Zealand

Te Māngai Pāho

Te Taura Whiri I Te Reo Māori

Ministerial Response to the referral of the Petition of Reality Check Radio on ‘Accept Reality Check Radio’s “People’s Terms” for the Covid Inquiry’

The Section 8I Report: A report on the progress made on implementation of Waitangi Tribunal recommendations to the Crown, 2022-23

2024-28 statements of intent for Rau Paenga Limited, Transport Accident Investigation Commission, and Maritime New Zealand

2024-25 statements of performance expectations for Rau Paenga Limited, Transport Accident Investigation Commission, and Maritime New Zealand.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of John Hearnshaw: New Zealand needs a national law to limit light pollution and promote dark skies, and the

petition of Muhammad Dahlan: Create a special visa for Palestinians in Gaza who have family members in NZ

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill, and the

petition of Nola Blainey: Halt Kāinga Ora social housing developments proposed for Kerikeri.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading.

Motions

Pike River Mine Disaster—Anniversary

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate acknowledging the anniversary of the Pike River disaster.

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

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I move, That this House note that today in 2010, 29 miners lost their lives while at work in the Pike River Mine, express its condolences to family and friends who will forever be profoundly impacted, and thank rescue and support teams for their service on that day and the days that followed.

Motion agreed to.

Ministerial Statements

Defence Act 1990—Authorisations Made Under Section 9(2)

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): I wish to make a ministerial statement regarding authorisations made under section 9(2) of the Defence Act 1990. I rise to make another statement under Standing Order 356 in relation to the use of the armed forces to perform a public service in connection with an industrial dispute. Today, I am advising the House why three new authorisations have been given by the Minister of Defence, in line with section 9 of the Defence Act 1990. The first two of these new authorisations relates to work undertaken at Kauri Point, the armament depot in Auckland.

First, the Minister of Defence has again agreed for uniformed personnel to provide security guard services at Kauri Point. It is in the public interest that security of defence areas can be maintained throughout the industrial dispute, to ensure public safety and national security. This is especially pertinent noting the munitions and weapons held at Kauri Point.

Second, weapons and munitions at Kauri Point need to be prepared before they can be loaded on to HMNZS Te Kaha, one of the navy’s Anzac class frigates, for an upcoming deployment. Preparation work must be completed once it is started, for health and safety reasons, often taking longer than 10 hours. Strike action cannot be allowed to get in the way of this. As such, the Minister of Defence has given authority for Air Force armament technicians and qualified weapons technicians from the New Zealand Army to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions to Te Kaha while civilians in the Public Service Association—or PSA—involved in the strike action refuse to work overtime.

The last authorisation relates to the PSA’s strike notice, including a refusal to wear ear protection. Striking PSA members located at Base Auckland therefore cannot perform the required systems testing before the upcoming deployment of an SH-2G(I) helicopter as this testing generates excessive noise. The Minister of Defence has therefore authorised an electronic warfare intelligence specialist from the Royal New Zealand Air Force to undertake this work while strike action is occurring.

These three authorisations have a mandate until 2 December, and it is intended that this House extends this date until 14 February 2025 to cover the entire strike action period. Contrary to what some may wish to believe, we do not live in a benign strategic environment. The New Zealand Defence Force must, therefore, continue to prioritise military outputs in the current fiscal environment, to ensure that New Zealand plays its part in maintaining the international rules-based order. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, I made some introductory comments which I think suffice for my introduction here—there’s no need to take the House’s time by repeating those comments. If I could ask the Minister a couple of questions. Last week I asked the Minister of Defence whether there had been a prior instance of section 9(2) of the Defence Act having been utilised after a zero percent wage offer was made, leading to strike action—the then Minister couldn’t answer. I was wondering if the Minister is able to enlighten the House on that issue today.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): It’s my understanding that in 2001, the Department of Corrections workers, who were at that time undertaking industrial action, were effectively—or, their duties were authorised to be carried out in the manner equivalent to that which we are discussing in today’s motion by New Zealand Defence Force personnel. I don’t know the detail in terms of a zero increase pay offer having been made, but I would point out that it’s as recently as the period of the last Government in which New Zealand Defence Force personnel, both uniform and civilian, were offered zero percent pay increases for a much longer period of time than is contemplated in this motion. I think those members would be surprised to understand that members of political parties that now form the Opposition have discovered an intense interest in their pay and conditions in this way.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I must express surprise to the Government that, having asked that question last week, the Minister’s not in a position to answer it today. Perhaps he could answer the other question that the Minister was unable to help the House with last week when I asked what was the effect of inflation on the real terms and conditions of those workers since they last had a wage increase.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): Suffice to say that inflationary pressures have affected many workers throughout New Zealand, again both civilian and uniform, within the Defence Act.

Hon Simeon Brown: Thanks to your Government, Mr Parker.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, I mean, members opposite might well know that, having caused this situation in the first place. That has not uniquely affected Defence, but they have been affected by it, of course, along with others. I would simply make the point in addressing that question that has been posed, that the effect of inflation and those cost of living pressures on our defence force is much less than it would have been had the previous Government continued its spendthrift ways to continue to drive up inflation and the cost of living. We are pleased as a Government as a whole to be doing something about that situation.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Minister is asking the House to take note of this proposal to bring in military personnel to perform civilian roles, but is still not in a position to advise the House in respect of the issues that were raised both this week and last week?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): I consider that I have responded. If the member doesn’t like the responses, that is his problem, not mine, and it’s not the problem of the Government. Our focus has been to ameliorate the situation as best we can, both in terms of our international security situation—and I’m pleased to note as recently as days just gone by, the level of international engagement from the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Trade at APEC. But in terms of the security situation, we are very minded of the need to prioritise the preservation of the international rules-based order—that’s one of the key priorities of our defence force.

In turn, we know that Defence need to be valued; they need to be looked after in terms of being provided with the resources. Within that, Defence has made the decision—and we support the decision—to prioritise uniform personnel who are delivering those outputs in the very direct way that they are, albeit that of course we recognise the important role played by Defence civilians. No doubt the good-faith negotiations that are taking place now will be resolved as soon as possible. We hope and expect that this will take place by late January or, if not by then, then mid-February. That is the basis for these authorisations having been made, including with the extensions of time, as already discussed.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the three new authorisations that the Minister has spoken about, and I echo the sentiments of the Hon David Parker around the sense of frustration about getting clear answers from the Minister when it comes to the history of using these powers to bring in military personnel to cover for civilian personnel. I want to pick up on one of the last bits of the ministerial statement, particularly the bit that says—and I quote—“the New Zealand Defence Force must continue to deliver military outputs in this strained fiscal environment.” I want to ask: what level of advocacy, if any, has the Minister done in the past to prevent this fiscal environment from happening, because we acknowledge that this fiscal environment did not just happen organically. It was due to political decisions by successive Governments, including this one that led to the strike action. Can I ask: what level of advocacy has the Minister done to alleviate the so-called strained fiscal environment?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): I’m not a research assistant for either of the members of Parliament opposite who have asked me a question that is not directly relevant to the motion today. If they wish to know the history and the background of industrial relations, they are welcome to research that themselves.

In terms of the advocacy that this side of the House—and I acknowledge the three parties that make up with the Government, including my own party. I was pleased to be able to have a role as an Opposition spokesperson for defence at a time that the previous Government was devaluing their contribution by giving an indefinite deployment in relation to COVID-19 that was very far removed from the intention that most of them had when they signed up. Of course, they did that without complaint while they were in uniform, but many left—a huge attrition rate. We were consistent in advocating for those personnel to be given pay and conditions and, more importantly, deployment that actually reflected their intention and their desire to serve our country in that way.

I also note the advocacy that this side of the House made in relation to members of the defence force who were being paid below the minimum wage at a certain period of time during the last Government. And, you know, we’re surprised—

Hon David Parker: That can’t be right—below the minimum wage. It would have been illegal.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, actually, I didn’t wish to take the House’s time too much, but, for the benefit of the Hon David Parker, who clearly missed that point at the time, and colleagues of his who clearly didn’t, the situation arose where minimum pay was set for members of the army who were doing certain work for the Government. It included a military factor—or “mil factor”, as it’s known—component within that minimum wage. For reservists who did not receive that mil factor, their hourly pay rate fell below that of the minimum wage. Now, technically—technically—that’s not a breach of the law because that’s the arrangements in relation to employment law. I was surprised, as he was, at the time, but we did something about it—that was our advocacy among other things. Again, I’m just impressed—

SPEAKER: Right—that’s enough. This is a ministerial statement and not a debate.

Hon Chris Bishop: Well, he’s interrupted.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Given that we’ve had both questions, interjections, and answers that have been well wide of the motion, I’d ask the member to bring it back to the matters that are before the House at the moment.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Absolutely. I’ll just quote another bit of the motion, particularly the bit that talks about how “it is intended that the House extend this date until 14 February” next year. Earlier, the motion talked about how the three authorisations have a mandate until 2 December. May I ask the Minister: why 14 February? To me, it actually seems like we could have put the date as the first week back to Parliament to then assess where things were at. This seems like rather than enabling for us to come back after the summer break to assess where things were at, it’s just kind of going way above and beyond that. I want to know: why did he not decide to pull the date sooner?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): My understanding is that the strike notice, or the industrial action, generally has a specified date at the end of January to which it can take place. A further two weeks from that seems prudent for the purpose then of resetting normal arrangements, whereby rosters can be made, people can be given notice for duties that they might undertake, including out of ordinary 9 to 5, Monday to Friday work times. The date of mid-February seems to us prudent.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): That doesn’t necessarily acknowledge that strike action can also be called off should there be movement in negotiations, and, if so, why did he not consider that when it came to setting those dates?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): That may be true, but it’s also true that an authorisation need not be exercised for the full period of its duration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Tamatha Paul: How can he say that this Government represents all New Zealanders when he refuses to go outside and front the tens of thousands of New Zealanders gathered here today?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is very clear. We had a delegation from the National Party representing our position, receiving the hīkoi, and making clear our point of view, which is that we’re not supporting the bill beyond first reading, therefore it won’t become law.

Tamatha Paul: Why is that crowd of tens of thousands of people not good enough for him to go out there and front the decision that he just made?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question. As I said, the National Party sent a delegation out, representing our position, to receive the hīkoi. I’ve also met with iwi leaders up and down the country and will continue to do so.

Tamatha Paul: What’s the point of meeting with iwi leaders across the country when their clear demand is for the Government to kill the bill and he has not done that, with all of the opportunities that he has had to abandon this bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of your question, the reason I meet with iwi leaders is because we want to improve outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. When we see 12 percent of Māori getting to high school at the standard they need to be for on mathematics because of the previous Government, that’s not great. When we see the number of Māori young kids in emergency motel accommodation and the work that we’ve done subsequently since coming to Government to take them out of there to put them into a proper house, that’s the stuff that we talk about. When we work with Waikato-Tainui to make sure we’re working on social housing, that’s the work that we’re interested in—making sure we improve outcomes for Māori, not this stuff.

SPEAKER: This is not going to be a day where there’s a great deal of tolerance for repeated interjections that are more of an insult than anything else.

Tamatha Paul: Why would he give false hope to New Zealanders that their voice matters when he has said that the bill will be killed at second reading?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s been a longstanding position of the National Party. We came to a compromise under an MMP environment in forming a coalition Government. We agree on many, many things between the three parties in this coalition Government; we don’t agree on this. We came to a compromise. We’re not supporting it beyond first reading. It won’t become law.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister tell the House which of the following two organisations is most supportive of charter schools, kura hourua: is it (a) the Green Party or (b) the Iwi Chairs Forum?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s the Iwi Chairs Forum, but they’re also very supportive—many iwi—about what we’re doing around fast-track legislation, which is actually getting things built in this country. And I would really ask the member to actually get her party to support the fast-track legislation. If you care about climate change, end the oil and gas ban, support fast-track legislation, and get in behind that agenda.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ rulings make it quite clear that Ministers are not to introduce new material into the answers. The question was quite clear—and, in my view, it was questionable, but, nevertheless, we don’t dispute that. It was allowed in, and so we go with it. But the question was about charter schools. It wasn’t about fast track, it wasn’t about deep-sea mining or anything else that the Prime Minister introduced. He shouldn’t have been allowed to carry on with that.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be your view, but when the primary question says “all statements and actions”, I think it’s a fair game for anything that gets introduced.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether it’s a fact that in the classical Māori way of former times—and, around the country, still of late—if they want someone to speak to them, they usually invite you to come along, and they didn’t because the Māori Party told them they didn’t want to see anybody else?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I think in both the last questions we have seen patsy questions being asked very much attacking parties of the Opposition in the very specific line of questioning, including naming them. So I just wanted to check with you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance around whether that’s an adequate use of patsies.

SPEAKER: You’ve got to be kidding! The opening supplementary was about why the Prime Minister didn’t turn up to speak to the hīkoi today. Now, we’re still on the same question. The member who just asked the question hasn’t had a supplementary to that point. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—ask it again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s a patsy question and you know it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not the case that in classical Māori behaviour in former times and around the rohe of late is to, when they want to speak to someone, ask them to come and speak, but in this case they did not ask political party leaders to speak; more importantly, Te Pāti Māori told them not to come?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s true—I wasn’t invited to speak. But my message to the general audience at the hīkoi is the same: we will not support the bill beyond first reading, and therefore it won’t become law.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I did not want to interrupt the question or the answer to that last supplementary, but as you concluded your ruling, a member—I think Ricardo Menéndez March—called out—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Can you just say that again? I just missed that.

Hon David Seymour: Yes. As you concluded your ruling before that supplementary, an Opposition member—I think Ricardo Menéndez March—called out in response to your ruling “embarrassing”. Now, I think if we’re going to uphold standards in the House, then that sort of thing—contesting a Speaker’s ruling like that—should be called out.

SPEAKER: No, I think it was self-admonishment. He was embarrassed that he didn’t realise we’re on the same question.

Tamatha Paul: How are people supposed to trust him when he’s willing to compromise on the founding document of our country in his coalition agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, New Zealanders can trust us that we’re going to deliver on improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. That is why this Government is working so incredibly hard to rebuild the economy, because Māori want higher incomes, Māori want better quality housing, Māori want much better quality education outcomes, and they want access to timely quality healthcare as well. That’s what this Government’s focused on.

Question No. 2—Justice

2. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he seen regarding the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): Two of note in the last few days: one being that the bill was read a first time, agreed to by the House, and referred to the Justice Committee. The second announcement was just this morning, that the Justice Committee is now seeking public submissions from all New Zealanders on their views on the bill. This is the first time in our history that all New Zealanders have been offered an equal chance to have a say on what our constitutional future means under the Treaty of Waitangi, and I’d encourage people to get along to the Justice Committee website and have their voice heard.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reports has he seen on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I have to say there’s been quite a lot of reportage on the topic, but if I was to try and boil it down it would be a contrast between people who want to have a respectful and rational debate about our constitutional future and the way the principles of the Treaty have evolved in recent years, versus people who resort to name calling, abuse, and theatrics but not actually engaging with the argument, and I think that contrast is perfectly clear for New Zealanders, and I think there’ll be some people in this House who want to review which side of that divide they’d like to be on.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How can New Zealanders have their say on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, as I mentioned, from now until 11.59 p.m. on 7 January, the Justice Committee will be accepting submissions, and I think it’s very important that people have a view on this bill and the issues surrounding it; actually have their say, and make sure that they do it in a respectful and constructive way with a view to how our country can work together under this Treaty principles bill, perhaps with improvements suggested by people at select committee. Having this kind of debate and reflection is healthy for New Zealand, and I invite people to make those submissions to the Justice Committee.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Acting Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has the Government made about improving capital infrastructure investment?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance) Last week, the Minister for Infrastructure and under-secretary Simon Court announced a refresh of the Government’s public/private partnership (PPP) framework to improve investment practice by utilising private sector expertise and discipline, which will help the Government lift our game in how we plan, deliver, and maintain significant assets. We’ve made six targeted changes to the framework, involving smarter allocation of risk; recognising, and in some cases reimbursing bid costs; stronger collaboration between the Crown and bidders in the tendering phase; and ensuring the upcoming National Infrastructure Agency provides robust and centralised PPP expertise and improvements to the dispute resolution process.

David MacLeod: How will PPPs support better investment discipline and infrastructure outcomes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: When done well, public/private partnerships drive better performance compared to other approaches. This is because PPPs have strong contractual incentives for on time and on budget delivery, agreed levels of service, and ensuring assets are maintained through their lifespan. With a PPP, taxpayers know what they’re getting, and they get what they pay for. When private capital is on the line, private partners are fiercely driven to deliver contractually defined outcomes in a way that optimises the project across its life, ensuring it is planned and designed well from the start. In short, this is about getting the incentives aligned and getting them right.

David MacLeod: When will the Government consider using PPPs?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, PPPs will not be the best model for all projects. All procurement and delivery models have pros and cons, and the best model will depend on the characteristics of each project. But we know that PPPs are likely to be more successful where a project is large and complex, and where the desired outcomes are well defined, enabling clear contractual obligations. These are the types of projects where there’s risk transfer, whole of life project optimisation, innovation, and strong contractual incentives. PPPs in New Zealand are not new; there have been eight since 2011, including three bundles of primary and secondary schools that were carried on through the previous Government.

David MacLeod: What reports has she seen on the market’s reaction to the PPP model refresh?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The market reaction’s been very positive. Quoting Nick Leggett, Chief Executive of Infrastructure in New Zealand, he said it “sets out the right incentives and accountability mechanisms to enable PPPs to play an important role in meeting [our] infrastructure needs.” I would also like to note for the House that the document we launched last week contains a foreword from the Prime Minister and myself and the under-secretary, and I would like to publicly thank Barbara Edmonds from the Labour Party on behalf of the Opposition for putting forward a foreword to the document. The Government is keen to work on getting the foundations of our infrastructure system right, and making sure that we are best placed to go forward into the 2030s and beyond where we have a strong system. Getting our PPP framework right is part and parcel of that, so I’d like to thank Barbara Edmonds for that contribution.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Acting Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “We know that to be successful in driving growth we need you and your colleagues in the business community on board”; if so, is the business community on board with the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, to the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, I don’t have responsibility for either the business community or, indeed, the bill, but what I will say is that my sense from the business community is that, much like the rest of the country, there are a variety of opinions on the bill.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she received any advice about the impact of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and associated divisiveness on New Zealand’s sovereign risk rating?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Morrison & Co CEO Paul Newfield that “We need to move away from small-minded divisive issues and focus on building a better New Zealand together”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I generally agree with what Mr Newfield has to say. He’s a very smart man. What I would say is that this Government is intensely focused on building a New Zealand that is more productive, smarter around how it uses capital, and drives economic growth for the future. I know Mr Newfield shares those ambitions.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Foodstuffs North Island CEO Chris Quin: “If Seymour is really focused on long-term economic growth and productivity, that would be fine, but his obsession with divisive social issues that energise people on the fringes of the New Zealand political debate make him the wrong person to wear that badge”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, it’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and while the National Party has a different view to one of the governing parties in the coalition on the Treaty principles bill—that’s been well canvassed—what I can say in a ministerial context is that Minister Seymour is intensely focused on productivity and is leading the charge on foreign investment reform inside the Government and on a range of red-tape - busting initiatives to get Government off the back of businesses, who are just trying to make an honest buck in the world and grow this economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can her Government claim to be focused on supporting the economy and growth when it is distracted with the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the only person who, I think, has got very excited about it and distracted is members of the Labour Party, including herself. This Government’s driving mission—this Government’s driving ambition and mission—in politics, and the reason why it was elected almost a year or so ago, is to lift our ambitions as a country, get out of the mire of low growth, both in growth and productivity, and get this economy growing again, because, ultimately, the only way to build a prosperous and ambitious country that New Zealanders want to stay in and not leave and to build the types of public services that New Zealanders demand—the only sustainable way to create that—is economic growth and getting this joint going again, and that’s what we’re focused on.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about contactless payments on Auckland’s public transport network?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): On Thursday, I announced alongside the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, that the Government and Auckland Council have delivered contactless payments on Auckland’s public transport network, to enable commuters to tag on and off public buses, trains, and ferries travelling across the region. The New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Council have jointly funded the delivery of contactless payments on the Auckland transport network, which provides Aucklanders with more travel choices to get where they need to go.

Greg Fleming: Excellent. What options do Aucklanders now have to pay on public transport?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: From Sunday, Aucklanders have more ways to pay on Auckland’s buses, trains, and ferries. In addition to HOP Cards, Aucklanders and visitors to the city are now able to tag on and off using contactless debit cards, credit cards, as well as Apple Pay and Google Pay on their smartphones or smartwatches. This is fantastic news for Aucklanders and it takes away the hassle of needing cash or a HOP card.

Greg Fleming: How will the roll-out of contactless payments benefit Aucklanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Rolling out contactless debit and credit card payments for public transport users will be a game-changer. Not only will it make public transport services more convenient and easier to use but it will also help give Aucklanders more transport choices. It’s all part of our Government’s plan to increase travel choices and help people get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Greg Fleming: What plans does the Government have to roll out contactless payments across the country?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good question. The roll-out of contactless payments in Auckland’s public transport network is the first step delivering New Zealand’s one National Ticketing Solution. Contactless payments on public transport are common elsewhere around the world, and this will ensure New Zealanders have the same standard of service. The roll-out of contactless payments will expand to Timaru and Christchurch in early 2025 and it will reach other regions by the end of 2026.

Question No. 6—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

6. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: How does he assess the impact of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on the Crown’s ability to honour its Treaty obligations with Treaty settlements that have been completed, particularly regarding partnership, protection, and participation?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): With great care, although I should note that ministerial responsibility for post-Treaty settlement issues lies with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, which I’m sure the Opposition spokesperson’s well aware of.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What steps is he taking to ensure that the proposed Treaty principles bill does not undermine the trust and goodwill between the Crown and iwi, who are currently engaged in Treaty negotiations?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The steps we’re taking are carrying on the in-depth conversations, with goodwill, with many Treaty groups that are wanting to advance their settlements, and they are scattered all about the country. I can inform the House that we are making steady progress on those issues.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with former Treaty of Waitangi negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson, who has said that National is risking damaging its relationship with Māori by agreeing for the Treaty principles bill to go through a select committee process; and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I always take the comments of former colleagues with great interest but also with a grain of salt, because things have sometimes moved on from where they were when they were in the House. But that former Minister has a lot to say on many issues, and it’s always very entertaining to hear what he has to say.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When he stated, “some former MPs sometimes feel they can chip in and tell the current ones what to do”, was he referring to Christopher Finlayson, Jenny Shipley, or is it just all former National MPs who are pointing out this Government’s mistakes?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, on this side of the House, we have a long tradition of robust debate within the National Party. We’re not sort of all having to believe the same thing at the same moment at the same time, and I think that’s what we’re seeing across the country. There are a wide variety of views on these things, but the most important thing is that we conduct ourselves with good grace, listen to the other side, and have a good, honest conversation, and that’s what we’re about.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to why he would have regard to someone who has his shingles up acting for Treaty of Waitangi claimants and claiming to be independent on this matter?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I wouldn’t really want to comment on that.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her absolute commitment to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and support Māori-Crown relationships, as set out in the purpose of the Education and Training Act 2020; if so, how?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, we are putting student achievement at the heart of every single thing that we do. If we want to honour the Treaty, it means closing the equity gap so that decades of disparity that have pervaded our system and the disproportionate representation of tamariki Māori and rangatahi Māori in the lower quartiles of our education and achievement system is closed. It is my utmost belief that education can and should be the primary protective factor for our kids and the way that they can break through intergenerational cycles of poverty and disadvantage and live the life they want.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she explain how Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been embedded and authentically reflected in the refreshed curriculum following the outright removal and erasure of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the curriculum framework Te Mātaiaho and dismissal of Māori advisers on the curriculum refresh working group?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question, I answered this last week, and I’ll repeat myself: Te Mātaiaho has not been developed yet. There are only two learning areas—English and maths—that have been put out. What has been put out in terms of the framework which is Te Mātaiaho is only a shell. We are working on that framework and it will be consulted on in the same way that all of the learning areas are being consulted on. But I’ll reiterate: it hasn’t been written yet, so the member needs to understand that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why has she taken the unprecedented move to mandate an unrecognised concept for science of learning as the teaching and learning approach for all, ignoring Māori ways of knowing, teaching, and learning?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s why we have the New Zealand Curriculum and also Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. Te Marautanga is also being refreshed, as well as the New Zealand Curriculum. The science of learning is a well-known, well-documented, and well-evidenced way to improve the outcomes of our students. If that member wants to see some evidence of that, she should go and look at the structured literacy Better Start Literacy Approach results for tamariki Māori, because they are outstanding.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What will she do to ensure that Māori learners and other children from minority cultures are safe from racism and discrimination when she plans to scrap the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs)?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are many things that boards of trustees need to take into account when it comes to keeping children safe at school. One of those things is section 127 of the Education Act. We will be developing more guidance for boards in the future, but the NELPs are something that only need to be given regard to and they are cluttering up the things that school boards need to pay attention to.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why do tamariki have to attend a hīkoi today instead of relying on an education Minister to live up to her promise to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said today, all schools should be open for instruction, and the most important thing for our tamariki Māori is that they are in front of a teacher, learning, every single day that they possibly can if we’re going to close the equity gap.

Question No. 8—Police

8. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about crime statistics?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yesterday, I announced some of the progress that we have made as a coalition Government in our first year. I highlighted a 3 percent reduction in victimisations, an increase of over 30 percent in foot patrols, ram raids dropping by 60 percent, and aggravated robberies down by 11 percent. As I said, there is a lot more work to do to make New Zealand the safest country in the world and to restore law and order, but this coalition Government is committed to deliver on that promise.

Rima Nakhle: How does gang membership growth compare this year to last year?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Gang membership recorded on the National Gang List grew 1 percent to October this year. Last year for the same period, it grew by 10 percent. Under this coalition Government, gang membership growth has slowed tenfold.

Rima Nakhle: What does a reduction in overall victimisations mean?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Victimisations reducing across the board by 3 percent this year is a significant early sign that things are getting better. While there are still areas of improvement, and the job is by no means done, to see a reduction in total victimisations by 3 percent is a sign that we are becoming a safer country.

Rima Nakhle: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold off until the House goes quiet. OK, now you’ve probably got it.

Rima Nakhle: Thank you. Is the job done in restoring law and order?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No. Despite the progress that has been made, we must remain relentlessly focused on some growth areas like retail crime. I was appointed police Minister to help restore law and order. That job is not yet done, but I’m firmly committed to seeing it through with my ministerial colleagues inside our coalition Government and with our combined desire to make New Zealand the safest country in the world.

Question No. 9—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

9. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 11 on 7 November 2024 that “There are a number of matters that ... have strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship”; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Yes.

Hon Peeni Henare: If he is confident that the Māori-Crown relationship has been “strengthened” by this Government, is he able to explain why there are tens of thousands of people outside on the forecourt?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’d say, on behalf of the Minister, there is a very large population of Māori—900,000—and I’m sure there is a wide variety of views amongst them as to progress or otherwise. There’ll be some who are particularly focused on constitutional matters, and they will be included amongst some of the people in front of Parliament, and that’s absolutely appropriate, and we’ll listen to those conversations. There’ll be others who are more focused on economic opportunities and the chance for their family, their hapū, their whānau, their iwi to advance, and those will be seeing many opportunities through pieces of legislation that this Government is advancing.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he believe that the Māori-Crown relationship is as strong as it needs to be, and, if not, how can Māori trust that it will get better when the Minister responsible is “too far down the food chain” to have any impact on the decision making of this Government and its anti-Māori policy agenda?

SPEAKER: The last part of that question’s not acceptable. Withdraw, apologise, and start again.

Hon Peeni Henare: I withdraw and apologise. Does he believe that the Māori-Crown relationship is as strong as it needs to be, and, if not, how can Māori trust that it will get better when the Minister responsible is “too far down the food chain” to have any impact on the decisions of this Government?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, to the first part of the question, on behalf of the Minister, there’s always room for improvement. To the second part, it’s a snide and unhelpful comment, and this is a Government that is absolutely determined to ensure that we work collaboratively with Māori on all sides of the House, recognising that when he talks about Māori as if they all think alike and have the same view on any given topic, it’s completely nuts. There is a wide variety of views, and there are many, many opportunities to collaborate, and that’s what this Government’s focused on.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by his answer in oral questions last week, “It is absolutely clear to us that the Treaty responsibilities and obligations, whether they come from a settlement arrangement or otherwise, need to be upheld and pursued by agencies across this Government and future Governments.”; if so, will he direct the Associate Minister of Health to instruct Pharmac to resume considering Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its decision making?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I agree to the first comment. And exactly how that is done in any particular instance across Government, in the many multitudinous variety of issues that are dealt with across Government, it falls on the Government to be clear about what it does and doesn’t mean by those comments.

Hon Peeni Henare: How can he stand in this House and speak about the strengthened Māori-Crown relationship when Māori die seven years earlier than non-Māori, Māori are overrepresented in the justice system, and are overrepresented in emergency housing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, on behalf of the Minister, that’s why this Government is focused on those very issues. And in terms of the justice sector, Māori are much more likely to be victims of crime, and that’s why we’re very focused on restoring law and order in this country—to the benefit of all New Zealanders, including Māori—and that’s what we’ll continue to do.

Question No. 10—Trade

10. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister for Trade: What recent actions has the Government taken to boost New Zealand’s economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): It’s been a big year for New Zealand in trade negotiations. In May, the European Union free-trade agreement (FTA) entered into force many months sooner than predicted, providing $46 million of tariffs saved for Kiwi exporters this year that they would otherwise have missed out on. In September, we concluded the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, our first FTA in the Middle East, giving Kiwi exporters commercial advantage in that growing market. Last month, we concluded a trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—unfinished business for successive Governments over 18 years—with a particular focus on goods and services trade. And last week, at APEC in Peru, we signed the agreement on trade with sustainability with Costa Rica, Iceland, and Switzerland; particularly good for our sheep farmers and wood producers. Growing New Zealand’s trade relationships is part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy, lift incomes for all Kiwis, and create jobs.

Nancy Lu: How will these trade agreements with the Middle East benefit Kiwi exporters?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, as I said, in September—after just four months of negotiation—we concluded a trade deal with the UAE delivering 98.5 percent tariff elimination on New Zealand exports on entry into force, rising to 99 percent after three years. Just three weeks ago, in Doha, we concluded a high-quality trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council, having significantly reengaged with them in February of this year. The GCC agreement delivers duty-free access for 99 percent of New Zealand’s exports over 10 years and, when combined with the UAE agreement, removes tariffs on 51 percent of our exports to the Gulf on day one. These two agreements secure market access in a highly competitive market for beef, lamb, dairy, manuka honey, fish, and many, many other goods, and contribute towards their ambitious goal of doubling exports by value over 10 years.

Nancy Lu: What additional provisions are included in the Gulf Corporation Council agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The NZ-GCC FTA includes provisions that will make doing business easier, with preferential access for our primary sector exporters, streamlined customs procedures, reduced trade barriers, and commitments to level the playing field for Kiwi services businesses entering the market. The agreement also includes chapters and provisions on intellectual property; transparency and trade and sustainability of sustainable development; and includes commitments to international labour standards, climate, and women’s economic empowerment, committing to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. New Zealand also secured our Treaty of Waitangi exception to allow us to meet Treaty obligations.

Nancy Lu: What additional actions has the Government taken to double export value and grow trade?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Two weeks ago, I led a business delegation of over 70 companies to China—our most significant economic relationship—to attend the China International Import Expo (CIIE) in Shanghai and then on to Guangzhou. This was the largest number of companies to attend or exhibit at the CIIE, and New Zealand’s largest footprint and presence there. The companies and their products were very well received and built on New Zealand’s reputation for producing high-quality, safe, environmentally friendly food and fibre. Twenty-four agreements and memorandums of understanding between New Zealand and Chinese companies were signed during the visit, worth an additional $340 million in export revenue to New Zealand over the next three years. Also, earlier this year, with the Chinese Government, we announced and committed to upgrading the services we compounded of the NZ-China FTA. As I said, a big year for trade negotiations.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) to the Minister of Education: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?]

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, especially my recently announced maths pilot to lift student achievement and close the equity gap. From term 1 and 2 next year, around 2,000 year 7 and 8 students who need the most help will take part in an intensive programme to support them to progress towards the required curriculum levels in mathematics.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she believe that specific consultation with hapū and iwi on decisions affecting Māori is part of meeting obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and if so, what specific consultation did she take on removing Te Ahu o te Reo Māori and changes to section 127 of the Education and Training Act?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question: in certain circumstances, yes.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she recognise the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as established in section 9 of the Education and Training Act, and, if so, how is not consulting with Māori about any of the changes I mentioned in education consistent with this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question: yes.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Will she commit to releasing the full report of the consultation that she conducted on the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a primary objective under section 127 of the Education and Training Act?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If it’s required by law then yes we will.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Does she agree that for ākonga to attend today’s hīkoi is entirely consistent with section 5(4)(c) of the Education and Training Act objective “to instil, in each child and young person, an appreciation of the importance of … (iii) Te Tiriti o Waitangi”; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are many things in the Education and Training Act, one of which is to make sure that students are achieving to the best of their abilities, and in order to do that, they need to be in school in front of their amazing teachers.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Why does the Minister want to deprioritise upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi in schools, despite the recommendation of Whanaketia that “The government should partner with hapū, iwi and Māori to give effect to te Tiriti”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to the first part of the question: we’re not deprioritising it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can she speak up?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. I don’t think anyone was being deliberately quiet. We’ll find out what’s wrong with that microphone. The Minister was speaking into it and it should have picked up better than it did.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley: “I caution New Zealand - the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.”; if so, why is his Government asking a select committee to spend the next six months attempting to do exactly that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to part of the question, no, we’re not at risk of civil war in New Zealand. That’s inflammatory language.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is the Government asking a select committee to spend the next six months attempting to put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it’s part of our coalition agreement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Dame Jenny Shipley—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. His own side should respect the person asking the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Dame Jenny Shipley “this sort of malicious, politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices, because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest.”; if so, why did he prioritise the Government’s political interests over the best interests of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, I don’t believe it’s linked to fund-raising.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Dame Jenny Shipley, who said, when speaking about the Treaty, “this was an agreement, a contract - and you do not rip up a contract and then just say, ‘Well, I’m happy to rewrite it on my terms, but you don’t count.’ ”; if so, does he agree that the bill currently before the Justice Committee rewrites the terms of the Treaty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, what I expect is the Crown to uphold our obligations under the law and under the Treaty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Finlayson, “there is too much division and hurt in New Zealand caused by, among other things, pernicious nonsense like the Treaty Principles Bill”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is why the National Party won’t be supporting the bill beyond first reading and it won’t become law, unless the Opposition support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour, his future Deputy Prime Minister, that Jenny Shipley was grossly irresponsible to criticise the bill and that Christopher Finlayson is showing haughtiness and bitterness for expressing his views; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t speak for David Seymour.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister does indeed speak for David Seymour. He is David Seymour’s boss. He is the Prime Minister. I asked him whether he agreed with statements made by his Minister.

SPEAKER: The sharp point was “Did the Prime Minister agree.” The Prime Minister might want to reflect on that answer. It’s a pretty easy answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with former Prime Minister John Key that “philosophically it’s bad policy. I’ll tell you why I think it’s bad - if you write down the principles, if you think they’re going to stay like that, you’re a dreamer.”; if so, why did he decide that it was worth making coalition negotiations a little easier to advance such a destructive and defective policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, I do. The reality is that Treaty issues are complex and 180 years of debate and discussion doesn’t get written over with a stroke of a pen. That’s why we don’t support the bill and it won’t become law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters when he said he would not support the bill as “There are no principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don’t know how to make it any clearer to the member. We’ve been clear from day one. We will not support the bill beyond first reading. It won’t become law unless that member and his party support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that there are principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does he believe the principles are?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Partnership, protection, and other things that have discussed over many years—over 184 years.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is his Government, therefore, supporting a bill that would completely rewrite those principles to remove the three Ps that he just mentioned?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are not supporting the bill. As you know, we are not supporting the bill beyond first reading and it will not become law. I’ve been clear from day one. That is exactly our position and it remains unchanged.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take just a few seconds to allow people to leave the House quietly, without conversation on the way.

Sittings of the House

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for consideration in committee of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the third reading of the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the second reading of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

Defence Act 1990—Extension of Authorisations

Debate resumed from 14 November.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the motion be amended by—

replacing “5 November 2024 and 11 November 2024” with “5 November 2024, 11 November 2024, and 18 November 2024”; and

replacing “bases.” with “bases;”; and

adding the following bullet points after the third bullet point of the motion:

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Kauri Point to provide security guard services at Kauri Point;

Authority for the use of a member of the RNZAF who is an Intelligence Specialist trained in Electronic Warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH-2G(I) systems;

Authority for the use of members of the Armed Forces comprising RNZAF Armament Technicians located at RNZAF Base Auckland and members of the NZ Army located at Waiouru Military Camp who are qualified weapons technicians to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions to HMNZS Te Kaha, and to perform any ancillary service or receive training necessary to facilitate this work.

SPEAKER: The question now is that, under section 9(8) of the Defence Act 1990, the following authorisations given on 5 November 2024, 11 November 2024, and 18 November 2024 to use the armed forces to provide public services in connection with an industrial dispute be extended to 14 February 2025 be agreed to:

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at RNZAF Base Auckland to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting services;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces posted to HQNZDF, Trentham and Linton Military Camps to provide security guard services for Defence House and Pipitea House, Wellington;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at specified camps and bases to provide security guard services at those camps and bases;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Kauri Point to provide security guard services at Kauri Point;

Authority for the use of a member of the RNZAF who is an Intelligence Specialist trained in Electronic Warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH-2G(I) systems;

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the extension of authorisations debate, Government motion No. 1, that was a continued debate from the last sitting day, we were in a situation where many members of this House had taken their speaking slot and spoken to relevant amendments. This amendment fundamentally changes the original motion, and so it would be useful for all members of the House, including Government members, if we can get clarity from you that this amendment that has been moved by the Government essentially clears the slate and this is, in essence, a new debate on a new motion.

SPEAKER: A member who has already spoken to a new amendment—after an amendment has been moved, a member who has spoken prior to it—yes, OK?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Further to the point of order, please—oh, I’ll let you confer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s right. You can speak to the new amendment but you can’t move further amendments to extend the debate. Yes, it is, effectively, a clean slate. We’re now debating the amended motion.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): If I may—point of order—just so that everybody’s aware: what happens to those amendments that have already been moved on the original motion? Where do they stand? And if they are cleared by virtue of this new amendment by the Government, does that preclude other members from putting forward additional amendments?

SPEAKER: I’ll take advice on that. A bit of clarity around the situation, which I’m pleased that you’ve sought: firstly, members who have spoken in the debate can speak to the amended motion. If a member wanted to further amend the motion, it would need to be a speaker who has not spoken in the debate. All of the amendments will come up for vote in sequence as they were introduced. Does that help?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, sir. Yes, it is helpful, and it is where I thought you would go, but I do have something I wish to raise with you, which is that amendments were put forward by members up to the new amendment from the Government—they were put forward in good faith and it was actually quite a good exchange; the Minister was answering questions even though there was no requirement, and it was good and it was reasonable.

If members are prevented from putting forward additional amendments to this one, if the previous amendments no longer stand, then, actually, we’re, as a House, disadvantaged in this debate, because the Government’s amendment fundamentally changes things, and in some instances it means that those amendments that were put forward are now irrelevant. But, if they’re not cleared, and members are prevented from putting forward further amendments to make the same point in good faith, we are restricted as a House in our ability to debate this.

SPEAKER: When it comes to the voting on the bill, at some point, all the amendments that have been put up so far will be dealt with in sequential order. Your question, I think, is: if someone has moved an amendment, can they re-speak to that amendment, or to the amended motion? Is that the question? I just want to be clear about what you’re asking.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Essentially, sir, we have an amendment here that starts from different dates and includes fundamentally different things. Now, it is highly likely—I’m thinking I’ve got two in mind where it is no longer relevant to this motion that is being proposed to amend. So, if a member is prevented from putting forward a further amendment that is relevant to this one, because they put one previously—

SPEAKER: No, no, you’re definitely not. A member can put amendments to a new motion that’s in front of the House, and that might be something that is slightly out of step with what’s been said at the moment, but it would be fundamentally unfair if that were not the case, and it would simply mean that a debate could be curtailed by successive amendments being moved by the Government, and that is not a reasonable position either.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: OK, thank you. That’s all I wanted to—

SPEAKER: So has the Hon Penny Simmonds concluded—

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Sorry, potentially the Minister has further clarification, but just to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, that we are still able to put forward amendments from the original motion from last week as well as the new amendment that have been put forward by the Hon Penny Simmonds today.

SPEAKER: How it’s been put to me is that this is an addition to the motion that was put forward. It’s hard to imagine how an addition is not an amendment. If you would be so good as to give me a couple of minutes just to get this totally sorted out, then I’d be very grateful. In the meantime, if the member wants to take a call?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): Thank you, sir. I’m happy to take a call, really by way of context, and I’m grateful to members for their patience working through the procedural elements.

Clearly, as we have heard prior to question time today, the real-world situation has been updated such that it’s been necessary for the Minister of Defence—or she’s deemed it necessary—to provide further authorisations. As a result, the motion that is necessary to extend the time frames must in turn be amended. Of course, it seems to me that, in the way that the House, or the committee of the House in the context of committee of the whole House stage, can put forward amendments, the will of the House will determine which are accepted and which are not. It’s to be hoped that the House will be smart enough not to contradict itself in terms of those which it accepts, but it seems to me we’ll find out that soon enough, particularly having already discussed and debated this question at its heart, albeit now amended and extended, for some hour and a half already.

Just by way of history and background, it was on 5 November that the New Zealand Defence Force first received a notice from the Public Service Association ( PSA) of strike action that would take place the following day until 31 January. It was well canvassed last week that this would impact security guard operations at the respective bases and camps throughout the country and also those providing firefighting services, which one can appreciate is an important safety element for our service personnel and those who support them landing aircraft and so on.

The extension that I alluded to a moment ago was in relation to the Kauri Point arms and munitions depot. That’s a place at which HMNZS Te Kaha, among other naval vessels over the years have made necessary preparations for overseas deployments. That will be the case in early next year, and so it’s necessary that suitable security and safety arrangements are made in that. Similarly, in relation to the aircraft firefighting services at Auckland, as already canvassed, extending those in relation to the SH-2G helicopter that will be deployed on HMNZS Te Mana as necessary, for the reasons that I set out before question time, in that notice that these be the subject of armed forces supplementing of what would otherwise be civilian employment but for the strike action notice as given by the PSA already.

That’s, I think, enough background from me. Thank you for the opportunity to set that out. Obviously, I look forward to any further comments that members may make, noting, of course, that, it seemed to me that we had a very helpful, robust, and somewhat lengthy but nevertheless useful discussion on Thursday of last week. So, obviously I’d welcome any comments additional to that.

SPEAKER: Just so everyone’s clear, a member speaking now may speak for a second time in the debate to the amendment, but if they’ve previously made an amendment themselves, they can’t move a further amendment. It just doesn’t sit overly comfortably with me, so we’re just getting a little bit of clarification on that. I hope it doesn’t impinge on—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It doesn’t impinge on me at all, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a matter of debate, and I don’t think it’s a good thing for me to get into debate if you want that. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry. I apologise to my friend and colleague for interrupting, but I agree with you, sir. It doesn’t sit very comfortably with me, but as was alluded to previously in this House, some rules might be worthy of review. I wonder if you would be, therefore, willing to allow a member to withdraw an amendment that they made to the original motion to allow them to put forward another one. That way we don’t have to rely on interpretations of the rules as they currently stand. We may need leave to be able to do that, but it would certainly make it a lot more straightforward.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and I think it may complicate things a little bit more than is absolutely necessary, so let me just work our way through this somewhat unique situation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I haven’t actually spoken on this motion or amendment.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, you get to speak about it four times now, don’t you?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yes, I’m sure I’ve got a bit to say. I was just previously looking at the Defence Act, though, particularly in respect of this amendment. I was a little perplexed because this is fundamentally the use of military personnel to fulfil civilian responsibilities. If we look at the Defence Act—and I do think it’s really important to put it in context—the ability to have defence staff, or raise an army, to use old language, and all of the powers that go with that, including the bearing of arms and the use of force, is actually a really significant constitutional matter.

If you look at section 9 of the Defence Act, it seeks to encapsulate a very strong constitutional provision, and it’s one that the United States of America has in their constitution. It is that army personnel, military personnel, are never to use their powers of force in a civilian sphere except in cases of utmost emergency. We saw that in the Christchurch earthquakes, where the military personnel were used to secure damaged buildings, and some of us are very well aware of that.

What we’ve got here is an irritant to the Government, because civilian personnel have exercised an equally important constitutional right to withdraw their labour because they’ve been offered nothing in terms of keeping up with inflation. This should be a last resort, not a first resort, and it appears to me that this Government has—because times are a bit tight and we know the defence budget is tight as well. They haven’t got money to throw around and they’ve got a few other things, including a sunken vessel, to spend their money on at the moment.

I’m looking at Kauri Point, and we have got military personnel offering security guard services. This is not something which needs any kind of specialist expertise. If it’s a security guard, there are plenty of trained and competent security guards out there. This is a Government that likes using the private sector. The first resort should be to go out and use contractors, because this is, essentially, standing at the front gate to make sure people who come in have ID, and yet they’re going to use military personnel to do this role.

I have a real concern that this is actually stepping over a line and saying that we’re going to use military personnel for civilian roles, and this Government is pushing the boundaries on a lot of these. We’ll come to the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill later today, but this is another example where there hasn’t really been a respect for the constitutional line—the rights line that says we do not have military personnel doing civilian jobs, because military personnel have a particular constitutional place for defence and security, and not for wandering our streets or doing jobs that civilian staff could do.

The Acting Minister of Defence may want to make some explanation about the other part of this amendment, which is the use of a member of the Royal New Zealand Air Force who is an intelligence specialist trained in electronic warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH2G(I) systems. I’ve got to be honest that that’s not very meaningful, and it’s simply—

Tim Costley: Well, do your research. Of course it’s meaningful.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you know, I’m not sure what an SH2G(I) system is and why we can’t use a contractor for that. The fact of the matter is we’ve come here, we’re looking to use military personnel for civilian tasks, and it behoves the Government, if they’re going to do that, to be very clear about it.

SPEAKER: I wonder if I might—I don’t want to interrupt the member, but I don’t want to see him disadvantaged by what I’m about to say, so—

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh no, no.

SPEAKER: I recognise he’s got more time, I just thought I perhaps would ask the House to indulge me at the moment.

Firstly, the matters that were raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty are somewhat unique, a little bit different, and haven’t been struck before, and I think that’s why I was also somewhat uncomfortable about where the most strict interpretation of the Standing Orders could have taken us—and the consequences of that would mean that the Standing Orders provided an option for a Government to curtail a debate by simply constantly amending it, and that’s not at all parliamentary.

I want to make it clear that this is not a ruling—I’m going to suggest that we progress today, and the Chair, whoever is sitting here, will follow these procedures—but the matter does need to be sent to the Standing Orders Committee as suggested so that it is more clearly set out. Standing Order 129 prevents a member who’s already spoken from moving an amendment. Ordinarily, that would prevent a member who’s already spoken from moving an amendment to an amendment, and that’s the quandary that we’ve got today because the Government has amended their original motion. This is sounding like some kind of Monty Python skit, but, as I’ve said, this doesn’t sit well or comfortably with me at all. This context that I’m now going to suggest is for this particular debate only, while the matter is referred to the Standing Orders Committee. In that context, it means that the Chair will be prepared to accept amendments to amendments from members who’ve already spoken or moved amendments.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, I appreciate your acknowledgment there and your willingness to allow this debate to be full. Presumably, when you indicate that something should be reviewed by the Standing Orders Committee, there is a team within the Clerk’s Office, or wherever, that indicate that and bring that to the next meeting. So, in the spirit of trying to be helpful to that, I wonder if that team may also be able to identify and differentiate between an amendment made by the Opposition or an amendment made by the Government, because it is a Government amendment that has caused this. If it were amendments from Opposition members, we wouldn’t be in this situation, and perhaps that might be useful for our discussion.

SPEAKER: Yep. Look, I’ll take that up with the chairman of the Standing Orders Committee—myself.

Tim Costley: Point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: He’s a good guy, so he’ll be right.

SPEAKER: Right—I’m sure he’s going to find something grand for you. Point of order, the honourable—sorry, Tim Costley.

Tim Costley: Long way off. Just for clarity, sir, when you say members can make amendments to amendments, is that specifically just to the amendment moved by the Government, or are you opening the door for anyone to move amendments on the ones we received last—

SPEAKER: The motion that we’re now debating is the amended motion from the Government, so it’s amendments to that amendment. I was using the plural simply to indicate how the situation could exist if we were in a situation like this again—and I hope we aren’t, because good Government organisation is something that’s pretty important in a democracy. I call on the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Mr Speaker..

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what: we’ll start you back to five minutes so you’ve got a reasonable go.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. Now, I was asking the Minister to clarify the second bullet point on the amendment that was tabled today.

The other question I would have, and it relates to the wider issue, is whether the Government has taken advice from Crown Law, and whether they’d be happy to share it with the House—I think it’s quite important. I’m not familiar with the detail, but there is a very strong convention that armed forces are not used in domestic situations. The Act as it stands essentially gives a procedure for that to occur but not a threshold, but there clearly is a conventional threshold, if not a legal threshold. I would hope that the Government went and took advice about where that threshold was and whether it was met here. It would give some comfort to this House, I think, if we could say that the Crown’s legal adviser, the Attorney-General, through the Solicitor-General, has actually examined this question and said, “In all of the circumstances, this is an appropriate case to use the extraordinary power to have military personnel discharging civilian tasks.”

One of my concerns is the speed at which this appears to have occurred. Without wanting to point the finger too much, the fact that there’s an amendment to the motion suggests that they had an “Aha!” moment over the weekend and thought, “Oops, that doesn’t go quite far enough.” I’m asking whether there is legal advice about the use of this power, not only in respect of the original motion but also the amendment to the motion. I think that’s quite important. The Minister could say, “Well, we did get legal advice but it’s privileged.”, but privilege belongs to the Government, and it’s entirely in their hands to waive it. I do think it would be really useful. Even if the advice was “We don’t think it quite meets the threshold.”, the Government can let us know that and justify why, in the face of that, it has still chosen to go down this road.

The real concern is that the Ministry of Defence and defence forces are in a financial spot—they haven’t got a budget allocation, they haven’t got an estimate for pay rises, they haven’t got an estimate to fix what’s going on on the north coast of Samoa. They’ve got to do what some departments would do as a matter of course, which is rejig and allocate resources within the department, but they face this significant burden.

It is really concerning to me that there are roles here which don’t actually—I’m not saying they don’t need to be done; I accept that you’ve got to have a secure military base. But they could be done by non-military personnel. Now, we don’t like strike breakers, but the fact of the matter is it’s probably the lesser of two evils to go and get a private security guard company to sit on the gates of the Devonport Naval Base than to get military personnel to do civilian tasks.

I don’t think people quite understand the significance of having military doing civilian tasks. If it was interchangeable, if military could do anything, if they could be out the front gate of Parliament today, we would have a military State. We would have a State where the power of the State was expressed against its own citizens through the military. We don’t have a military State; we have a democratic State which has a police force which has a quite different mandate and a quite different set of principles and a quite different values system. I think it’s important that we hear why we are using military personnel for those tasks, whether there was legal advice that was taken, and also I would be interested in a little more explanation around some of the technical language that’s used in this amendment motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have the opportunity to speak on the Government’s amendment. I’d like to thank the Speaker currently in the Chair, and the one that was in the Chair previously for being so clear about the bounds of this debate. I will try and attempt to make sure that my comments are confined to what has been agreed, but I’m sure Madam Speaker will tell me if I stray outside what has been agreed, because it’s not my intention to do so.

The key aspect of the amendment that has been moved today is really the addition of a third date of notices. Previously when we were debating this extension motion, we were looking at 5 November and 11 November, and now we have 18 November also added into that as something that needs to be extended, and reading it with the original motion that would be until 14 February 2025. We did traverse that date at some length in the previous debate on this motion before it was amended, and there was an explanation as to why that date was picked by the Minister—and we value the Minister’s feedback and engagement on this particular topic—but what I’m concerned about is the fact that, when we had originally spoken about this process of using the defence force, of using our people who are trained and meant to be deployed defending our country to cover our civilian workforce, we mentioned a number of times how unusual the situation was.

I just want to reflect on how even more unusual the situation has become with the tabling of this extensive additional amendment today. The reason that that’s unusual is because of not only the use of defence force staff in civilian roles but because of the terms of the Defence Act and because of the terms of section 9. Section 9 makes it very, very clear that this should be something which only happens in rare circumstances. The reason that that is so clear within that section is the emphasis put on reporting not only the use of defence force staff to cover civilian workers taking industrial action but the fact it, firstly, must be reported to the House, and secondly, that any extension to that must also be notified to the House within 14 days. That is a very, very high bar that the drafters of that previous legislation under a previous Parliament put towards allowing what the Government is intending to do to be put forward.

Now, last week when we debated the original motion, we said that we had some concerns around the length of the extension. Now that has been amended, and it has covered a totally different strike notice on 18 November, that concern remains. An additional concern I have, and a question that I would put forward if the Minister did choose to take a call and answer—and he’s been very good at engaging in this debate so far—is: was this the original intent of the Government, to amend the motion—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d just say to the member that the Minister has actually spoken on this debate. To clarify what Mr Speaker said before, unless there’s an amendment, people cannot speak further. If there are further amendments, people can speak further. It’s my understanding that the Minister has already spoken.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. In the previous session where we had debated the original motion, I sought—I believe it was yours actually, I believe you were in the Chair; if it wasn’t you, another presiding officer none the less—clarity that if there was a pertinent question posed for the understanding of the House that the Minister would be able to respond to that, and we did, and it was a really good engagement. It was back and forth. We acknowledged at the time that it wasn’t the usual approach, but we recognised during the committee of the whole House stage that that worked, and it was allowed. Now it seems that that’s no longer the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have heard the point of order, and if the member did in fact seek that clarity—given that we’re in a situation, as previously spoken of this afternoon, that’s a bit unusual—it would be helpful, in my view, in this one-off situation, for the Minister to be able to answer questions. I’ll take the member’s word that we did have a point of order, and if the Minister does wish to answer those, we’ll just seek leave for that to be able to happen. I’m comfortable—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, given it was already the practice in place in the original motion, I don’t believe that the Government amendment changes that. I will make a couple of points for clarity. We recognised at the time that the Minister was under no obligation at all to answer—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —only if he, or any Minister on his behalf—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Wished to.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —wished to. And it wasn’t carte blanche permission for members to treat it like a committee of the whole House stage and just fire questions at the Minister. But there are amendments on the Table that were put there in good faith. This is an extraordinary and rare motion and debate, and we felt that that would be a useful approach.

Hon Chris Penk: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. In the spirit of helpfulness, I wonder if I can suggest to the House that if I were to take one call in reply to all the questions that may be posed in the meantime, including in relation to today’s amendment, then that might maximise the helpfulness and clarity as to the substance without engaging unnecessarily in debates beyond that which would be expected for what is a reasonably narrow question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? No, there’s not. Thank you. Camilla Belich, please carry on.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question to the Minister, really, was: if the motion that was on the Table had passed last sitting day, would he have put forward an amendment motion as another primary motion for debate in this House, rather than making that an amendment to the existing motion?

I just think that would help in terms of how we are to move forward with this, because it is very much my view, on reading the legislation, that the purpose of it is really to make sure that—this is obviously an extraordinary debate, but the situation that the Government is engaging in through the use of these staff is also extraordinary, and the legislation puts a high standard on that through its very regular reporting requirements under section 9. My question—and I did see a few nods, and I think it’d be good to have on the record a response to that question—is: would it have been another primary motion? And if it was another primary motion, is it indeed the intention if other further extensions or amendments are required for them to be put as primary motions rather than amendments? I think that would be helpful in terms of having a clearer understanding of how the Government intends to go forward.

However, even if it was the intention of the Minister to put forward another primary motion, which would make the debate slightly less complex than it already is, I still feel that the spirit of the Defence Act and its reporting requirements under section 9 are not really being adhered to with these very long extensions of motions. We’re seeing the orders on 5 November, 11 November, and now 18 November, with this amendment extended through until 14 February, which does include the Christmas period but does include a number of sitting weeks where the Minister could decide to report to the House on what was going on, making sure that, in fact, the eyes of the House were focused on the good-faith negotiations, which the Minister said in his motion today is being undertaken, and we would have a debate more in line with the spirit of section 9 of the Defence Act.

With that in mind, and bearing in mind the discussions that we had previously, I did have a motion on the Table which I had spoken to, and, now, being allowed to amend that motion, I do feel that it would be better rather than to align the end of these notices with the end of the strike, which I thought was appropriate, because I didn’t think it was appropriate and I still don’t think it’s appropriate for the extension to go beyond the dates of the strike notice. The Minister did respond to that. It was a reasonable response. However, I remain unconvinced that that is appropriate given the circumstances and the narrowness of the scope of section 9 of the Defence Act to allow this type of motion by the Government.

I feel that I would be minded to amend my amendment, following the amendment by the Government, to change what I originally had, That 31 January 2025—which aligned with the end of the strike notice—be amended to 3 December 2025. That is to allow two weeks to go past before the Government would then have to come back to the House in line with the legislation and report on either needing a new motion to extend the particular motions or a primary motion. And it would have the scrutiny of this House again. I think that that is appropriate, given that we’ve seen a motion, an amendment motion, and that they’re covering all sorts of different people doing all sorts of different work, requiring our defence force to go and cover that civilian work and allowing a very, very long period of time before there is accountability back to the House.

That is why I think it is very reasonable to align this amendment with the two-week period, which was not my original intention, but I think, having seen what’s occurred here, that that is important. This is important for a number of reasons in terms of—and I know that we’ve spoken, on this side, of the belief that the Labour Party has always had in the right for people to take industrial action. Obviously, there are sectors of society which are excluded from that when they do essential services, and this isn’t one of those particular circumstances, because we are talking about a civilian workforce. However, I don’t disagree with the fact that there are health and safety concerns and serious security concerns, and I think it’s prudent that the Government is mindful of that and that they that they are looking at that in relation to the strike action.

There is another concern which is weighing on my mind, and that is the ability of our defence force, now they’re engaged in this work, to be able to undertake the primary purpose of their work and to be able to do that work when they are doing this activity. My second substantive question to the Minister, really, is the assurances that he can give that the defence force, in terms of its role, being required to—

Tim Costley: Oh, you guys have no idea.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, I think it is a valid question, and I think it should be—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we let the member ask the question, please?

CAMILLA BELICH: Please, if the Minister is minded to, give the House a reassurance that the capability of our defence forces, who do have very important jobs to do, will not be undermined by having to fulfil civilian roles. I think that is a reasonable question, and I think it is reasonable for the Minister to turn his mind to it and for the Government to turn their mind to it and to be able to reassure the House that the actions that they’re taking today do not undermine the security interests of New Zealand.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Now, those that have been following this debate will know that there were many amendments put forward to the Government to consider that were done in good faith. My friend and colleague Camilla Belich has spoken to hers, and I know Tangi Utikere had a very well-worded and considered one, but all that’s changed now, not just because the rulings that the presiding officer has provided identified that this is actually an unusual situation, almost unique in that an amendment made by the Government has changed the game and, essentially, cleared the slate on a debate which was almost done.

I don’t think for a second that the Government intended to do this on Thursday last week. I reckon they entered into that in good faith. In fact, if I think back, the Minister was getting quite frustrated and prickly at the length of time that the debate was taking, so that suggests to me that he wanted it done, and that he had no genuine intention, albeit acting on the Minister’s behalf, to put forward this amendment today. I believe that, but the fact that it’s happened demonstrates that this is an unusual situation. Even if the House had voted in favour or in support of the motion on Thursday, we’d be here again, probably tomorrow, debating another extension, because there was another ministerial statement today. If the debate had finished on Thursday, then we would have to go through that again.

I say to the Minister that surely this demonstrates that this is an evolving situation—that the impact of this industrial action isn’t actually fully understood by all—and yet the Minister is asking us to support a motion that not only extends the original motion but now adds to it, amends it, and still wants us to support it to go all the way out to 14 February. Now, the Minister has available to them, in the Defence Act, a period of 14 days, and that’s quite ironic because 14 days from the original motion is today. The period of time that the Minister had available to her in legislation, without the requirement of coming to the House for support for an extension, is today. Here we are not only debating an extension motion but an amendment to the original motion. Now, why do I say all this—is the question I get from that look. It’s because—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, just listening.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s just you resting? Fair enough. I’ve got one of those as well—I’ve got one of those as well—don’t you worry about that! But, Madam Speaker, the point of this is that we could avoid all this simply by amending the end date of this extension to a period that is practical—there or thereabouts—around what the Defence Act already gives the Minister.

When we debated this on Thursday, we said to the Minister, “Look, things change, and the context in which this extension motion would be considered may well develop, and the way that we, as a House, might approach the motion in two weeks’ time might be different to how we do it today.” Well, gee whiz, it’s only been a matter of days and things have changed. If the House approves this, what is to stop the Minister having to come back? Genuine question. “Nothing”, actually, is the answer, because it’s already been proven by virtue of this amendment. Wouldn’t it be better for the House—because we’ve already identified this bizarre anomaly that the Standing Orders Committee is going to have to have a look at. If we go about it the way we’ve gone about it today—that it’s unusual and we’ve had to find a workaround around the current Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—more to the point is that the Government has identified that their original motion was not sufficient, that it did not cover enough ground.

Leaving aside the debating points—I haven’t even touched on the stuff that we touched on last week; this is all new stuff and relevant to the amendment—

Tim Costley: Ha, ha!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The Minister may cackle, although that’s all he’s done. [Interruption] Oh, it wasn’t the Minister? I do apologise. It was his very loud and irritating friend next to him. That’s all that member has done throughout this entire debate. He hasn’t actually made a call, hasn’t actually tried to contribute to the motion and the debate on the motion and the understanding of the House, and this is a man with a military background instead sitting there arrogantly and criticising those who are trying to get it right. Here is another reason why we need to get it right: this is not a minor amendment. There are three bullet points to the original motion—the original motion was three bullet points—so it’s twice as long, it’s twice as inclusive, it actually covers areas that they hadn’t envisaged, and yet they want us to agree to an extension all the way to 14 February.

Now, my original amendment was that “14 February 2025” be replaced by “17 December 2024”. That’s the last sitting week of this year. I tried to be practical and think, “Right, that makes sense. We can reassess. The Government can put forward an alternative justification for an extension. And we would consider that as a House with the summer break in mind.” I think this changes this situation, and I would like to amend that amendment. I’m not going to put a new one in, but I’ll just amend it and bring it forward a week—to the 10th. Why do I propose the 10th? Well, for practical reasons. If we said, “Why don’t we just leave it for the 14 days that are available to the Minister?”, that would fall within scrutiny week. We wouldn’t actually be sitting as a House. If the Minister wanted to debate an extension motion, we couldn’t and we’d have to wait a week, and there would be a gap and something might happen in that period where the defence force doesn’t have the appropriate permission.

As I understand it, the provisions that would be available to the Minister to act when the House is risen—i.e., go to the Governor-General—wouldn’t actually be available to them, because the House was able to sit, just not sitting that week. It would be counterproductive, and I would really encourage the Minister to see this for what it is, as a genuine, good-faith proposal. Let’s do this extension motion to 10 December. It is possible, while I can’t speak with authority—I’m not the appropriate spokesperson—that we would consider supporting this. It’s possible. We’d know, then, that at least the Government will come back to the House and explain why a further extension would be needed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So is the member planning to table that as—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes—yes, I am.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that with all members. If there are amendments, and I will note that Camilla Belich has also tabled her amendment to her amendment. If members could just be really clear, it helps the clerk.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, that’s right, and I do appreciate that, Madam Speaker, because this isn’t straightforward. It’s got every possibility that things might fall over and there’d be further complications, and that wouldn’t be the fault of the Clerk’s team.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I’ve got a copy of my amendment here. I’m going to cross out “17” and put “10”. That’s all I’m going to do, and I’ll bring it down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Great. Thank you. If other members, at any point during their speeches, wish to move an amendment to their amendment, can you, please, just let us know at the start so the clerks can be working it through. It’s not a criticism of this member, because this is a moving debate, right?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was about to take that personally, so thank you for that clarification!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s not intended personally.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, I will be crossing out “17” and putting “10”, and I really hope they consider that, because it is, essentially, three weeks from today. It goes beyond scrutiny week. It means that there are another two sitting weeks left in this calendar year. It doesn’t interfere with the final week, which is actually filled up with a lot of ceremonial debates and all those sorts of things.

We know, as I mentioned last week, that because of an error of the Deputy Leader of the House at the Business Committee, Parliament is going to knock off on the 18th, so actually it’s only two days that week. In reality, it’s actually better if it’s the 10th anyway, because we’ve got all week. They can look at getting it done. I don’t believe that the original motion would expire as long as it was done by the end of the day. If just like today it was the first item after question time, we would have plenty of time to ask the questions and deal with the matters. There’s no possibility in reality that, if it was done after question time on the 10th, it was going to drag out until the end of the sitting day. That’s just not possible. We know that we would have a conclusion—yes or no, or whatever—on that day.

That is my amendment to the Government’s amendment, and it takes into consideration a pretty fundamental change to the original motion and the fact that it includes new material that wasn’t envisaged in the original debate, and it acknowledges that the Government themselves didn’t even envisage this. How can they realistically expect the House to give them carte blanche until the 14th, with what has proven to be a realistic prospect that we’re going to have to come back regardless?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will—

Hon Member: I was going to take a call.

Hon Member: He tried.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’m sure that member is eager to take a call, which the member can do after this.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Per Madam Speaker’s instruction before, I would first like to move, That the motion be amended to delete the words “Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces posted to HQNZDF, Trentham and Linton Military Camps to provide security guard services for Defence House and Pipitea House, Wellington”. That particular amendment has been with the Clerk already, but I have an extra copy should Madam Speaker require it.

Now, the reason I have this particular amendment was briefly touched upon by one of the previous speakers, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Although I don’t 100 percent agree with the member on other elements that the member has raised, in this particular case, when we are looking at this motion—including today’s amendment—there are now essentially six parts to it and it’s very much, in some ways, playing spot the difference.

One of the things that really stood out to me in the amendment that I am moving to be deleted is the fact that the other parts of this particular motion all potentially have a level of security clearance that is required that may not be appropriate for a contractor. This is, I guess, where the point of difference that I have with the Hon Duncan Webb is, but looking at the motion that was moved today by the Hon Chris Penk, I believe that the upgrading of the software package with SH-2G(I) system potentially does require a level of security clearance that a contractor may not have.

When it’s around providing security guard services for Defence House and for Pipitea House, that is not something that I believe meets the threshold of why section 9(2) of the Defence Act 1990 should be triggered. For all intents and purposes, to provide security guard services for these two particular areas can very much be conducted by a contractor. However, if the Minister is able to clarify to say that the security guard services go beyond the level of security guard services that we see in other cases, where they’re simply standing in front of the building to provide additional support or to vet the personnel who go into it, then that does need to be specified.

That brings me to my second point, which is around the fact that section 9(2) of the Defence Act is very specific, where it does say that the authority should specify the part or parts of the armed forces that may be used and the public service or public services that may be provided. I think in the original motion, that was not made explicitly clear—whether the security guard services go beyond what is the standard understanding of security guard services.

What is also concerning in terms of the original three points that were mentioned as part of the original motion, compared to the amendment that was done today and amendments to the amendment that was done today, is the specificity of the personnel. In section 9(2) of the Defence Act, it does say that that the Minister or the authority “shall specify the part or parts of the Armed Forces”. In today’s amendment, we do see that that level of specificity is reached where it talks about a member of the RNZAF, it talks about members of the armed forces comprising of RNZAF armament technicians, and it talks about other—actually it doesn’t; one of them doesn’t. It does name specific teams or specific groups within that, but I don’t know if by just saying “appropriately trained members of the armed forces” without mentioning explicitly the teams or groups, as some of the sections we see today in the amendments, meets the requirement of specificity.

Now, the third part I would like to mention is around the differences in terms of some of the services that are going to be provided. For some of these services, we do see providing airport rescue and firefighter services, security guard services for camps, even providing qualified technicians to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions—those kinds of aspects are things that are part of the day-to-day operations or day-to-day anticipation of what could have happened. But some of the things over here, particularly in terms of the software package update of the SH-2G(I) system—is that something that must be conducted reasonably immediately? The statement that the Minister said didn’t specify. It does specify upcoming deployment, but it doesn’t specify when we say “upcoming”, whether that is absolutely mandatory for this to be triggered as opposed to this can actually be deferred to when the strike action is lifted or after 14 February.

The second-to-last point that I will mention is around some of the statements that were done today. I think one of the previous speakers, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, has already touched on this as well. I want to specifically focus on the statement that was used by the Minister today and some of the tenses that were used, where the Minister of Defence has already given the authority. As we have heard from the previous speaker, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, there is a general concern that the extension of that authority beyond 14 days under section 9(8) of the Defence Act must first be passed by the House. Considering some of the original items in the original motion, part of it may have already lapsed as of today. Where does that put those sorts of motions or those sorts of authorities in this limbo period where they would be considered void unless it has been passed by the House?

My final point is also around the fact that it would be good to get the Minister or a delegate of the Minister—in this case, it looks like it’s the Hon Chris Penk—to sort of clarify. We’re seeing amendments today with some very specific new items or new elements have been brought to the House that were not anticipated or were not made aware to the House last week. What does that mean, going forward; that within the next period of time there would be more things coming up, and particularly during the Christmas and New Year period when the House isn’t sitting? It would be good to get the Minister’s clarification to know if this is an exhaustive list that we’re seeing now or if there will be more coming up, in which case: what approach or what consideration would be taken if that was during the Christmas and new year period?

Thank you for that, Madam Speaker. Just, again, a reminder to the House that I do have an amendment that I have on the Table here essentially to remove the part that talks about the security guard services for the Defence House and Pipitea House Wellington. For that particular one, it is different from the rest of the authority that has been provided, and I genuinely do believe—and I would be keen to hear from other speakers in this House as to whether that should be a service that can be provided by a contractor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. At this point, we have three extra amendments and I’m just going to invite—I believe Minister Chris Penk is going to take a call.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): Madam Speaker, my intention was to seek a call, but in the spirit of the discussion earlier, which is that I would take one that would wrap up all outstanding questions so that we then don’t sort of go back and forth and I keep popping up like a jack-in-the-box. If you’re minded to take on other calls, then I’ll resume my seat for now, but I’ll try and judge as best I can from your body language when you’ve had enough of other contributions such that I should then respond at the end.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I think it might be helpful, if there are some things that you are of a mind to answer now, because otherwise I think the questions are probably going to get a little repetitive from here on in. It’s probably my judgment that maybe take a call now and then we’ll see if anybody’s got any new information. I know there’s one more call coming from over here, at least. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Acting Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thanks to colleagues for a very full discussion of these issues. In the order that they’ve been presented to the House from colleagues, in response to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, he rightly points out that with legal advice having been provided, it’s within the Government’s power to waive that privilege. We do not intend to do so.

Second, in relation to Camilla Belich’s points, it seems to me inevitable that a new motion would have been required if the motion that had previously been made or the original motion, as we now know it, had passed last week. Then it would have been necessary to pass a new motion. Her suggestion of an amended date, 3 December—in fact, she said 2025, but I think that perhaps it was misspoken, with 2024 probably being her intention. We wouldn’t support such an amendment in either case. We think that the calibration of the dates that we’ve provided so far is the right one, which is to say it’s the full length of the strike notice plus two weeks in order for transitional arrangements to be made as to personnel turning up for duty and so forth. One cannot have a gap in these critical staffing - type arrangements.

For that reason also, we don’t contemplate, or will not support, suggestions that are made for other dates within that period. For example, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, I think, is suggesting what he describes as a practical date of 10 December. That could be argued to be placing undue pressure on the negotiating process, which should be conducted in good faith, as required, up to as late as 31 January of next year. If we were to have a date of 10 December, then adding a couple of weeks in order for transitional arrangements to be made, we would reach Boxing, excuse me, Christmas Eve—I’m getting ahead of myself—and I don’t think that would be a very wise time to be trying to relitigate or make different arrangements for obvious reasons. I certainly don’t intend to be here at that time, Madam Speaker, and I presume you don’t, and I’m even more sure that the Hon Kieran McAnulty will be long gone.

As for the capability of the replacement personnel, if we can call them that, in fact, they routinely conduct these kinds of operations or this kind of work, in any case. In fact, reasonable minds can differ, and it’s not a subject for debate today, but it might be the case that uniformed personnel might be called upon to take back under their own steam these very functions that they used to carry out as a matter of course and more recently have been taken on by civilian colleagues, who I hasten to add, are valued and respected. But nevertheless, there is already a combination of civilian and uniformed personnel undertaking those tasks, not only historically but even into the present day.

As for the fact that we have an evolving situation, as Kieran McAnulty points out, yes, that’s correct, but we can’t know what the future will hold, and that’s not a reason not to make necessary arrangements in accordance with the law in the present day.

Then, finally, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan points out that security services are within the remit both of the original motion and confirmed today in our discussion. I think it would be necessary to have personnel who are appropriately qualified, skilled, and experienced. Obviously, there are others who provide security services within this country, but I would expect, in most cases, they wouldn’t have the appropriate security clearance, they wouldn’t know the protocol and the military whakapapa and tikanga in terms of allowing personnel on to base with all the bells and whistles—almost literally bells and whistles, in some cases, but very specific qualifications not only for those security roles to be carried out but also those who would carry out the very bespoke work on military helicopters, for example, with weapons systems that we hope civilian helicopters don’t have in this country.

Then, finally, I thought it was a very fair question and a good question as to whether the fact of an upcoming deployment would be required to reach a threshold to trigger this kind of measure. It seems to me that that wouldn’t be the case, necessarily. Air force and navy—and, actually, all of our defence forces, for that matter—undertake important work around the clock, whether on a recognised deployment as such, and that wouldn’t be necessary to reach that threshold. As it happens, that’s a hypothetical question in the context of what we face today, which is, of course, that among other things, there is an upcoming deployment of HMNZS Te Kaha with an embarked flight, I think we can infer, and for that reason, among others, it’s necessary to pass this motion.

Finally, in what I hope and expect will be my last contribution and perhaps one of the last contributions of the debate as a whole, I do want to re-emphasise the big picture here, which is that we have a defence force that performs valuable work in service of this nation. They will do it over the Christmas and new year period. They need to be supported to do that. They need to be allowed to conduct their work in a safe and secure way. That’s important for those workers. It’s important for our nation. The arrangements are having to be made in a less than an ideal world in which we live, whereby external factors have forced the hands of defence in order to provide this manning. The Minister of Defence has made the appropriate arrangements. This House should duly authorise that and support our personnel in that way. As for what the future may hold, we don’t know that, but in the meantime, we don’t undermine the good-faith bargaining efforts on both sides, and we expect and hope that the matter will be resolved as soon as possible.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I’m going to take a call from Tangi Utikere, and I would just say at this point that, because this is not a committee stage of a bill but we do have differing circumstances here, I note that the Minister has spoken to all of the amendments that have been put forward up to this point.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s not my intention to take a full call. I want to just touch on some of the aspects that I had raised but we’ll see where we go. I do want to thank the Minister for his responses. He has provided a response to some of the issues that I was interested in around the dates, so I won’t delve too deeply into that. However, I would just place on record, I suppose, the disappointment that that’s the view that the Government have formed in terms of not effectively landing on a date that is much earlier than 14 February.

The reason that I say that is because, even if the Minister’s view is that there is not a desire to place any undue influence as part of any negotiation process, it would still be open to the House if it was, for example, 10 November—the date suggested by the Hon Kieran McAnulty—to simply reconnect and take a further decision at that point, bearing in mind that things are still ongoing. But, as I say, I won’t dwell on that, except to indicate the sense of rarity by which these particular orders have been taken. There is no suggestion on this side of the House that the Minister of Defence is not authorised to take the action that she has taken—that is, clearly, not in dispute—however, what is the requirement of how long those particular extensions would remain in place? The Act is very specific in that it is a responsibility of this House to provide an oversight lens over when things are taken, and so, even though the Acting Minister has made his views very clear on the dates, none the less it’s disappointing to hear that.

One of the things that I would invite the Minister, in what might be his final contribution, to respond to are some of the issues that I touched on when the House was considering this on Thursday evening. The Minister will know I took the last call before the House, effectively, rose for the week, and he did respond to some from his seat, so I know his views on some of those things. However, one of the things that has not yet been addressed is why it is that the notice that was issued by the defence Minister on 5 November was very specific as to the locations that were included in that notice; subsequent ones are not.

What we now see in the Government’s amendment this afternoon is that they have specified some locales or locations. I’m interested to hear from the Minister around why there is a change in tack on that particular score. To assist the House, though, I will seek to amend or move an amendment to the Government’s own amendment that would basically insert the amendment that I originally had. I know it’s a little bit of a strange situation that we find ourself in this afternoon, but I do want to do that because I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that if the Government’s amendment is successful—albeit a new one—it still captures the specific armed forces locations that are named in my earlier amendment.

I did reflect, though, on whether that was necessary or not. I’ve had a look at the amendment in the Hon Penny Simmonds’ name, and I think that the first bit there under (c), which is basically flagging the location Kauri Point for security guard services—actually, I will just point out that one of the interesting things for this amendment is we’ve heard about security services and we hear about firefighting services. The question that then kind of remains is, well, what is coming next? If we actually had dispensed with this matter on Thursday—not that it should have been dispensed with in a non-timely manner—we would be commencing a whole new process for the most recent decision that the defence Minister has taken. What is to say that there will be further decisions that are taken by the Minister of Defence that will warrant use of the House’s time, none the less?

However, if I can return back to the other bullet point about Kauri Point, I don’t actually think that is captured by my original amendment, which is why I think it’s important it still needs to stay—likewise for the second bullet point, which references the specific role of an individual in the defence force who is an intelligence specialist trained in electronic warfare to undertake the helicopter systems. I know Dr Webb had touched on that. My question to the Minister is: would the person that is undertaking that particular role have been captured by the amendment that was lodged in my name?

The intention of lodging the amendment was to basically specify all of the armed forces locations that are indicated there. What we have is a member of the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF)—one assumes that they would be domestically captured by the locations that are contained in the specific amendment there. That’s a particular question for the Minister. As for the follow-on paragraph there that relates to those that are located at RNZAF Base Auckland and Waiouru Military Camp, I think that would have actually been captured by the original one. Really, I guess it’s just hinging on that second one, which is trying to ensure that there is no dichotomy or difference between the locations and the specific roles that are listed there.

On that basis, I will stick with moving the amendment to the amendment for the Government motion. I do so because I rely on the contribution that had been made last week, which talks about the constituents that I represent. I know that the particular original motion does actually refer to Linton Military Camp and others, but those are the questions that I’ll leave for the Minister to, hopefully, pick up and respond to in due course.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Before the Minister sits down, just for the clarity of the Chair, are you moving an amendment to your amendment, and if so, could you read it out, please, so that we are aware of the amendment. For any other members who are going to do this: if you are intending to speak, could you talk to the amendment, or if you intend to move an amendment could you actually please move that amendment at the beginning of your presentation, so we actually can work out what what’s being amended.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For clarity, I have moved an amendment to the Government’s amendment. My amendment simply inserts—I can read it out in its entirety if that would be helpful.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Is this not your original amendment?

TANGI UTIKERE: Yes, it is, but Mr Speaker has determined that what is permissible is for amendments to be taken as part of this particular consideration to the Government’s amendment. What I am seeking to do, sir, is to basically incorporate my, I suppose, original amendment to be part of the Government’s amendment.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Would you mind just reading that out, then?

TANGI UTIKERE: Certainly. I move, That the following be incorporated at the end of (c) in the Government’s amendment: “Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Devonport Naval Base, RNZAF Base Auckland, Papakura Military Camp, RNZAF Base Ohakea, Linton Military Camp, Trentham Military Camp, Burnham Military Camp, RNZAF Base Woodbourne, Headquarters, Joint Forces New Zealand.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): All right, thank you for doing that.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise with the intention of having to make an amendment to my amendment from last Thursday, as well. This is because—

Tim Costley: Surely, it can’t get worse.

GLEN BENNETT: The member on the Government side just said, “Surely, this can’t get worse.” That’s what was just spoken from a Government member, and I think that is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): To that member, I’ve asked the members to be specific about their amendments, so I don’t appreciate those sort of comments while we’re working out what the amendment is—not useful. Carry on.

GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reason I have to rise to amend my amendment is because it doesn’t actually fit any more. Because of the new amendments that were dropped this afternoon, it basically flies in the face of what I had, and I’m going to have to move it around. I’ve been thinking carefully and frantically writing to get it in the right place, but it will probably go in at the end.

I don’t really talk about my high school and how badly I did, but when it comes to things like semicolons and full stops, there is a bit of a drafting issue here, which I want to just clarify. I will read my amendment just so that we’re very clear. On the 14th, my amendment in my name stated “after (camps and bases.)”, and I went on to put my amendment in. I now have to change that because the full stop no longer exists; it now is a semicolon. The new amendment I have is To amend the Government notice of motion No. 1, in my name, that after “(facilitate this work.)”—I want to insert next point—“as long as the above authorisations are in place, the Minister will update the House on the progress being made to settle this industrial dispute on a weekly basis or on the next sitting day.” be added. The reason to put it right at the end there—

Tim Costley: That’s the bit that took all the thought?

GLEN BENNETT: Yes, it is, because it was around where does it go—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

GLEN BENNETT: —and, again, I’m being laughed at from the other side. I don’t think they should really be laughing when it seems like it’s a bit of their own inability to get this right that we’re having to go through this process. When I get jeers and laughs, I think they should actually be looking at themselves first, because we shouldn’t need to be actually having to help.

What I want to talk about is the semicolon and the full stop, because in the original notice of motion there are no full stops; there are no semicolons. The inconsistency this will bring now, because we have three points, which end “(camps and bases.)”—with a full stop—and then the next three points added after that all have semicolons afterwards. It is a bit of a drafting challenge. I had to make sure of what the point of them is in there, because it was made quite clear in the amendment to this amendment from the Government, from the Hon Penny Simmonds, that she was going to replace “bases.” with “bases;”. I’m really just trying to understand that.

I think the challenge we have here, as the Hon Dr Webb did say earlier—the member for Christchurch Central—is that this should be a last resort, not a first resort. The challenge we have is that we’re rushing things through and mistakes are being made. That is what we really need to consider this afternoon, and just simple things like making sure that punctuation is correct so that it actually is in order, so that once it’s all—because I’m assuming, unless members across the floor choose to come and join us on this side, this will eventually pass. There will be inconsistencies once it’s actually merged together.

The reason I leave this amendment right to the end of the new amended amendment is, basically, to sum up the whole of the six points. The reason I do that is because I really feel and believe that democracy needs accountability and so, therefore, having the Minister having to report back to this House is something that must be considered. Nowhere within this motion and the amendment to the motion is there anywhere that says that the Minister needs to keep this House informed. I won’t relitigate the argument, but we’ve heard that the last time this was used was 23 years ago, so this is a rare occurrence and we need to make sure that the Minister is speaking to this, making sure that we’re tracking with this. I also hope that it puts good pressure on the Minister to ensure that the issues are solved and that we can actually remove this motion, so it is unnecessary for sworn officers to actually be doing this work.

My question is around just making sure that there is consistency—there’s consistency in terms of the motion and what’s added to it—where full stops should be, where semicolons should be, and what the final motion will finish with. Secondly, in terms of where I think it should be added, I’ve actually handwritten it here and I will table it at the end of this, in terms of the fact that right at the end there, after “facilitate this work.” to add—maybe it should be a semicolon, then, if we’re going to add them; I’m not sure.

That’s my piece. I will table this. I hope that we can come to some kind of conclusion. Democracy can take time, democracy can be messy, but none the less we’ve got to ensure that democracy is the pinnacle and the foundation of this House and of any kind of legislation, any kind of motion, any kind of mahi that is done here. We have to make sure that democracy prevails at all times, even when it’s uncomfortable and even when it’s a bit messy and even when it does involve a few semicolons and full stops, or whatever it is. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s amendment to replace the date in her amendment be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Camilla Belich be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment to replace the date in his amendment be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Glen Bennett’s amendment to his previous amendment be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Glen Bennett be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Tangi Utikere be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to the Hon Penny Simmonds’ amendment be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Penny Simmonds be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Amendment agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question now is that, under section 9(8) of the Defence Act 1990, the following authorisations given on 5 November 2024, 11 November 2024, and 18 November 2024 to use the armed forces to provide public services in connection with an industrial dispute be extended to 14 February 2025:

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at RNZAF Base Auckland to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting services;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at specified camps and bases to provide security guard services at those camps and bases;

Authority for the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces located at Kauri Point to provide security guard services at Kauri Point;

Authorisation for the use of a member of the RNZAF who is an intelligence specialist trained in electronic warfare to undertake work to validate and update the software package for the SH-2G(I) systems;

Authority for the use of members of the armed forces comprising RNZAF armament technicians located at RNZAF Base Auckland and members of the New Zealand Army located at Waiouru Military Camp who are qualified weapons technicians to inspect, maintain and service, prepare, uplift, and deliver weapons and munitions to HMNZS Te Kaha, and to perform any ancillary services or receive training necessary to facilitate this work.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Bills

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

This Government is committed to restoring law and order and strengthening democracy and freedoms. I’m very proud to present this bill to the House today because it supports both of these important goals. Many of the Government’s initiatives to date have focused on addressing challenges that we face domestically, such as tackling gangs and reducing youth offending. This bill is different because it responds to challenges we face in the international context. In particular, it addresses the growing issue of foreign interference. This term encompasses a broad range of activities but, in essence, describes when a foreign State undertakes or supports activities that target New Zealand that go beyond appropriate forms of State-to-State engagement and are intended to undermine our sovereignty, national security, and way of life.

It is necessary, first, to say that it is normal and acceptable for States to interact and work to influence one another; this encourages cooperation and can have mutually beneficial outcomes. International relations activities, transparent lobbying, and other forms of open and cooperative engagement with the New Zealand Government and members of the public are welcome. However, the Government is aware that some foreign States are engaging in activities in New Zealand that go beyond this and are relying on conduct that is deceptive, covert, or coercive. These acts often involve the use of new and widely used forms of technology and are intended to inappropriately manipulate our democracy, economy, academic institutions, and media. They are also being used to place undue pressure on individuals and our communities in order to control or stifle the exercise of rights and freedoms in New Zealand.

Our intelligence and security agencies report that foreign interference targeting our democratic institution largely takes the form of attempts to deceptively influence policy makers and undermine the independence of our domestic and foreign policy decisions. The agencies report that our refugee, migrant, ethnic, and religious communities are frequently targeted. Community members are harassed and monitored, and attempts have been made to prevent them from developing or expressing views that foreign States consider subversive. Reflecting on these examples, we must be mindful that the important work we are doing here today, and in the future, might also attract efforts to undermine and hinder progress of this bill—this should not deter us. In short, foreign interference is a threat to our sovereignty and security, undermines our interests, and causes harm to our communities.

The bill I introduced today amends the Crimes Act 1961 to strengthen New Zealand’s criminal-justice response to foreign interference and espionage. The bill does this in two key ways: first, it introduces two new criminal offences that specifically respond to foreign interference. Second, it makes changes to a small number of existing offences to ensure that they are fit for purpose in the modern context and adequately cover activities that aim to prejudice New Zealand’s security or defence. The central feature of this bill is a new offence that criminalises the act of foreign interference. The offence will apply to individuals working on behalf of a foreign power. This is defined in the offence and includes, but is not limited to, foreign States and officials, State entities, and governing political parties.

To commit the offence, a person’s conduct must include all of the following elements: it must be undertaken for, or on behalf of, a foreign power; and be covert, deceptive, corruptive, or coercive; and, thirdly, be meant to compromise protected New Zealand interests. This ensures the offence does not criminalise appropriate foreign influence occurring through diplomatic or political channels. Foreign States or State agents that advocate for their country’s interests in an open and transparent manner may continue to do so unimpeded. The offence will also not apply to people who do not know, and have no reasonable way of determining, that they are being used by a foreign State to undertake foreign interference against New Zealand.

The second new offence in the bill further criminalises existing imprisonable offences where they are committed to benefit a foreign power in specified ways. This can result in an uplift in the overall penalty imposed for criminal acts meant to undermine New Zealand’s sovereignty. This offence recognises that some activities used to undertake or support foreign interference are already offences in New Zealand. This includes, for example, intimidation, blackmail, and corruption. The significance of these criminal acts, and the harms they cause, increases when they are committed in New Zealand to support a foreign power. This will now be accounted for in our criminal law. The targeted design of the new offences, along with the additional safeguard of requiring the Attorney-General’s consent to a prosecution, helps to ensure that lawful and appropriate conduct does not inadvertently attract criminal activity.

Turning to the changes to the existing offences, the bill amends provisions related to espionage and wrongful communication, retention, or copying of information. New Zealand’s espionage offence makes it illegal to intentionally transfer information or objects overseas to prejudice New Zealand’s security or defence. This is one of the most egregious acts a person can take against New Zealand and is comparable to treason and other serious crimes against public order. The offence is an important feature of our criminal law, and it applies to acts done anywhere in the world by people who owe allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand. However, the “owing allegiance” term used in the offence is not defined—this creates uncertainty as to who can commit it. To address this, the bill inserts a definition of the “owing allegiance” term into the Crimes Act to provide greater prosecution certainty and make it clear who can be held accountable for acts of espionage committed both inside and outside of New Zealand. New offences are also being created to address criminal-liability gaps that arise from the use of the term. This way, everyone who owes allegiance can be held liable as a party if they assist others to commit acts that amount to espionage against New Zealand.

The bill also strengthens accountability for unauthorised disclosures of Government information that is likely to prejudice New Zealand’s security or defence. This includes by expanding the scope of entities covered by the current wrongful communication of information offences to address notable gaps, such as information held by local government and Offices of Parliament not previously captured; secondly, making it explicit that sharing military tactics, techniques, and procedures is an offence—this provides certainty for when this type of sensitive information can be lawfully disclosed—and ensuring that information that was formerly Government information remains in scope of relevant offences as it can still prejudice New Zealand’s interests if disclosed without authorisation.

These changes strengthen our criminal-justice response to foreign interference and espionage by providing a means to better hold people to account for committing harmful acts against New Zealand. However, legislation alone cannot prevent this malign activity. It’s important to recognise that this bill is part of a wider Government response to foreign interference, which includes Government agencies working together and with local government, business, academia, and communities to build resilience to foreign-interference threats.

In addition to supporting successful prosecutions of interference activity, these criminal sanctions have wider benefits, including protecting individuals, academics, and businesses from efforts to interfere with their activities or manipulate them to unwillingly support foreign interference. It also will deter people from undertaking harmful and unsafe interference-related conduct. It will assist agencies by enabling cross-agency cooperation and access to a broader suite of tools and incentivising foreign States to positively shift behaviours in response to legal changes. I’m proud to bring this bill to the House today because of what it means for New Zealand as the country as a whole. We’re delivering on our promise to make New Zealand safer and more secure and a place where everyone can enjoy the guaranteed rights and freedoms afforded to them under our laws. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that. I think it is really important when we come to matters such as foreign interference that we, wherever possible, reach a position which is agreed across all parties and endures. However, any of these issues raise genuine concerns about freedom of information, freedom of speech, privacy, and related concerns. This bill is no different there. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill to select committee. Of course, this bill comes before the House at a busy time, shall we say, with a lot of other things going on around us, and it’s important that we’re not distracted by those from this important issue, which will have a more lasting impact on our statute book than some of the other bills before this House.

First of all, foreign interference is clearly real and, as is noted in the various papers, including the regulatory impact statement, changing significantly, and we do need absolutely to keep up with that. There are instances, noted in the regulatory impact statement, of political figures being influenced by foreign powers. I do think we need to make a very clear distinction between foreign influence and foreign interference and the legitimacy and illegitimacy that distinguishes those. Foreign powers of all kinds can quite legitimately seek to influence New Zealanders, the New Zealand Government, and New Zealand politicians, and they do it every day, but that should be done in a transparent manner and one which is free of any taint of corruption or wrongdoing. To do it in a covert manner is, of course, deeply problematic.

There are a number of things we’ll need to look at, and I won’t mention them all, but the criminalisation of reckless conduct—that is, to say, conduct which lacks a degree of care or is highly careless but not intentional—is difficult. We need to be very, very careful that people who are publishing a newspaper or running a Facebook page, or whatever it might be, who were pretty careless when they were checking out who was funding them or the motives of the person giving them some editorial direction—we need to be very careful before we make that an offence which is criminal and imprisonable by 14 years. I think we need to test that degree of intention required very, very carefully indeed.

Crimes of information, which is what this is about, largely, are particularly problematic because detecting them requires considerable intrusion and search. One of the things that is used by our intelligence agencies and others is warrantless search powers, and this Government has got a certain affection for warrantless search powers, it appears, and I’m a bit concerned that they’re not going to turn their mind to the very question of whether this is essential. Is it absolutely necessary to have this warrantless search power, given the nature of the crime and the way in which it can be detected?

The Privacy Commissioner has expressed concerns around this, and we think those are very legitimate concerns. Having said that, I know, from my own experience of immigrant communities coming to me, that foreign powers do exert influence in New Zealand over local communities. We need to get on top of that, so we’ll approach this in a cooperative manner, but we want to give this a really good working over, and I certainly hope that it gets a good degree of attention at select committee. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, and just noting the incredible importance of having an independent foreign policy, one that recognises where we are: we are here in the South Pacific, we are here in the Pacific, we are a member of a nation of Pacific nations. Making sure that we have that regional focus is incredibly, incredibly important.

This bill creates a number of offences, and I guess, just to get to the crux of it, the Greens won’t be supporting this bill. There is a certain amount of clarity which is deeply missing from this bill. There’s the broadening of the offences. The bill does not tighten definitions of security; rather, it introduces offences that are broad in scope, which we have a problem with—offences that are unacceptably broad in scope, including the widening of the definition of “deceptive”, “reckless”, “coercive”, and “New Zealand interest”. I’ll come back to the New Zealand interest part in just a second, but I think it’s important to note that we have had foreign interference in this country as well, and that is a problem, and that is an issue, but we do roll out the red carpet for some.

I note that the Government Communications Security Bureau, or GCSB, between 2013 and 2020—seven years—had a spy agency parked up at that bureau, which points to the fact that we actually have had foreign influence within our sphere. Some foreign influence, it seems, is OK, while others is not. It is our role within Five Eyes which is problematic, noting that one of those eyes is a Trumpian-sized eye, which has more influence over the other four smaller eyes. If we remember the last time President Trump was in the presidency, it was erratic and volatile, so what will the next three to four years be if we continue to move in that direction? Will this bill be holding the US to account; the UK to account? I ask that because, in one of the broad sections, there is a bit about what is in, or not in, the New Zealand interest. Well, what does that mean? What does it mean for something to be within the New Zealand interest, because we actually already have that in some of our legislation? In order to launch satellites into space, it needs to be made sure that they are not contrary to the New Zealand interest.

I put a whole lot of parliamentary written questions up to find out exactly what that was. For example, parliamentary question No. 64705 to the Minister asked, “Is the Minister aware that the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command has a missile defense battery with radar in Israel and if so, will this prohibit further launches from New Zealand and if not, why not?” I also put up another one, written question No. 66157, around BlackSky: “Is the Minister aware that BlackSky who has a contract to supply high temporal frequency images and analysis to the Israeli Defence ministry and if so, will this prohibit further launches from New Zealand and if not, why not?” The answer I got to that particular one was: “Yes, I am aware. National interest”—so things that are in the New Zealand interest—“for payload permit applications under the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Act 2017 is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

Here’s the thing: there is an assessment process where things might be deemed at risk of being contrary to the New Zealand interest, but the kicker is that none of those assessment analyses has actually ever happened. The question I have for the Government speakers is: when they talk about the New Zealand interest, what exactly do they mean? What exactly do they mean? I ask that question because they’ve got AUKUS knocking on our door—knocking on our door—for New Zealand to join. I ask whether it is in the best interests of Aotearoa New Zealand to join AUKUS—I would suggest not, particularly in the political climate that we have in the US, with the uncertainty that they are facing with another presidency under Trump.

If we’re going to talk about foreign interference, and I can see even though the names of those countries are not mentioned in this bill, we have to be even-handed—relationship diplomacy is something that we do well—so that we can continue to do well. That is what our role is in the Pacific and around the globe. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I stand before you guys on behalf of ACT in support of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, a vital piece of legislation aimed at strengthening our legal framework to protect New Zealand’s sovereignty and national interest from the growing threat of foreign interference.

Firstly, just to touch base on the previous speaker Teanau Tuiono’s notes around AUKUS, they’re not knocking on our door. We’ve not even been invited to join at this point, so I think that rhetoric is kind of somewhat harmful and just adds to that sort of hype—just to keep that in mind.

We’re in an era where global competition and geopolitical tensions are increasingly influencing our international relations. The need for New Zealand to safeguard its democracy, security, and values has never been more urgent. We are facing new challenges—covert, deceptive and often invisible activities carried out by foreign powers that seek to manipulate, disrupt, or even harm the core functions of our society. Whether through cyber-attacks, covert influence campaigns, or attempts to distort our political processes, these activities are direct threats to our national interests. The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill represents a critical response to these threats, building on our existing legal framework to ensure that our criminal law can adequately address foreign interference in all its forms. It updates the Crimes Act 1961 with three key objectives that will enhance our ability to detect, deter, and punish foreign actors attempting to undermine New Zealand’s security, democracy, and way of life.

First, the bill introduces new offences specifically targeting foreign interference. These new offences will criminalise the actions taken on behalf of a foreign power to intentionally or recklessly harm New Zealand’s national interests. This includes activities that compromise our national security, interfere with our elections, or undermine the human rights of New Zealanders. These offences cover a wide range of harmful behaviours ranging from espionage to sabotage, to attempts to influence decision making or distort public opinion. The penalties for such actions are severe: up to 14 years in prison for intentional conduct, and up to 10 years for reckless behaviour. These new offences send a strong and clear message that foreign interference, whether directed at our Government, businesses, media, or communities, will not be tolerated.

Why is this bill so important? We live in a world where foreign interference is an escalating concern; New Zealand is not isolated at all from global threats. The activities of foreign powers have increasingly targeted our interests. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has highlighted the significant risks posed by foreign interference in our politics, economy, and society. Communities, academia, businesses, and even our public servants are not immune from these foreign pressures. This bill is not just about criminalising harmful conduct; it is about sending a strong message that New Zealand stands firm in protecting its sovereignty. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms McClure, I wonder, after sort of a year here, we’re ready to start not reading our speeches, beginning to end, but I’ll leave that up to you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. This is an important and practical piece of legislation. I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House and I acknowledge the hard work of the Justice Committee that will be lying ahead of them.

This is an important piece of legislation because we are needing to ensure we maintain resilience. As Minister of Customs and the Minister responsible for combating transnational organised crime, we have a daily reminder of the amount of interference and the high need of protection that we have. This is about protecting New Zealand’s national interests and ensuring that we have resilience and we deal with the risk of interference so that we can be seen as a nation that is strong and we protect our sovereign identity. Therefore, New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, along with my colleagues, welcome this bill into the House as thoroughly explained and outlined by the Minister the Hon Paul Goldsmith in his opening speech, and also in the legislative statement. I also acknowledge some of the concerns raised by Duncan Webb, who sits on the Justice Committee. As the chair of the Justice Committee, I’m sure we will give those concerns thorough consideration for bill No. 26. I fear that within the next hour and a half my facts and figures are going to become out of date. So, with that, I’ll commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to seeing it at the Justice Committee forthwith.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has already said, the Labour Party will be supporting this to select committee, and, indeed, I note that a quick search of the internet confirmed my memory that this work actually commenced under the last Labour Government, and the intention to introduce this legislation—at that stage, not drafted—was announced by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins in 2023. On this side of the House, we do acknowledge that there is an issue to be addressed. I also endorse Duncan Webb’s comments that, if possible around these issues, it’s good if we can reach a cross-party accord at least with a substantial majority of the votes in the House.

There are a couple of issues for me. I agree with Duncan Webb that the select committee is going to need to look at this issue as to what level of knowledge is required. If the legislative statement uses the same wording as was used by the Minister of Justice in his opening remarks when he said that it does not apply to people who do not know and have no reasonable way of determining that they’re being used by a foreign power, whereas the wording in the legislation is slightly different and uses the words “the person knows, or ought to know”, which is a different wording, and if recklessness is intended to be the standard here, rather than a lower standard, then maybe the select committee can look as to whether those words in new section 78AAA(3)(b) that are being inserted by clause 10 of the bill—as to whether that is the appropriate articulation of recklessness. I think, on that issue, we actually ought to err on the side of civil liberties here, and if there isn’t recklessness, I’m not sure that we should imply intent.

The other two issues I would like to raise are in respect of people to whom this will apply in New Zealand. It’s, essentially, anyone in New Zealand unless they enjoy immunity as a diplomat under articles 31 or 37 of the Vienna convention, as given effect to by relevant law in New Zealand, or their family, which is what’s covered in the next paragraph. Essentially, if you’re diplomatic staff, then even if you were doing these things, you would not be caught by this legislation, and my understanding is that for there to be a remedy for those sorts of people, what the Government does is withdraw diplomatic immunity, and that person then, essentially, has to leave the country. But there is no remedy against people who are working in embassies. There’s another exception if you’re “an enemy alien” who isn’t a citizen. That, by my reading, is, essentially, someone who comes from a country with whom we are at war, and then there’s another exception for children.

In respect of the issue that’s not addressed—oh, sorry, the warrantless searches. If I’ve got two minutes, I’m going to make two more points. Warrantless search powers are contained in section 25 of the Search and Surveillance Acts 2012. The circumstances are limited to a small number of offences, and then there has to be a suspicion that on “reasonable grounds … an offence … is being or will be committed” and there’s a case of great urgency which requires immediate attention and there’s a belief that there is evidence in place—that’s the test. It’s suggested that this particular offence be added to the range of offences that are captured by warrantless searches. The select committee needs to give attention to that and listen to submitters as to whether that’s appropriate. I’m not saying it’s not, but that’s an issue that the select committee will pay attention to.

The final thing is I’m very interested, as we’re going to get submissions, as to what is missing from this bill—and that is that most foreign interference now is actually through AI-generated bots that are using social media channels to influence people and to influence opinions through social media. There’s a lot of media around about this; it’s an increasing problem. This bill is completely silent on the issue. One of the underlying problems in that area of law is that internet service providers, including social media companies, have no liability for third-party content—none. They’ve got no duty of care to prevent it, even if they perhaps could reasonably be expected to be deploying AI these days to work against these AI-generated bots that have been used by foreign powers to unduly influence New Zealand.

I’m interested as to whether we get submissions at the select committee on that issue, because it seems to me that is actually the issue: how can we create appropriate duties for social media, not to kill the internet but to create legal duties that they need to act responsibly?

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too rise in support of this first reading of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. Essentially, what this bill seeks to do is fortify our criminal law here in New Zealand so as to respond with better purpose to the real security threats of foreign interference. We want to build resilience to foreign security threats here in New Zealand, and I commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. This is a call in support, but not unconditional support. I think we all like to think about the idea of strengthening criminal law to better protect New Zealand from foreign interference. It sounds like a very good aim and goal. We know that there are currently gaps and limitations that are being exploited and that the exploitation of these gaps can cause harm to New Zealand and to New Zealanders. It can threaten our national security; it can threaten our sovereignty, our economy, our democracy; it can threaten the safety of all New Zealanders.

There are some other benefits with strengthening the criminal law, as suggested in this amendment. One of those is the cross-agency cooperation and the access to the broader suite of tools that that will bring with it. I reflect on a contribution from an earlier member who spoke specifically about the potential impacts of AI and how having greater cross-agency cooperation and having that broader suite of tools available is going to put more resource and more capability into detecting and addressing the kinds of challenges that AI could present.

The other thing that’s a benefit within this bill is the potential to protect targets from interference—so, vulnerable or unwitting parties who will be targeted or who will provide support without realising that they’re providing support. I think that’s an interesting notion to reflect on, today of all days: the notion of a vulnerable party providing support to something that unwittingly it ends up supporting, allegedly. Also, one of the other good things, one of the other benefits, is to incentivise foreign States to only rely on appropriate forms of influence—so, diplomatic advocacy, transparent lobbying, open and cooperative engagement. Those seem like good and positive benefits to come from this.

I alluded at the beginning to there being some concerns as well. Whilst this is a call in support of this bill, I think it’s worth noting and reflecting on the contributions from a number of members around caution around the scope of warrantless searches—noting also the concern from the Privacy Commissioner around some of the content of the bill; also noting that we have recently seen quite large trims to the budgets for both the Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau; so needing to be assured that we have the resourcing there for those agencies and entities to be able to do the work that we expect of them and that we need them to be able to do.

Finally, I’ll just finish by saying the number of concerns that have been raised by members—the things that need to be looked into, that need to be examined further and deeper—is exactly what the select committee process is for. This is really a request to ensure that the governing parties give the full and proper select committee process to this bill to ensure that all of those concerns are addressed and met. Given that we have other bills going to select committee that we know those parties are not intending to support, it would seem odd for this not to get at least the same level of time, scrutiny, and resource, being a bill that the Government is in favour of, as a bill that the Government isn’t in favour of is getting—so a full and deep select committee process to ensure that this bill comes back to the House in really good shape to be able to do what we want it to do, which is, as I said at the beginning, to strengthen our criminal law to better protect New Zealand from foreign interference. Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the impact player at the end of this first reading on behalf of the National Party, I certainly commend the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. It will be the 26th bill that the Justice Committee will hear over the coming weeks and months. We invite those submissions. We look forward to the discussion. I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.

Improving timely access to justice is a priority for this Government. I’m proud to present this bill to the House, today. In essence, it doubles the current financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000, and this will improve access to justice for New Zealanders. It will provide an affordable forum for resolving more lower-value claims at a time when low-cost dispute resolution is increasingly important for New Zealanders. Around 2,000 claimants per year will experience improved access to justice as a result of this bill. That’s because New Zealanders with civil claims between $30,000 and $60,000 currently do not have an affordable place to take their claims. It’s uneconomic to take civil claims of this nature to the District Court, due to the significant cost of legal and court-related fees. This is commonly referred to as the justice gap and leads to people abandoning the amount of their claim over $30,000 to fall within the Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction or accepting a loss by not pursuing a claim at all.

This does not support a well-functioning justice system. It’s inconsistent with the rule of law and not helpful to the basic business of people getting on with their lives, taking risks in business, and resolving their disputes in a timely fashion.

The Disputes Tribunal is a cheaper, more acceptable dispute resolution forum that’s well suited to considering claims of up to $60,000. The tribunal takes an informal inquisitorial approach, and referees support parties to put their best case forward to determine the facts without the need for lawyers. The specific features of the tribunal make it less formal than a court—quicker and cheaper—and hearings are held in private. No standard right to legal representation creates an even playing field for both parties and eliminates legal fees. Limiting appeals to the issue of unfairness or prejudice promotes the finality of the decisions, and, thirdly, the statutory basis for the tribunal decision-making—including that it shall have regard to the law but not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations—promotes flexible, pragmatic resolutions.

The low rate of appeals, rehearings, and complaints shows that the tribunal is operating effectively. New Zealanders have confidence in using it, and so we want to extend it. The tribunal is one of the busiest forums in the civil justice system. Despite this, it is effective in resolving disputes in a timely fashion, with one of the fastest disposal rates of the courts and tribunals in New Zealand, and I believe it’s well placed to effectively manage higher-value claims.

I expect claim numbers will slowly increase as people become aware of this, and this will be closely monitored and managed by the Ministry of Justice. The tribunal is funded by the Government and tribunal users pay a filing fee. It’s appropriate that tribunal users help to recover some of the costs of administering the tribunal, given the private benefit of people having their disputes resolved. At higher values, the private benefits are greater, and with this change to the financial jurisdiction, parties will be able to recover up to $60,000 in debt owed. A new filing fee of $468 for claims of more than $30,000 will aid in cost recovery and help maintain current service levels. Most of the costs will continue to be met by the Crown, as there is significant public interest in ensuring citizens feel they have a viable method to enforce their rights and uphold the rule of law.

I’m aware that the requirement for the application to front the cost of filing an application fee can still be seen as a barrier, particularly where the applicant is not seeking financial compensation. This Government is separately progressing proposals through the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, which will give Disputes Tribunal referees the discretion to order the respondent to repay the cost of the filing fee to a wholly or partly successful applicant. This will help ensure that the cost of pursuing justice does not fall on those who have been wronged.

My hope is that by keeping this tribunal significantly cheaper than bringing proceedings in the District Court, in the absence of legal fees and additional court fees, it will continue to be seen as an affordable and accessible way to resolve disputes.

The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill fulfils both the National Party’s election manifesto commitment to raise the tribunal’s financial jurisdiction, allowing it to resolve disputes of a higher value, and this Government’s justice priority to improve timely access to dispute resolution. It’s part of a broad-ranging justice response that focuses first on reducing the number of victims of violent crime, secondly on reducing that small number of serious repeat youth offenders, and, thirdly, on speeding up the processes of the courts. This particular bill responds to that third area. If we can help New Zealanders get a faster resolution to their disputes and move on with their lives in a timely fashion, then that’s a useful thing to do. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We will support this bill, but in many ways there’s a couple of funny things about it. In many ways, it’s a missed opportunity. Raising the jurisdiction certainly provides access to justice or fills what the regulatory impact statement calls the “justice gap”, whereby going to the District Court, where lawyers are not essential but pretty handy, the costs are difficult to meet—whereas, in the Disputes Tribunal, lawyers in fact aren’t allowed, except in very limited circumstances. That will increase access to justice in some ways.

However, the difficulties with the Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction, once we get to $60,000, is its high degree of informality. For example, there is no requirement that a person—who is, essentially, a judge—making an order in respect of that amount has legal qualifications, and whilst most, if not all, appointments are in fact legally qualified, it may well be time to reflect that in the legislation. In fact, the legislation itself does not require a Disputes Tribunal referee to decide a case according to the law; a Disputes Tribunal referee can decide a case in accordance with equity and fairness, but “with regard” to the law.

It’s a pretty interesting situation where you can be in a contractual dispute with, say, your builder, or whatever, for $60,000 and the Disputes Tribunal referee says, “I’ve looked at the law and I’ve had a good regard to it, but I don’t agree with it, so you lose.” Now, that’s a matter of concern, but you don’t have a right to appeal. Only for, essentially, a breach of natural justice, a failure in the procedure itself, would you get a right of appeal. These are all things where there’s an opportunity to tidy up: rights of appeal, qualifications of Disputes Tribunal referees, and the need, at this level, to decide cases on the basis of the law and not well-meaning reckons—although, to be fair, I’m pretty sure Disputes Tribunal referees do try to apply the law wherever they can.

The other thing that could be tidied up here is the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal itself, in terms of the subject matter. It’s got a relatively narrow jurisdiction in respect of contractual disputes and some tort disputes. It can consider car crashes, basic negligence, but it can’t consider economic torts or torts of, for example, defamation or nuisance. It can’t consider a civil trespass or questions of title to land or rights over land. It can’t consider any questions of equity or trusts. All of those things are things that can crop up just as easily, and people have just as much access to justice issues there as anywhere else. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to have a good look at this when we come to the select committee, which I’m sure we’re excited about as well.

The other thing is this: there’s actually a really strange thing here. The Minister has imposed, or intends to impose, in this bill a $468 filing fee for claims over $30,000, I think it is. You know what: you can file a claim for up to $350,000 in the District Court for $260. There’s a real mismatch when you can go to the District Court for $260 but the Disputes Tribunal, which doesn’t apply the law and doesn’t have a judge, is $468 as well. Now, the other point here is this: in the District Court and every other court, if you can’t afford the filing fee, you can apply for a waiver, but in the Disputes Tribunal you can’t. If you’re going to put up a barrier of $468, you need to be able to have a hardship waiver as well, because there’ll be plenty of people who don’t have $500 to front up with at the Disputes Tribunal. The committee has a lot of work to do.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. The Green Party will support this bill as well.

In terms of the context, I think the Hon Paul Goldsmith and also the Hon Dr Duncan Webb have already mentioned it, in terms of the fact that this predominantly increases the financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000. This is something that we have seen increase a number of times over the years, noting that, for example, in 2009 the limit was only $7,500 at that stage. Like the bill suggests, and like the intention of the bill, yes, I think there is the possibility of creating a relief or some sort of relief in the District Court system by having some of that going to the Disputes Tribunal. In many ways, this will allow for more accessibility and also faster processing times in terms of the court system.

However, there are a couple of concerns. I think the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has laid some of them out, and number one being that you will have to represent yourself. Once we’re getting up to a certain level of threshold, there’s also greater risk of that. There are also fewer legal protections for claimants, there are no judges, and also, like what we heard before, there is no waiver being applied to now the new administrative fee, essentially, of $468.

However, in saying that, people will still have the flexibility of whether to take their case to the Disputes Tribunal or the District Court. But, considering there isn’t a waiver, there is possibly the greater discussion of what, then, would people do, knowing that one is more expensive than the other and one doesn’t have a waiver. Will we actually see the manifestation of the intended purpose of this particular bill? That is something that we are looking forward to teasing out during the select committee stage; but overall, it does offer greater flexibility.

Some of the other things that we would also be interested to hear during the select committee process is that we simply don’t have the data right now of the number of civil claims that are between $30,000 and $100,000 at all, and they are not currently captured in the legal system. We also don’t really know what is the maximum intent and the maximum benefit that we will see with this particular bill. Overall, although the Green Party supports the intention of this bill, we would like to see the purpose of this bill being that it does allow for some of that faster processing times and relieves some of the pressure that we have on our District Court system.

Fundamentally, we are seeing that our court systems are systemically underfunded in this environment and something like this is mainly pushing a certain section of the bill around within that greater ecosystem of the court system. Although this bill is good, we would like to see there being greater support to the court system across the board. Although there are other bills currently in the House around increasing, for example, the number of District Court judges, there is nothing that’s concretely around increasing funding to the staffing. We haven’t had tangible solutions in terms of some of the outdated and archaic filing systems and IT systems, which is currently in the works, and also some of the issues that we’re seeing with District Courts and also in terms of building and infrastructure of District Courts in general, particularly District Courts and court systems in the rural and regional system.

Overall, the Green Party is supportive of this bill. We are interested to hear more from the public during the select committee stage, particularly around some of the instances and some of the cases and the number of cases between $30,000 and $100,000.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on behalf of ACT on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. I want to thank Minister Goldsmith for bringing this bill forward. I know he and Minister McKee, the Minister for Courts, do share a desire to speed up our justice system, and that is something that they are absolutely focused on.

This is a very important but small amendment, upping the amount that the Disputes Tribunal can look at, adding this extra tier—basically increasing it up to S60,000—and then adding this filing tier. This will make a material difference for people wanting to use this avenue to get disputes resolved. We think it’s a very, very important bill, and it will actually do something practical for people out there. I will be commending it to the House on behalf of ACT and I, again, look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee.

We’re really, really looking forward to getting as many bills as possible before the Justice Committee. I think we’ve picked up the second one today. I will be commending this to the House. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise again to take a call on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, which New Zealand First will be proudly supporting. It aligns with New Zealand First’s commitment to a fairer New Zealand where justice is accessible to all, and it works efficiently to the benefit of every citizen.

Expanding the threshold ensures that we have the ability to close that gap that the Minister spoke of earlier and ensure that there is a process by which we can expand access to justice, which is a critical component, which I think is where this gap sits. It is about delivering some cost-effective dispute resolution, enabling some of those barriers to taking these claims through. There is also the knock-on effect that it does empower our small businesses and our communities to be a bit more brave, to be a bit less risk-averse, and to challenge things a bit more.

It is about futureproofing this process and ensuring that we have recognition that there is a changing dynamic around the values of some of these disputes, and we want to ensure that people aren’t getting away with things because it becomes too costly or too complex to seek the resolution that is appropriate. So, on that basis, New Zealand First will proudly commend this bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I thank my lucky stars that I went to a strong secondary school like Timaru Boys’ High School, which had a strong focus on numeracy and maths, because, by my count, this is the 27th bill that the Justice Committee will receive this term and consider. It’s another absolute masterclass from Minister Paul Goldsmith in getting the simple changes that the country needs in order to get us back on track.

There’s a few things I’d like to raise in select committee that members have raised, one of which is around the filing fees. Of course, there is a filing fee of $468 proposed, and that is higher than the fee in the District Court, but then, of course, you’ve got half-day hearings of $1,200 and judicial settlement conferences of $1,200 in the District Court, so there are those other costs to consider as well when you’re going through that process. They are the things that we can discuss in the select committee, and with that, I look forward to it traversing its way to us very, very shortly.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I am very interested in this bill. As a Labour member, I am concerned, and I have been for a long time, about the fact that people with these smaller amounts of money—and it is a lot of money to a lot of people—just simply have not had mechanisms that are affordable. I’m extremely pleased to see this step in the right direction.

I note that Dr Duncan Webb made some interesting points about the gaps that remain. I also noted that Paul Goldsmith seemed willing to consider those and I hope that the committee will look at them. The ones that I see: one is actually defamation. Defamation is a really undercooked tort in this country. There’s a lot of people suffering a lot of damage on social media. I wonder whether there is a little bit of an opportunity there to build that in.

I do take note that the people that sit on this tribunal aren’t necessarily lawyers, and that’s sometimes a really good thing to have a bit of a mix of people going on, because they come with a lot of acumen out of a more pragmatic approach sometimes. I don’t actually have a problem with that. I can see that that means it might limit the kinds of things that you have in the Disputes Tribunal, because some are probably more legalistic than others. Some are quite formulaic, but actually defamation is one that is quite formulaic. It is a test that should be being applied more regularly than it is, and people should be more careful about the damage they do through the statements they make.

I am interested, too, in the issue of the gap that’s emerged where people have been compromising their claims, and I think that’s very real. I think there are a lot of examples where people have compromised their claim just to get into this service and get away from what is actually an overwhelming system. We have a lot of work to do with regard to that.

I’m also concerned beyond this bill, but I think it is relevant to it, in situations where people are actually just owed debt. Those situations where there is no dispute in play but people are owed debt, I don’t think they’re working particularly well either. It costs a lot of money to go into a situation where you get a statutory demand, and then you’ve got to take an action, often in the High Court. The fees are actually exorbitant for that, so I think there may be some work that could be done in terms of also looking at an expansion in that area.

I commend the work that’s been done in looking at this. This matter is incredibly important to New Zealanders. This will affect our small businesses, and it will be something that will be incredibly important to a lot of individuals. Those are the people that in this Parliament we should be looking after. We often bring mechanisms into play which might be well meaning, but they are just too expensive for people to use in those situations. The Disputes Tribunal has worked well. I am always concerned about those kinds of mechanisms like inquisitorial systems because they have got some disadvantages as well. They can be a bit erratic in terms of the justice they mete out, but life is full of that sort of thing, and we’ve got to kind of strike a balance here.

I do see a lot of advantage in a system which doesn’t involve lawyers at this kind of bar, and the $60,000 amount seems about right. I hope that the committee, of course, will also look at the amount. The submitters, I think, would be welcome to focus on things like whether, in fact, that is the right amount—whether it should be $60,000, whether it should be $70,000, or whether it should be $100,000—$100,000 is a lot of money. I would probably have concerns about going quite that high up, but it does seem that that would be a situation where submissions would be very helpful from real, live New Zealanders who have suffered harm under a system that has not necessarily catered for them as well as it should. I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It’s a pleasure to rise again for the second bill that the Justice Committee is receiving this evening. Today, it’s the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, and, essentially, as we’ve heard so far, there’s a justice gap that this bill will indeed fill. I would like to say, let’s fill that justice gap. Let’s get this bill rolling, and, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): There’s really no excuse for any Justice Committee members to get themselves into mischief, is there?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the chance to make a contribution on this Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. As several people have noted, Labour, obviously, will be supporting this bill. It’s a sensible, small piece of potential legislation that makes a difference to real people who are going through a disputes process.

The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, as has been said, simply raises the cap from $30,000 to $60,000 on the awards that the Disputes Tribunal can make. As has also been said, it’s a really important way, therefore, to make that justice and that recompense accessible to people, because for a lot of people, their only experience of the justice system is through a disputes process. For people to have faith in the system as a whole, they want to be able to seek that redress in a way that makes sense and that is efficient, cost-effective, and doesn’t do more harm than good, so to speak.

At the moment, the fee of $59, as I said, therefore does make it accessible. I think many of us on this in this House possibly have experience of going through a Disputes Tribunal or know of people that something has happened—whether it be the Tenancy Tribunal for some people, but the Disputes Tribunal in this case—where people have sought to get what’s owing to them or sought to right a wrong that has happened. It’s incredibly stressful and it’s something that you have to do yourself and it’s something that you have to take the lead on. There’s a lot of unfamiliar language; there’s a lot of unfamiliar process. Anything we can do to make that better is good.

The bill will mean that losing parties in the tribunal will also have to pay the cost of that filing back fee to the applicant. I note that when the claim is between $30,000 and $60,000, that fee is significantly higher. I suppose that is with an eye to preventing frivolous claims, so that people will think twice about pursuing claims that are frivolous, particularly, you can imagine, when there’s a power imbalance and it may just be they think it’s worth their while to do so. If that had to be paid for, then, if they were to lose, that kind of evens up that process a little bit.

It’s not a perfect bill in so far as—I think someone said earlier on—it’s a little bit of a missed opportunity perhaps to have done a couple of things differently. There are a number of issues with the bill, but nothing that couldn’t be sorted out through the select committee process, and I’m sure it will be there. If I remember correctly, I think the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said earlier about there not being the right of appeal, which obviously is an important part of any process and should be no less important in this process.

It doesn’t increase the cap to the level that had been suggested by that Rules Committee recommendation, which of course is the impetus for this and where it comes from, but, as Helen White has just talked about, where is the happy balance between that cap being too high and not high enough? All things that can be discussed during the select committee process, and hopefully there will be some submissions and hopefully we will have some scenarios and some stories to sort of flesh out some of the pragmatics around this bill. There is a need to balance the benefits of what is a quick, cheap, and cheerful sort of informal justice process with something that could be a little bit more robust; and the ability to correct error, as I said, with a potential of an appeal rights process through the courts. I think that will be quite interesting.

As I said, the bill in itself is simple; it stems from some recommendations and so has already come from a relatively good place in terms of process. Labour commends this bill to the House and we look forward to the Justice Committee doing its thing and reporting back in due course.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It falls to me again to wrap up this first reading on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, the 27th bill that will go to the Justice Committee. Now, 27 isn’t so good in Hollywood or if you’re a pop star, but it will be a lucky number here.

As we know, at present, people can pursue disputes about claims of up to $30,000 in the tribunal, and this bill, as others have canvassed, would amend the Act to increase that amount to $60,000. I look forward to the submissions, and I look forward to the discussions. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for the consideration of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We begin with the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 24, “Amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. Labour will support this bill, but we do have quite a few questions for the Minister based on what we think is a pretty rushed process. We want to understand from the Minister the timing and some of what we consider to be shortcuts that were taken through the process, which is evident in some of the supporting documentation, but we also want to just understand what the thinking was behind the bill in terms of missing an opportunity to really resolve this problem or make some headway around youth vaping.

I’ll preface my comments with an article that’s just come out from Radio New Zealand, which looks at smoking and vaping rates over the last year. There are a number of interesting statistics in it, and the reason that I mentioned these two things together is because we’ve been repeatedly told in the Health Committee and throughout this process that vaping is of benefit because it stops people from smoking. We very much in the Health Committee see that lens coming through from the Ministry of Health, but of the statistics that came up in this Radio New Zealand story, there’s one that says, “Daily vaping has increased more quickly in younger age groups, especially those aged 15-17 and 18-24 years. Increases in daily vaping in these age groups exceed decreases in daily smoking”.

That’s a pretty interesting observation and statistic, because we’re continually being fed this line that we need to get a balance right between helping smokers come off vapes and making sure young people don’t pick up vaping, and it’s been given to us in that order. If we actually look at the bill in front of us and we look at the introduction on the commentary from the Health Committee, and the policy reason actually in the departmental disclosure, the first priority seems to be about taking smokers off smoking, and the second priority seems to be about young people not vaping. I’m not quite sure that that seems to have the priorities in the right order, because this article from Radio New Zealand shows that there has been a significant increase in vaping that continues the trajectory that we’ve seen over a number of years.

Certainly, twice now in this House, I’ve alluded to a graph that was shown to us by Professor Hoek from one of the NGOs and the university, looking at how New Zealand fares in our vaping rates compared to comparable countries. I think we had America around 6 or 7 percent and the UK around 10 percent, and then for young people in New Zealand, daily vaping was up at around 17 percent. This story from Radio New Zealand doesn’t do anything to negate that.

I understand, and anticipate, the Minister will say this is a good reason why we need this bill, and we would agree that some things are needed, but it is such a massive problem that the feeling on this side is that we really didn’t go far enough. We will be looking at questions of process and also asking some questions around why certain things were deemed out of scope. When we look at the regulatory impact statements (RIS)—there’s a couple of different regulatory impact statements—one of them relates to visibility and one of them relates to the other matters that are considered in this bill, but there is also evidence to show it’s not just visibility that seems to impact young people’s decision to vape, particularly in the New Zealand context. The RIS quote extensively from overseas research, including the UK, and they make assumptions around the New Zealand environment, in my view, based on that. Yet, when we look at what we do have in New Zealand for research, there are things around curiosity of vaping and also flavours and the attractiveness of flavours that seem to have a bearing on young people’s decision to vape that are not mentioned in the UK legislation and yet don’t seem to have been responded to in this bill.

The questions that we will have will be: why the truncated process, why the very restrictive bill—which the regulatory impact statements acknowledge is restrictive and therefore deems many things out of scope—when there was an opportunity to do something much more ambitious? We’ve heard from the Minister that she’s planning to bring some new legislation into the House next year, and the question this begs is: why has it been separated out? There were many people who would have wanted to submit in the very short time frame that was had. There was consultation that was not had that the RIS mentions—with Māori groups in particular, even though it states that Māori would have a very significant interest in this due to the high vaping rates. Our questions will be around why this has been truncated.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do thank the member for the questions. I think, as you’ve outlined, we have a process here where we are trying to rectify—literally closing the door after the horse has bolted. We recognise fully that there was a lot of work that needed to be done in this space. The truncated process—and I appreciate that’s going to be a lot of discussion through the course of tonight—was to meet a commitment to get something up and running before the end of the year, this year. That was the real focus about doing some piece of work so that we could address the vaping situation.

I acknowledge that there has been a really unfortunate narrative that has been around this vaping space—that, somehow, when we were talking about vaping, we were talking about the situation where it was safer. Unfortunately, I think that the language got away, and we ended up with it being discussed as if it was safe. That’s where I think we really broke the gates in terms of too much take-up in young people. This is, as the member has mentioned, a first tranche of work, and it’s about trying to get some framework in place as soon as possible. It was that compromise, and I appreciate—more haste, less speed—that it’s not the perfect solution. It is a process that we want to work through, and we will continue to engage in this language.

I think it’s important, when we talk about vaping and its tool, we don’t ignore the impact, and you can see in the graphs that have been referred to numerous times that we did see a massive drop in smoking rates from about 2018. The differential that occurred, at that point, was that vaping had hit the markets, and we started ending up with a much higher drop-off of smoking than we had seen previously. We’re not, by any means, suggesting that this is a way of promoting vaping as a solution for young people. That’s exactly what we’re trying to prevent. We’re trying to ensure that under this vaping environment, we send clear messages that it is not for young people. We don’t want young people to vape, and we will continue to push on that language.

We’re doing a piece of work that we’re very keen to make sure has some tighter controls in place by the end of the year. There is further work coming, and there is further opportunity to do more in this space, but there is no denying that vaping is a less harmful product for smokers, and, therefore, we recognise it as a tool that has contributed to the smoking drop-off that we’ve seen.

Of encouragement, in the health survey results, something we did notice was that, in one of the figures that was referenced, the 15- to 17-year-old vaping rates last year were 15.4 percent, and they’re down to 10.5 percent, which is, again, way too high, but it is encouraging to see that we are starting to shift the narrative. There’s much more work to do in this space, though. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right, members, the sitting is resumed. The House is in committee for consideration of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. We have just begun consideration of Part 1 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). The question before the committee is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, before we broke for dinner, one of my colleagues from the Labour Party was talking about the broader context of this bill, and also in terms of the truncated select committee process. I think other people would like to contribute to that as well. I think, from my perspective, I would like to start sort of almost line by line. That way I can structure it in a very systematic format.

I would like to get some clarification from the Minister on clause 4, particularly around the addition of the use of the disposable vaping device. Now, from the select committee process, one of the things we did hear—well, I say “we”; one of the things the Health Committee heard—during that process is that it may have unintended consequences in limiting certain elements of this, which is one of the reasons why the amended version has been changed from “product” to “device”; also, with some clarifications around the definition of a vaping device.

Now, I would like to get some clarification from the Minister around subclause (a) to start with, and particularly when we’re talking about “to be refilled by the user with a vaping substance or by using a pod, cartridge, or similar storage [containers]”. This is something that’s a little bit different from the previous version, which has been crossed out. In this case, I wondered if the Minister has considered that “similar storage container” is sufficient to address the rapid changes that vaping devices might take into the future.

For example, in the crossed-out version there was no mention of pods or cartridges, but instead talking about “pre-filled with … vaping substance … designed to be fitted into a vaping [substance] … and … not designed to be refilled”. I would argue that “designed to be fitted into a vaping device” is much broader as a criteria than having those specific criteria of “pod, cartridge, or similar storage container”. I was not, I think, a part of this part of the Health Committee when it was discussing the amendments and the updates, so I would like some clarification from the Minister on whether she thinks that this would capture everything in terms of the refill component, by this.

Also, looking at this, I want to briefly mention—and want some advice on from the Minister—one of semantics. It’s around the use of the preposition “by”. In this case, in the first part when we’re looking at refill by the user and then “by using a pod”, I think I just want some clarifications in terms of that it only captures the single-use element that I think was the intention of this bill. I guess the main question for the Minister is around what was the change, why was there a change into “pod, cartridge, or similar [containers]”, when previously I think “designed to be fitted into a vaping device” is much broader and captures more possibilities.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you. I’d just respond to the member, just to reflect: so, when the bill was put forward, we did approach it on a very, you know—to get rid of disposable vapes completely. That was the challenge, which is what we were trying to do—get rid of the devices that were most commonly used by young people.

What happened in the select committee process—and overwhelmingly the submitters reflected that—was it would have had some unintended consequences, as the member has referred to, which was that we needed to balance that we were not going to end up with smokers going back to smoking because the vaping device that they used and relied on are most commonly used by those who had quit smoking. There was a balance struck there around ensuring that the devices that were commonly used—not used by young people, but not commonly used by those who had transitioned away from smoking and were relying on vaping. There was a balance that was struck there.

The member has also touched on the truncated process, and I think that question has been raised before. As I said earlier, this was about trying to ensure that we got something in as quickly as possible, because there was a lot of pressure around this vaping environment and getting it away from young people. The reason for this legislation being truncated was so that we could get something in before the summer and get this in place. There’s still going to be a lead-in time for these product changes. As soon as we can get the legislation in, we can move forward on it.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you. I’d like to pick up on the comments from the Green member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan around the time frames and also the two regulatory impact statements (RIS) that were done. There are a number of areas in there where they talk about the constrained time frames and also, in some ways, the process being a little bit reversed.

On page 3 of the August RIS, it talks about the constraint of analysis because Cabinet had already made decisions. My first question is: why had the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Casey Costello, made decisions—and why had Cabinet made decisions—prior to the second regulatory impact statement being made? That seems to be a little bit the wrong way round. Also, the lack of consultation in the time frames in which the policy proposals were considered and agreed by the Government did not allow for consultation beyond governmental agencies, and this was itself limited. Then, the RIS talks about the select committee process providing an opportunity for public consultation.

If I marry that, then, with the first regulatory impact statement, and the second one, there is in there quite a detailed analysis around those ideas of vaping products—how broad or narrow the constraints should be. It was never in the RIS that single-use vapes using pods would be an exception, and yet we had many, many submissions saying this was really important for a number of reasons—one was around child poisoning and children getting hold of refillable containers and poisoning themselves. There were also news items from overseas where there was some kind of YouTube craze where people were trying to create their own refillable pods and ended up poisoning themselves. Then there was also the other unintended consequence around preventing people from being able to access vapes if they were trying to give up smoking.

My question is really just following on from the Green member’s: why was the exception that the Health Committee came to—pretty quickly and pretty unanimously, and that reflected the majority of the submissions to us—not even an option in the regulatory impact statement? Was there not enough information? Was there not enough consultation? Were we relying too much on evidence coming from overseas? It seemed to me very apparent that a lot of the research that was being relied on came from overseas, and, in fact, the regulatory impact statement says this best marries with the experience of Australia and the UK. We’re able to come to that conclusion pretty quickly and pretty unanimously, and yet it wasn’t in the official advice. That gives me some alarm bells and some red flags, particularly given the RIS very specifically mentioning the limitations and constraints on analysis and also the fact that Cabinet had already made decisions.

The Minister said earlier, in her response to my question—which I appreciate—when I was talking about truncated time frames, something about wanting to get something in the House before Christmas, and she has again alluded to pressure on the sector. However, the overwhelming sentiment from people who have submitted to the Health Committee outside of the submission process, simply on vaping in general and then again in the submissions, was that we need to do this properly. We’re talking about substances here that are consumed into the human body, into the tinana. This is not something we take lightly. In fact, there is other legislation—for example, if it was around alcohol or drugs—where this would be a conscience vote. I’m really curious to know what is the importance of the Christmas deadline for getting what appears to be kind of half the legislation through the House, so that we can better understand the urgency. Already we’re seeing red flags in the advice that was given by officials, and I don’t think that bodes well for good lawmaking. If the Minister could answer—thank you.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to ask a couple of questions, probably in a very similar vein. When the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello first responded to the first question, she, again, as has just been said, mentioned in response to the question about the truncated process that it was really important to get something up by the end of the year. In a slightly different take on that, but, certainly, still with regard to unintended consequences, I just wonder if the Minister can give us a little bit more information, or step us through, what has been her thinking or what her intention is in so far as that tranche two? Often, as we’ve just heard, and we’ve heard through the select committee process, there’s always some unintended consequences, be they big ones, be they small ones, be they things that can be resolved, or be they things that make things worse than if you had not done anything to start with.

A couple of things—and it is just a couple of things—really, we don’t think that this goes far enough. But, with the measures that are here, has there been any work done by officials or by the Minister to look at the half step, the halfway position, to get something done by the end of the year, and whether that impacts on the efficacy of the tranche two measures—whether there’s anything to sort of suggest that, particularly in relation to the wholly disposable versus the pod situation? Young people will always adapt—it’s an arms race, isn’t it?—and they will want what’s popular now.

My second question is: can the Minister give us any more detail or any more information exactly about the proportions or the popularity sort of statistics between the single-use disposable vapes versus the pods in that age group? If the first tranche comes in and young people—who are by definition addicted to the nicotine that they’ve been getting through these devices—then choose a different modality, does this first tranche in this bill keep pace with how those habits will change in time for the second tranche not to be already behind the eight ball? If the Minister could just give us a little bit more information about that. Given it’s a specific, intentional decision to get something done before Christmas, I’m assuming that there were these measures that were sectioned off from a larger plan. Can she tell us a little bit more about why the line was drawn here and this was called tranche one, and what tranche two will do, and how those two things interact? That would be much appreciated.

I have some more questions, but I’ll move on for now because they tend to have a slightly different purpose. Just to give the Minister some notice of where we might go after this, I certainly would like to know some more information about—because the purpose of this bill was to reduce access, and by definition that has been operationalised as reducing visibility, I think there’s several questions, and my colleague Ingrid Leary has alluded to this, in so far as the research that’s been relied upon to make those assumptions. Those first two questions would be much appreciated.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Just in terms of the member’s earlier question regarding the regulatory impact statement (RIS) report—the option two around the narrowly defined scope—that was in the RIS, so that has been referenced in this discussion. The other part—and I know we’ve talked about this truncated process—to clarify: this was about ensuring that there was movement and we were moving forward in this space because of the high level of concern, as has been elucidated in this Chamber today, around youth vaping. We were looking at some solutions that we could get through. To suggest there hasn’t been an opportunity there—this topic has been a subject of significant debate over a period of time, so there was a lot of knowledge that already existed in this space.

We talked a little bit about the devices, and we’ve talked a lot about the devices and the types of devices and stuff. I think it’s important to note that the device component of this is one part of the legislation, which is about reducing access. I think it’s important that we kind of keep focused on the bill that’s before the committee today, around dealing with what’s before us.

Again, the truncated process—I’m not sure how many ways I can express it—I appreciate there was concern, but there was a high level of interest by those who were dealing with kids that were accessing vaping. There’s a suite of responses in this space and around the types of devices. We relied on not only what was put forward but we also relied on the Justice Committee recommendations, which was where we’ve ended up.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair. It’s my first contribution on this bill. I note, Minister, that the select committee has made a number of changes to clause 4(a) that relate to, basically, extending out the definition, which I understand. My first question is—it relates to clauses 4(a) and (b)—there is a specific use of the word “designed”. I know that was in the original part of clause 4 as well. My question is around where modifications sit within that definition.

One assumes that it’s either as a descriptor at the point of importation or the point of sale; that there could be a device—what appears to be formally known as a “product”, but in this circumstance a “device”—that is not designed to be recharged, for example, or not designed to be refilled with a particular substance. Where in that particular scope of things do modifications sit? Or is that something where, once the device itself has made its way to the consumer, or wherever it might end up, actually, that’s not a valid consideration?

It just seems to me that the alternative would be that, for example, the device is not able to be recharged—whereas, what’s changed here is it’s talking about the design process. My first question is around that: is it around the point of sale? Is it around the point of importation? If it is importation, where does the responsibility for modifications sit within that? I guess, flowing on from that is whether or not the Minister is confident that, as it is currently worded, it would capture what it’s intended to capture. It may be that that is the case, but some clarity around that would be good.

My other question does derive from the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and it relates to what has been identified as legally privileged information but is before the committee at paragraph 69. This is the section that relates to implications around any international trade obligations that New Zealand might have. My question is just around the ease and cost of implementation, which is contained in the matrix within the RIS, whether the Minister can inform the committee around what particular international trade obligations are engaged—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could the member just repeat that—what the reference is?

TANGI UTIKERE: Yes. It’s in the RIS and it’s on page 15, paragraph 69. Actually, it’s the whole section that relates to the former options, but the particular information that appears to be legally privileged but has been provided is at paragraph 69. My question for the Minister is just around whether there are any particular international trade obligations that are engaged or not as a result of the Government’s preferred approach?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first opportunity to contribute to this bill at the committee stage, although I was lucky enough to be able to make a contribution in an earlier reading. I was not on the Health Committee that examined this bill, but I have had an opportunity now, at the last reading and at this committee stage, to look at some of the changes made by the select committee. I have a few questions for the Minister around some of those changes and also some of the other changes to the bill that were there prior to the select committee process.

This is certainly not an area that I’m an expert in, but it might be quite straightforward for the Minister to answer some of those questions that I have in Part 1. I will reiterate briefly comments made by colleagues in previous readings who didn’t agree this bill goes far enough. I am looking, really, for quite technical, I suppose, answers to some of these questions, but that’s kind of the overall thrust of this bill—and noting, obviously, the consultation and truncated elements of it that are in the departmental disclosure statement as well as on the regulatory impact statement documents, which others have mentioned, and the lack of, specifically, consultation with Māori. I just wanted to note that. If the Minister wanted to comment, that would be fine

My specific questions are relating to Part 1. In Part 1, we have clause 8(2).This clause replaces section 20P(2)(c) with the (c) that follows, and it states that “the applicant understands its obligations under this Act”. I wanted to know how the Minister envisaged that that would be quantified to reach the level of understanding to comply with the section that was there before the select committee process.

My next question is relating to a specific change made by the select committee. In clause 12(1), new subsection (4A), the select committee has added in something which, I imagine, was to avoid a particular type of mischief, as lawyers tend to call things that they want to avoid under an Act, and that is to specifically add, after section 25(4), “To avoid doubt, subsection (4) does not permit publication on an Internet site of a link to a regulated product advertisement …”. I wondered if the Minister could inform the committee of the particular issue that that new subsection added by the select committee was to avoid.

The next question I have is in relation to Part 1—again, in clause 14, new subsection (3B). This is, I think, having read the select committee’s report, a specific change that was added, as I understand, as a result of submissions, and that is, in (3B), “A specialist vape retailer must not display a vaping product or its packaging in a way that makes it visible from outside their place of business.” Now, I don’t vape, I don’t purchase vapes, but I am aware of vape retailers in my local area. One vape retailer that I’m thinking of has its door open all the time, and because its door is open, you are able to see the products that they sell there. Obviously, if the door is closed, you can’t see them. Would that specific example be covered by this change by the select committee?

I understand the reason for it is—and there’s quite a detailed explanation of why the select committee thought that this was important and why this change was made—but where is the line, really, with the displaying of their packaging? Is it a requirement that they must never be visible at any time, or is it just simply displaying in a form of advertising which would possibly be visible when the door is open but otherwise would be compliant? That’s just a question around the extent of that, and I think it’s important to get these details clear for retailers prior to the progress of this bill, so that they are able to comply with it.

The other question—and the last question—that I have for the Minister, if I have time, is in relation to new section 62, under clause 18, and it’s going to be replaced with “Pre-notification requirements”. That specifically refers to regulations. I understand that it’s the regulations that are in Part 2, which we’re not talking about at the moment, but that is referred to in clause 18, which refers to new section 62. I just wondered if the Minister had thought about making that more specific so it was clear that it was indeed the regulations in Part 2 that they were referring to.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member for her contribution, and I’ll try and work backwards a little bit. I’ll get some more advice around the pre-notification requirements that you mentioned.

The display component: there was quite a lot, from my understanding, within the Health Committee. The driver behind this was, I suppose, as you mentioned, that it has become very attractive to young people, the way the stores are set up. We also were cognisant around the submissions about the risk of being opaque and behind closed doors—the potential for generating crime risk around that. It was balancing the ability, and the language was changed to demonstrate that this was about not being visible to children. If you have open doors, then the product cannot be visible—so how they choose to do that.

Internet links were something that was raised, again through the select committee process. We were stopping the ability to display the product online but the concern was raised that you could then create a link to an international website. The discussion around it was that it would circumvent that discussion—that you were, basically, taking it off the site, but you could link through to another site. It was a way of trying to address, again, not being able to make it visible.

In terms of the trade implications, there was some discussion over trade implications. The battery component was the area that was of concern. I think that has been addressed through this process of ensuring that there—the level of risk around the trade implications, that’s the response that I can give on that component.

I think there was an earlier question regarding the modifications of the devices: after point of sale, when they’re modified, how is that done? I think the control that we’ve got in place is for what we’re selling; what happens once that device is purchased is beyond what we can deal with. I think it’s important that, when we talk about vaping, we’re looking at a process of not just enforcement but also talking about supporting this programme of work around education and awareness and changing the way we view vaping. That was where I think we drove a lot of the discussion around not having visibility, because that was that risk that we had—that it had become very attractive, the way the stores were set up and the way they were displayed. We were trying to get some balance in the way it was being seen as something very attractive and interesting—to take it out of front of mind. That was where we’re at.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I’d like to take a call on this part of the legislation and really inquire with the Minister in terms of—we’ve explored, our colleagues have explored, in terms of the lack of consultation, also the narrow scope, and the absence of data to inform what was a rushed process. In terms of disposables and also compliance—if we can explore the compliance of our vape stores across the country, whether they are general vape stores or specialists. Where are we at as we push towards Christmas? Where are we at in terms of both knowing the data of what stores are in what communities, and then what staff do we have available to help with the compliance in this space?

Knowing that certainly we heard from submitters—and I go back to some of the Māori submitters that raised their support for the impact of youth vaping in our communities, but also how do we get stronger in the non-compliance space? While we might attach a fine to the stores or in regards to their non-compliance for the legislation, how do we even know that they are non-compliant? Knowing that we have limited resource on the ground right now—and I think about Tai Tokerau and our enforcement officers—there has been kōrero for some time that we were going to increase the numbers of officers. Where are we at in terms of that capacity as we gear ourselves up for this Christmas launch?

Of course, we are supportive of the legislation and the trajectory and the journey where we are heading in terms of strengthening the protections for young smokers and particularly in the vape space, but also we need a system and we need the many cogs in the public health service to be ready to implement the legislation when it comes into effect.

We heard from submitters also in local government, and local governments spoke to their desire to be strengthened in this space in terms of the stores that they have in their communities, their abilities to apply the by-laws in their local communities, but also be resourced in the space of compliance. So these are questions generally for the Minister in terms of our readiness. What does that look like so far? Do we know the numbers of stores—

Sam Uffindell: Point of order, Mr Chair. The purpose of this is to ask questions about the bill. It’s not general questions, as that member has just stated, that are outside the scope of it.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What’s your point of order?

Sam Uffindell: The point of order is relevance. It’s not relevant to—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): And I will determine relevancy.

Sam Uffindell: OK. I was just raising it as a concern. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you.

HŪHANA LYNDON: If I could complete my kōrero, I’ll go back to the sale, manufacture, supply, and distribution of the vapes in our communities—these devices. This is a question around the distribution of those stores. Do we know enough about what’s in our community, first of all, because we haven’t really looked at the data?

Then, further, is our system ready for launch, and what do our numbers look like in terms of resourcing the system to give effect to this legislation? This is all about enforcement. This is making sure that we’re able to fine those who will breach the legislation and that we will have the relevant staff in each of our communities—and even local government might even be considered for resourcing because they did ask for that—in terms of how we implement and get ready to support this legislation to be as effective as possible. Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, just reflecting on comments made, we have traversed a bit around time frames and, of course, the importance of Christmas just around the corner as well. With further contributions, I do want members to be mindful of that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the point that was raised already by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon is a really important one, and it would be good to get clarification from the Minister in the context of clause 6 of the bill on the enforceability of this. But what I want to pick up on are a few things.

The first thing is what the Minister mentioned before. Thank you, Minister, for responding to my question around clause 4 before, but I guess one of the things I am slightly puzzled by is the fact that submitters have mentioned that there might be unintended consequences if the scope is too broad, and that way it’s not going to allow people to have alternatives to switch from smoking into vaping. One would assume that since this bill only covers the use of disposable vaping devices and not non-disposable—I stated very clearly, in clause 4, that anything that has the unintended consequence of not being captured would simply allow people to transition into using potentially non-disposable and rechargeable and refillable devices instead. I’m still a little bit puzzled as to why we need to have the level of specificity that we’re seeing in section 2(1)(a), in clause 4 of this bill.

Something else that our colleague from Labour Tangi Utikere mentioned is something else in terms of the regulatory impact statement, which I also want to pick up on from a trade perspective, particularly with the phrasing of paragraphs 69 and 70 of the regulatory impact statement. It does raise a little bit of alarm bells in terms of whether the Minister has had any consultation from either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or any other agencies around the use of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) process. Is there going to be any part of this that is going to be considered here? The way that I’m reading paragraphs 69 and 70 of the regulatory impact statement is that we have to almost justify to companies that we’re not going to disadvantage them and that it is for the health of our people in Aotearoa, otherwise they might take additional actions. To me, that sounds like an ISDS thing.

Clarification from the Minister would be great, because that would potentially be an example of us actually prioritising the interests of overseas tobacco or vaping companies and batteries over the health of our own people, which may also in this case justify one of the reasons why we thought non-disposable, rechargeable, and refillable vaping products weren’t banned in this bill and why it wasn’t going as far. That potentially does answer that, but I’m not sure, so advice from the Minister would be appreciated.

There are still quite a few different components to Part 1 of this bill that I would like to address, but one of the things I want to address next is around the fine and what is going to become an offence. This is both in terms of new section 20FA, inserted by clause 7, as well as clause 15. Now, in the regulatory impact statement, on paragraph 22, it talks about the existing offence and the existing fine structure, and there is a two-tier structure between a body corporate and what it is in other instances. What we’re seeing in clause 15 is that what is going to be the fine for corporates will be increased from $10,000 to $100,000 and what it is going to be for other cases has increased from $5,000 to $10,000. This is to do with the sale of regulated products to under-18s, and the increase, potentially, is a way of deterrent.

I get that, but the question I then have for the Minister is that I also want some clarification from the Minister, or potentially officials, on why, in new section 20FA(2), inserted by clause 7, the fine for persons without reasonable excuse to sell or distribute disposable vaping devices is so extreme. In many ways, it is so much more than any other fine structure we have seen and any other fine structure we’ve seen in other parts of the principal Act. In this case, you see that, for a notifier or a large retailer, the fine is $400,000 and, for other people, it’s $50,000. That’s way more than selling it to a minor. If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying that point as well.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I can assure the member that there have been discussions with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). I don’t think it’s appropriate to talk about legally privileged advice in this forum, but the discussions with MFAT provide us assurance that we were not going to incur any further issues with this.

I think we’re getting a bit grey around the disposable devices versus the devices that we—so, again, I’d reiterate, what we were talking about were the devices most commonly used by young people, and that was the assessment and the evaluation, the advice that was given, which is why the legislation was written as it was and then, through the process, was addressing that we ensured that there were the vaping devices that were being used most commonly by those that had quit smoking and were relying on them as a pathway to being smoke-free.

We’ve talked a lot about the enforcement and the future state. I mean, the bill is very clear that we’re talking about increasing the penalties so that we have a level of deterrence. So the different penalties, if you work through the different offences—the reason there was a higher penalty for a larger organisation is that we needed to ensure that there were penalties in place that acted as a clear deterrent. I agree fully that the enforcement component is a really key part of this once this legislation comes into force. We want to ensure that there is strong compliance, and the penalty component was the driver behind this, to ensure that the penalties are a suitable deterrent from selling to minors and breaching this legislation overall.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to reiterate that we are supportive of this legislation in general; however, there are some concerns that we want to open up. I certainly heard that the question about enforceability is an important one. My question relates to clause 4, “Section 2 amended (Interpretation)”. Amended section 2(1)(a) is really about the disposability of vapes.

I think we all agree that smoking is a dirty habit and causes health issues, cancer, kills people way too early, and vaping may be a way for people to step away from a really bad, dangerous habit. If we look at paragraph (a), when we think about the disposability of vapes, I’m interested that the Minister has said that what is beyond sale is not something that we deal with, because Government policy should really take into account all of the aspects of legislation and where it goes and what happens with disposable stuff.

I’m particularly interested because there is another burning question, and that is the waste to toxin to poison fast-track proposal to burn waste in Waimate. If we’re thinking about what happens to the devices that are used and if we’re not going to recycle them—if we are simply going to have them as single-use—why is the Government not willing to take care about what happens beyond sale? Why are we not thinking about lifecycle—where this goes, what impact it makes on our other communities, on our farmers? That’s where this goes. If we’re thinking about waste and we’re thinking about fast track, that’s where it goes.

We are thinking about particulates being burnt, spreading dioxins and other stuff—we don’t even know what’s in these things—over our rural communities in South Canterbury and in other places. My question to the Minister is: why are we not willing to consider what happens to disposable vapes beyond sale, and are we simply—

Sam Uffindell: We’re banning them!

SCOTT WILLIS: Some of the heckling I get is that we are going to burn this stuff—we’re going to burn it even more and we’re going to distribute it across rural Aotearoa and destroy our farming communities as well. There is something ironic in that, but my question to the Minister is about how we are going to deal with this holistically. How are we going to manage the waste that is coming from this legislation?

It is a serious question, because we are in agreement with the legislation that we need to limit the risk to our health sector, to our community, but we also need to think about the consequences of legislation, the unintended consequences, that might lead to even greater risk to our communities, that might lead to more waste, that might lead to the fast-track destruction of our rural communities with poor legislation. We need to consider this. We need to consider this in a very clear—well, to come back to my point, Minister: can we, please, have some understanding about what is going to happen beyond the sale of disposable vapes? Will we have some understanding of that? Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member Scott Willis for his concerns. I’d probably need to redirect you a wee bit back. Your colleague questioned what happened to a device that was then modified after it was purchased—slightly different. When I said that we can’t control what someone does with something they buy and how they modify it after they’ve purchased it, your concern regarding disposable vapes is exactly the point of this legislation. It’s to get rid of those single-use, disposable vapes. That is exactly the purpose of this bill, to get rid of that throwaway device, which, exactly as you said, has created a problem within the environment. This legislation, which I am pleased you are supporting, is exactly the point, and that’s why we’ve modified—we were going to get rid of a much wider definition of disposable, but that was brought back through the select committee process. The purpose of this legislation is to get rid of exactly the product that you have expressed concerns about.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just have a short contribution to the Minister. This is to do with clause 14 and to do with the display of vaping products in shops. Now, understandably, after the select committee process there was a change, because one of the things that was changed was around display versus visibility. The submissions we heard from shops were that, if you were making it not visible from the outside, you would potentially create risk for people inside. Therefore, you have got change, and we see the addition of subsection (3B), through clause 14.

However, considering that I’m sure the Minister has visited many vaping shops, normally what you do see is they do have clear glass. Everything is visible from the outside and there are clear cabinets on the inside where all of the vapes are displayed. I want to get a very specific clarification from the Minister that, in the intention of new section 37(3B), in terms of “must not display”, what then would be the limit of that potential display? As in, is it a display of a clear window, and you are displaying it in the shop looking outside? Or does “display” have a much broader sense where none of the products should be available to be seen, at least made out to be seen, even through glass cabinets on the inside of the shop? I just want some clarification from the Minister regarding display. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I will address the question from the member, and I thank you for your concerns. The question we have is that we have two components: we have the specialist vaping stores and the general vaping stores. Someone under 18 can be inside a general vaping store, because they are able to be in there purchasing other things, so that was addressing that. The specialist vaping store—and that’s why we’re working through a process of making some selections around how they choose to ensure that the product is not visible to those that are under 18. There’s a variable there and some degree of flexibility. It’s about whether it’s covering what’s in the cabinets or it’s covering the store—there is some flexibility around that space.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some follow-up questions from points raised by my colleagues and also by the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello herself. The first one is in relation to section 2(1) of the principal Act, amended by clause 4 of the bill, where it talks about disposable vaping, and the word “product” is deleted and instead we have “device”.

If I look at the primary legislation, we’ve got two definitions: one’s a “vaping device” and one’s a “vaping product”. The vaping product seems to incorporate a device. This is material when it comes to some of the definitions in the regulations, which is why I’m asking the question. My first question is: I wonder if the Minister could, please, explain why when the change was made to having single-use pod vapes, the word “product” was changed out for “device” in that section and in subsequent subsections in 20FA of new Part 1AA, as well, inserted by clause 7 of the bill.

My second question is in relation to the offences. I note that the Minister said that the reason for such a large jump in the change of fine was as a deterrent factor, and yet when I read the regulatory impact statement (RIS), in fact, it says the reason that there needs to be a much larger fine is to enable prosecutors to take a case that is cost-effective of taxpayers’ money. I didn’t see anything around deterrent.

I do know that there is a body of evidence that says that one of the most important ways, in criminal law and in criminology, to ensure that people won’t get caught is when they know that they are likely to get caught. I’m sure the Minister with her past in the police service recognises that. I’m really curious about her response to say that the deterrent factor was the primary driver of the change of fine when that is not mentioned in the RIS, and it’s around the prosecution. We do know, in the Health Committee, that there have only been a couple of prosecutions—I think one in the last year—and that goes back to points raised previously by other members around the need for enforcement.

My third point is to do with clause 8 of the bill, “Section 20P amended”, with “the retail premises in which the vaping products are or will be sold”. We’ve got “at least 300 metres from the boundary of a registered school”, a marae, and we are adding early childhood centres, and we’ve got at least 100 metres. I’m wanting to understand why it is 100 metres in that case, and 300 metres in the other cases.

When I look at what the RIS says, it says, “Students of Pasifika origin were in general closer to [specialist vape stores] than European students. Some schools had up to 37 vape retailers within 1600m of schools and some of our most underserved communities had up to 7 vape retailers within 400m of the school.” I’m wondering how these particular places were landed on, because I can think of other areas where Pasifika, for example, would be very exposed to vape outlets, such as if they were in the vicinity of churches, in the vicinity of community halls. There are other communities—disabled communities—who equally would be more likely to be exposed to vapes in particular situations. I’m keen to understand from the Minister why these three areas were landed on—and early childhood, in particular, with the 100 metres.

The other thing that was in the RIS was that the University of Canterbury did a study that showed there were up to seven more vape stores in more socio-economically deprived neighbourhoods. I wonder if any consideration was given to a graduated or a nuanced approach to areas that already have a proliferation of vape stores, because we have a bit of a one-size-fits-all currently, and there is no sinking lid but nor is there any taking into account, as far as I can see, those areas that have significantly higher numbers of vape stores where perhaps there could have been some policy consideration.

The other thing is that there’s very scant research to come out of New Zealand, but one of the things that it does say in the RIS is that many young people are exposed to vapes and the provision of vapes through family members, and yet we have this big focus of the online scenario, which I understand may become a problem in the future, but currently accounts for very few vape purchases—it’s less than 10 percent; very, very few. What consideration was given to trying to mitigate the risk of young people getting vapes from family members, when considering this bill?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member for the clarification sought. I think, when we go back to products versus device, if you go through the legislation, the motivation behind it was to clarify and provide some consistency across the legislation, as it had become pretty interchangeable. That was the reason for that change—to bring consistency within the legislation.

I note that the regulatory impact statement referred to more efficiency around prosecution, but from a principle point of view, when we were talking about this legislation and when we were first looking at the issues around this space, the penalties were not representing a deterrent factor. I completely acknowledge the fact that that has to be accompanied by enforcement, and that is the whole reason for increasing these penalties—to ensure there is a component of, you know, real concern if you get prosecuted and the penalties would align to that.

The 100 metres—the early childhood education (ECE) stores—and we fully acknowledge that there are too many vaping stores out there. This is the 100 metres for the ECE versus the 300 metres for the other proximity components—this was really just the sheer volume of ECEs. If we pushed out to 300 metres, it was, you know, becoming pretty complex around the extent. It was assessed to bring it back to 100 metres’ proximity because of the sheer volume of ECEs around the country. I do acknowledge the point of view around the fact that we have way too many vaping stores in the low socio-economic areas, which is the ones that incur the highest harm.

This is a process that we’ve talked about a lot, but within this legislation, this is the step forward that we’re trying to take, which is ensuring that we get rid of the disposable vapes, that we increase the penalties, and we reduce the visibility. Even though the stores are there, if we can make them less visible and less in the face of our young people, that’s the step in the right direction.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to note, members, that we have traversed a lot of different issues. I am looking for new material, and I’m looking for relevant material that is focused on the parts in question.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question solely arises from what the Minister has just said. I’ll ask a very short question, because I just want an actual answer. Given what the Minister’s just said in relation to early childhood education (ECE) centres and, therefore, the 100-metre change, (a) it doesn’t now feel as if choosing ECEs is really congruent to the age cohort that we’re trying to reduce the visibility for, and (b) as the Minister has quite rightly explained, it was fraught with all sorts of considerations, because there’s just so many of them that having a 300-metre limit would make it nonsensical.

Was any other consideration made of other actual age-congruent, likely destinations and environments where this cohort of people actually do find themselves, like churches or halls or other things? It feels as if just another educational environment was just chucked into the mix to say that there’s been an extension for the sake of it. Can she, please, provide us with any information about whether other venues, other contexts, and other environments were considered? It doesn’t feel like this ECE one has really got much of anything behind it to justify it being included in this bill.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Mr Chair, thank you. I think it’s an important point that you’ve raised around the proximity component. It was considered important. It was raised through the office and with the ministry around those concerns, because we were getting younger and younger vapers. I think the important thing is to balance this conversation around where they were with removing the visible displays, and the balance in this conversation was, rather than going down the path of all of the places that you could be approximately located, removing that level of display and the visual attractiveness of a lot of those vaping stores. That was where we ended, on the balance.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I really appreciate the Minister continuing to engage with us. Her answers have been very helpful.

I have a few different matters. One of them relates to Te Tiriti, where in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) there is a statement around Te Tiriti, saying that strengthening the regulation of vapes to protect children and young people would demonstrate good Government within the context of the Treaty of Waitangi. I note that there was consultation with a number of Government agencies, but there was no consultation with Māori, in one of the RIS. The second RIS said that there was no consultation with Māori, and yet in the first RIS there is a reference to the consultation with Māori and some of the communities saying that they wanted to see less visibility. I’d just like some clarification about whether there was in fact consultation with Māori groups, or was it confined to Government agencies?

My second point is that the highest number of young vapers appears to be young Māori women. I think it’s around 20 percent. I’ve got numerous pieces of paper here, but I note in the many, many Government agencies that were consulted, the Ministry for Women does not appear to have been. I think that’s a shame, given that there is a particular cohort where a gender lens as well as a tangata whenua lens or a Treaty lens might be relevant in terms of coming up with reasons why the prevalence is higher and what some of the mitigations could be, so that we do have appropriate policy in place.

Then I also have a question around the CBAx, the cost-benefit analysis, because there’s a number of references in both the regulatory impact statements to wanting to get the legislation right for all interested parties based on costs and benefits. Yet, when I look at the CBAx in the second one, which goes over a number of pages, interestingly—if I look at the August document, pages 21 and 22—it tries to make some findings about monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits to stakeholders, which includes regulated groups, regulators, Government consumers, and so on. For anyone who’s watching at home, this is a pretty critical piece of analysis, because it is really trying to weigh up the different interests at stake and put a monetary value on them. I don’t understand why we have a CBAx included when every entry in the second column says “Uncosted - (Medium)”, “Uncosted”, “Medium”, “Low - uncosted”. How can the veracity of this evidence be accepted when the CBAx is so lacking in evidence?

Also, if I go back to the departmental statement and some of the caveats around the quality of advice, it says that the RIS should be accepted, but there is a caveat around the quality of advice due to the time constraints, again. I’m really curious to know from the Minister how reliable she thinks the cost-benefit analysis is and whether it was even an exercise worth doing for the purposes of this bill, given that there appears to be no evidence to base the CBAx on. In lay people’s terms, it’s kind of guesswork. That seems a very big stretch to take when we’re talking about young people’s health, young people consuming something that goes into their body where we don’t know the full effects. We suspect it’s probably worse for them than caffeine; we will know in the fullness of time, and, in the meantime, we have pretty inadequate evidence. I’m just wanting to understand that, as well as the questions about the Treaty.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I would reassure the member that the advice that we’ve received—there have been prior consultations, we’ve received many submissions on these issues through previous processes, and gender analysis is carried out as part of that inclusion. I think the points that you’re raising around the importance of this issue is the reason why we’re addressing this legislation. We appreciate that. We are very concerned about what young people are putting into their bodies. We don’t want them vaping. That has been a cornerstone of this legislation—we’re absolutely committed to that—and all of these points that you’re raising are leading to exactly the reason this legislation exists: we are doing what we can in this process to get vaping away from our young people and our children.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next contribution, I would ask that it is not a general contribution, that it is very specific to the clauses. I feel that we are getting to the end of this debate, but I will take this call.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. This one is picking up on the workability of things like the infringements in relation to specialist vape retailers providing products being able to rely on the legislated or the proposed exemptions to when they might be able to be in breach, and, again, in relation to the fines—$400,000 for a large retailer, or $50,000 for a small one. It has been raised, very briefly, but there is so much about this bill that is dependent on enforcement, and we have heard the Minister say that there will be another bill coming that will provide that element to it. I’d like to know, from the Minister, specifically how that will work.

How many staff will there be enforcing these provisions, and what will be their powers of enforcement? As I understand it, there’s been one change made to the enforcement powers under this bill, which is to require people to give their birthday, pursuant to regulations that flow from the bill, but is she satisfied that there is provision, and, if so, what is her plan? It’s really hard for us to be blind in this process when we don’t know what the next tranche of legislation is. As this bill currently stands, without provisions relating specifically to enforcement requirements—so that we know that there will be compliance—this is a bit of a toothless tiger; it’s a bit of a wet bus ticket.

We need reassurance from the Minister about what her vision is for enforcement. It has been raised, and so I realise that it is not a specific enforcement provision, but that is because there isn’t one in this bill, and that’s what’s missing from this bill. So if the Minister could please respond to that, that would be very helpful.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations 2021

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 25 to 29, “Amendments to Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations 2021”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. My first question to the Minister is around clause 27, specifically around the amendments to regulation 57 of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Regulations 2021. For subclauses (4) and (5), what we’re seeing is amendments or adjustments to replace certain wordings within that particular regulation around “If the Internet site contains information about tobacco products, at the top”, as well as “If the Internet site contains information about tobacco products, at the bottom”. Now, the question I have for the Minister is around the use of advertisement, which this part pertains to, and the use of the static advertisement I was seeing when it comes to tobacco products, and vaping products in general.

From what we’re hearing from the Minister—and, again, thank you, Minister, for responding to my questions before around display and visibility. I think that was really, really helpful. The Minister has mentioned in numerous instances that one of the purposes of this bill is to drive down the number of young people smoking or vaping, and that is one of the big issues that we see in all of the regulatory impact statements. However, what we’re not seeing here—particularly, when it comes to some of these minor adjustments with clause 27—is the broader picture of the fact that young people are not being drawn to static advertisement like the amendments and adjustments that we see in this clause. Instead, what we’re seeing—particularly, for those under the age of 18—is that young people are drawn to more variable and more dynamic advertising opportunities through social media and through media influencers.

I guess my question more broadly to the Minister is this. If the intention was to really address the number of young people in Aotearoa New Zealand smoking tobacco products as well as vaping, in this particular clause, why wasn’t there a bigger amendment around a certain ban or certain restrictions and framing or limitations around the advertisement of tobacco products and vaping devices beyond the internet and beyond the top and bottom banner, and having it more inclusive around social media platforms, particularly TikTok and Instagram?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member for your inquiries about this. I think the broader conversation you’re having is well beyond the scope of this bill. You’re talking about advertising generally, which is well beyond this. When we talked about tobacco and vaping products, it was really around getting consistency across websites, specialist vaping stores, and generalist vaping stores around the language that was being used. That was the difference. I think the broader discussion around advertising is well beyond the scope of this bill.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a short contribution to make to Part 2—a very specific question surrounding the change that was made by the select committee in Part 2, which is the regulation section in clause 19B, which is “A child safety mechanism must not be able to be overridden or deactivated by a user.” I thought that was quite an interesting provision. In relation to preventing the use of these products by children, it is obviously something that we all want to make sure doesn’t happen. I have read the select committee report and noted their specific request to change that provision to make it clear that that can’t be overridden. I understand their reasoning was that some children were, say, picking up a vape product and they were sucking on a vape or inhaling some of the vapours and that was obviously something which no one in this committee would think would be desirable.

The question I have is in relation to the workability of this provision in the regulations. When we talk about a user, is it correct to state that that is an adult user, and the purpose of this is actually to make the type of child safety mechanisms permanently in place on vape devices in a way that means that children cannot use them? I’m just struggling a wee bit, and I wondered if the Minister might be able to get some technical advice on exactly how something like this would work. Essentially, an effective child safety mechanism on a vape would be to make them permanently closed or unable to be accessible at all by children, which I think is great, but obviously a vape user is probably not going to want to purchase a product which is unable to be used at all. What are we actually talking about in relation to these mechanisms?

I mean, the child safety mechanisms that I’m familiar with, and most people in the Chamber would be, are around medicine bottles and things. Obviously, adults can open them; children can’t. Is it that type of situation? What are we putting in place that will keep children safe that still means that adults can purchase a product? I did look through the select committee report to see if there was further information on that—I couldn’t see it—so if the Minister has any more information, I’d be interested to know.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you for that question. I have received some clarification on it. The child safety mechanism, as you know, already existed. What this process was addressing was the ability to override it, and that included providing instructions on how to override it and all of those other steps. It was to make sure it was clear that it had to have the mechanism, but also that it couldn’t be overridden either by advice or by a process. That was it, really.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’m hoping the Minister will indulge us by wearing one of her other hats, as customs Minister, because I note that one of the easier ways to get around all of this complexity would be to just make sure that we don’t import these devices, that they are ready to go and fit for purpose. I’m curious to know why, from a policy perspective, that was not considered the best way to deal with this. Instead, we have a sort of complex set of rules that involves overriding of devices or not.

My second question is relating to the one raised by my colleague Camilla Belich; how does the Minister envision that that will be enforced in terms of overriding child devices? I’m just trying to imagine a scenario; is that through enforcement officers checking products? I can’t really imagine how it would be done, and so I’m really keen to hear from the Minister how she thinks it will be able to be achieved.

My third question is just around the regulations where “tobacco product” in the regulations has been replaced by “regulated products”. My understanding is that some vaping products have no nicotine, and I’m wondering if she can clarify whether a non-nicotine vaping product is a regulated product for the purposes of this bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to pick up on what the Minister said before, and I would sort of, in some way, respectfully disagree with the Minister, because, in many ways, the scope of the bill is as the Minister shapes the bill, and we have seen numerous instances in this very Chamber during the committee stage where Ministers have taken certain amendments that are completely outside the scope of the original intention of the bill to make those kinds of changes.

Going back to the problems with the definition of the regulatory impact statement—and the Minister is being very persistent around the Smokefree 2025 goal—how we are advertising to young people and how we know which avenues young people are drawn to by advertisements very much would be in the scope of this bill, if the Minister willed it to be in the scope of this bill. I don’t think that just because we’re trying to make things consistent across various legislation by adding specific phrases is sufficient to do these changes—

James Meager: Dragging on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: But—would you like to take a call? That is genuinely important because it comes down to what the purpose of this bill is. If this is something that we are really serious about, we might as well do something genuinely progressive about it by looking at how social media is being used as an advertisement for tobacco products and for vaping products. That’s a legitimate question for the Minister.

To the second part of my question, I would also like to get some clarification from the Minister regarding clause 29(2A), which is the new clause 19B of Schedule 5. Now, when we are looking at child safety mechanisms, one of the things that has been in the media as of late is the issue around heated tobacco products, and the fact that child safety mechanisms have been a hindrance because it was something Philip Morris had to pull off the shelf because the products they had didn’t meet the regulatory requirement of that safety mechanism.

In this particular case—now, noting that this was an additional addition after the select committee process—can I get a clarification from the Minister on whether the existing products and the existing mechanisms, both in terms of rechargeable and refillable vaping devices but also potentially other things that are being captured by this particular clause, are in fact compliant currently? Or has the Minister received advice from companies or from organisations who do import, who do sell vaping devices, that this is something that currently isn’t available or isn’t currently compliant, and a whole new device system will need to be compliant?

Additionally, on top of that, what happens to those people who currently have those existing devices that do not potentially have those child safety mechanisms? Would any refill parts or other mechanisms potentially mean that they’re no longer sort of fit within that—I guess, fit within the non-disposable vaping devices of pods, cartridges? Would the refillable stuff still be able to lock into the mechanism or be locked into that device?

A couple of questions to the Minister: are the existing devices on the market compliant with 19B and would any of the reusable devices that people have which are not compliant—are the refillable options or rechargeable options still available to them, going forward?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’ll work backwards. I think, again, just to go through the process, in terms of what products are currently available and what will happen to them if this legislation comes through and is passed, then they will be non-compliant. There’s been a range of changes over the previous years around what devices can or can’t be sold, and the market has pivoted. What happens to those products as they become non-compliant and they can’t be sold? I think I’d go back again to—you’re talking about the child safety mechanism. That system already existed. What we were talking about is adding on a differentiation that it can’t be overridden.

I think the previous speaker talked about the child lock devices and how they would be checked. That is the longer narrative around verifying the product being sold, and that’s the compliance regime that we talked about. I think it’s important to separate out the legislation versus the policy and operationalising of that legislation, and what happens from that point around the enforcement team and how they will apply that. The question was earlier asked about the importation process and cutting it off at the pass. That was looked at in terms of whether that is included around—because of the volume and the nature of devices, we are focusing at this point on the point of sale of products. That was where we’re sitting there.

You mentioned previously about non-regulated products; regulated products that were non-nicotine. They would fall within this regulated products regime.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made which have really piqued my interest. When the Minister said that we need to separate out the legislation from the enforcement, I think the point from the Opposition is that there is nothing in this legislation that actually points to enforcement, apart from one change to enforcement officers being able to request the date of birth of somebody that they are interacting with in order to see whether the law has been broken; yet both regulatory impact statements say very clearly that the value of this bill and the workability of it depend very heavily on enforcement.

We’ve also heard the Minister say that there will be new legislation coming in that will deal with enforcement, and yet she has not answered questions about how many enforcement officers, what powers they will have, what resourcing they will have, whether there will be a weighting towards areas that have a higher prevalence of vape stores, and all of those questions which this bill is entirely contingent upon, if it is to have any impact at all on the youth vaping rates. So I’m curious as to the statement about separating enforcement out. We don’t see enforcement in the bill. I would ask the Minister once again, please, to answer the question that has been asked by both the Green Party and ourselves, as Labour, about enforcement, because it is otherwise a conceptual bill that simply will not make any difference.

We’ve seen that with the evidence that’s come through the submission process but also, actually, from Vape-Free Kids and others from the university and the Public Health Coalition—who presented independently to the Health Committee—to show that, probably due to resourcing, there has been very little effort by the ministry around enforcement. That is kind of the $64 million question here, and it is the one area that we’re not getting any answers from. I’d really encourage the Minister to continue, please, in the really helpful vein that she has been this evening and shed some light on enforcement. If it is going to be in the next bill, please, let us know the vision of how that will occur so that we can have some confidence that this bill will indeed achieve its legislative purpose, given that we are voting in favour of it.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to the debate on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on title and commencement and principal Act.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to ask the Minister questions about the name of this bill, which is the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). As we have submitted continuously throughout this evening, this feels like it’s kind of a fraction of a wider piece of work, and, therefore, we would like to suggest that perhaps the name be amended to the “Smokefree Environments (Part of) and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No. 2)”.

I’d just like to draw your attention to the things that the bill does not do, which many submitters were really frustrated with, because these are things where there has been evidence from submitters, and also New Zealand - based evidence rather than all this UK, Australia—I think there was even Hungary or something in the regulatory impact statement at one point. This is New Zealand - based evidence that speaks to the correlation between young people vaping and what is enabling them to vape, and it is not all just about visibility and about advertising and marketing.

What we heard from submitters was there may be a need, if we’re really serious about cracking down, to license retailers, to actually have a licensing regime so that we can get the information and evidence which seems to be so scant. I have referred to that in a previous contribution around the community-based assessment centres, where there hasn’t been a fulsome cost-benefit analysis because the information simply hasn’t been gathered. By licensing retailers and having a licence regime, we would be able to get valuable information to be able to inform policy and to make this a better piece of legislation.

There’s also been no regard that we can see given to the idea of a sinking lid on retailers. That is just allowing them to exist until they close and then not letting any others in those areas, particularly where we know that some of them have seven times the number of vape stores than others—for example, in low socio-economic areas. So this is another reason why we would want the title to reflect that this is incomplete and that there is more work to do.

We’ve also heard submissions about the density limits for specialist vape retailers, that there’d be a more scientific approach given to that. We’ve heard nothing from the Minister, nothing in this bill, and yet many submissions in the select committee process about further restrictions on flavours.

James Meager: How many on the title?

INGRID LEARY: Well, we could maybe call it the “Smokefree Environments (Not Changing any of the Flavours) and Regulated Products Amendment Bill”, if that was going to be helpful to members opposite. It’s great to see them engaging with this.

A really key part of this that we received submissions on was allowing different nicotine levels and reducing the allowances of that. Now, that seems to be a fundamental—

Sam Uffindell: Point of order.

INGRID LEARY: —way of reducing—sir, if I may, I’m speaking to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Point of order, Sam Uffindell, but if you’re going to a point of order about relevance, you can sit down. That’s a job for the Chair.

Sam Uffindell: Noted, Mr Chair. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just anticipating, to save you a job.

INGRID LEARY: There were lots of submissions that showed evidence around tapering out nicotine levels and the impact that has on the addiction to vaping and the appeal to young people, and yet this bill remains silent on that. I’d like to ask the Minister, as one of my questions, whether the next tranche of legislation is going to address that and, therefore, whether we should amend the title to reflect that we’re only at the sort of halfway mark at the moment.

We also heard submissions about plain packaging, and one of the things that hasn’t been addressed tonight, actually, around visibility—and I know my colleague in the Greens Hūhana Lyndon was very interested in this in the Health Committee—is the fact that there’s a big focus on visibility and yet vape stores can have giant neon signs outside their store. That doesn’t seem to be captured by this legislation, so perhaps the Minister can explain whether that is going to be in the next legislation.

There are other things as well that I know our colleagues will want to speak to, including public health measures—proactively educating young people about vaping. How do we change the culture of vaping? None of these have been addressed by this bill and so I would like to ask the Minister if she would be willing to change the title. I think that would be very helpful in terms of allowing the public to understand that this is not the full measure of her commitment to reducing youth vaping but that there is indeed much more work to do. Perhaps we could also have “enforcement” in there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will just say that we are on title and commencement. In that first speech, there was a lot of context in there; we occasionally went back to the title and commencement. Further speakers now will be expected to be much more direct around title and commencement.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I actually don’t want to speak about the title. I would like to focus on the commencement, and specifically clause 2(2).

The reason I want to focus on this is because, somewhat unusually—although not totally out of expectation—there are different commencement parts to this bill in the second clause. The first one is a relatively regular one: “day after Royal assent.”, and the second one actually goes through it—and I’ve just gone through the bill and tried to highlight all of the sections that come into force six months after Royal assent. It is quite a substantive part of the bill, and I don’t want to go through all of those clauses—one could, but I don’t.

What I did want to ask the Minister is, well, two things, really. The first thing is: I assume that the reason that there’s a six-month delay in coming into force is to basically allow retailers and people to come to terms with the change of the regulatory and legal framework and be able to be compliant with it. That’s what I assume, but if that’s wrong, keen to hear the Minister.

The main question that I wanted to ask is about the infringement offences, which I understand do come into force after that period of time as well. I just wanted to check with the Minister if that was also just so everyone had six months to change the way that they did things and they weren’t subject to infringement offences, or whether that was for some other reason.

I did want to understand if it was the intention to, essentially, give a period of time where, even if people were not acting in accordance with other sections of this bill, they wouldn’t be found to be infringing it under clause 2(2). That just stood out for me as a particularly interesting one—which obviously it’s not to do with allowing compliance; it’s due to punishing under this particular clause—and I just wondered if she had any further advice about why that was specifically included. I note that it was not one that the Health Committee specifically included—or they did move them around quite a bit.

We’re in a difficult situation, really, where we have some of this coming into force one day after Royal assent, and then, from what I can see, the vast majority of active clauses coming in after that date. I just wanted to get some clarity on that from her—if I’m correct that the main thing is to give notice and then people are going to be covered by this, both retailers and law enforcement in terms of enforcing infringements under this bill—and why, in fact, some of it is therefore appropriate to be introduced at an earlier stage. It just seemed to me quite an unusual way to divvy up a bill, and I just wondered if she wanted to elucidate the reasons for that.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question, and, yes, you’ve largely touched on the reasons. Because we were talking about displays, there are some components around that that would require some preparation around that process and therefore the changing of stock and those sorts of things, which is consistent with when we’ve made previous changes in this legislative process. Yes, it was cognisant of the fact that there would likely be some significant changes around displays, as we’ve seen with the stores as the way they’re currently set up. There was recognition of a need for preparation—so important that the legislation was put through, but allowing a lead-in time for those things where there may be penalties applied.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to ask a few questions of the Minister in the chair regarding the title of the bill.

Now, one of the things that we’ve heard through the committee of the whole House stage, when it comes to the Minister’s response to a lot of our questions, is around the fact that many of these are considered out of scope of this particular bill. But, as we have seen in terms of the problem statement definition in this—and some of the Minister’s own responses and own targets that she says, both within the committee stage and also more broadly around this bill— we want to address the issue of smoking and vaping in Aotearoa New Zealand and we want to hit those targets. One of the things that we are consistently coming up against in this committee stage, and also in getting some advice from the Minister, is that there are a lot of things that are considered out of scope, and it is within the Minister’s remit to make them within the scope in order to hit some of those targets.

From a title perspective, I feel like we are actually falling short of the overall consideration, the overall thing we’re trying to address here. The Minister could consider having the Act being called the “Partial Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Act (No 2)”, because it is in fact that we are only partially there. We’re not really dealing with the fundamental issues and some of the fundamental levers that allow us to be in that smoke-free environment.

Also, one of the other things that we have been hearing consistently throughout the committee stage is the fact that this bill looks great on paper but there is still a lot of uncertainty, and all of the regulatory impact statement submissions express the uncertainty around the enforceability of this and particularly some of the limitations and restrictions that we’re going to be putting around disposable vaping devices. In that sense, we’re looking at this Act being called “Regulated Products”, but, in fact, possibly what might be better for this particular Act is “Smokefree Environments and Regulated (But Not Enforced) Products Amendment Act (No 2)”. I think that is much more adept in terms of some of the responses that we are getting from the Minister regarding this particular bill.

One of the other things that we are hearing as well from the Minister on this suite of different bills is the fact that this is one of many—in fact, this is “(No 2)”—but we have no certainty to know how many there are going to be in this number. It would be really, really helpful, and I genuinely would like to hear if the Minister would consider—you know, she probably has a plan for this—having the total number being indicated as part of the title name. For example, we have “(No 2)” here for 2024, but maybe it’s good to give a signal to the House and to the legislature that this is “(No 2 out of 3)”, “(No 2 out of 4)”, or “(No 2 out of 5)”. How many more of these sort of bills are we going to be seeing dragging things out?

James Meager: Why would you put that in a title?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Please, if the members would like to contribute and take a call, you too can contribute on the title of this bill.

Now, finally, if the Minister would consider as another alternative title—because often we do see the bills going through the House having titles or brackets that pertain to at least somewhat of the content of the bill. But what we’re seeing here in terms of “(No 1)” and “(No 2)” is that “(No 1)” and “(No 2)” are, really, fairly non-descriptive in terms of the content of the bill. I ask whether the Minister would consider including “Smokefree Environments and Regulated Product Amendment Bill (Disposable Vaping Ban) (No 2)”—like, even then, it would give some indication as to what the content of this bill is. We have seen that across the board with a number of other bills as well.

Those are some of my suggestions. Some of them are probably more serious than others, and I would like to hear from the Minister, particularly with my recommendation for “(No 3)” and “(No 4)”.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member for his passionate contribution. My response is no.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to purpose provision and Parts 1 and 1A of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The committee is now considering the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 13, “Amendments to purpose provision and Parts 1 and 1A of principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can see that the Minister for Resources wants to take a call, so I will keep this brief. As you say, we’re going through this Part 1, and Part 1 of this bill actually is reasonably broad-ranging because what is happening with the amendments in this bill, in Part 1, is, of course, the purpose statement of the bill being changed. We know how important a purpose statement is to a piece of legislation. It is more than a single clause that is being amended. In fact, it sets the context for how statutory interpretation of a particular piece of legislation may proceed.

The change that is happening to this purpose statement in this bill is one that wasn’t long ago amended. It was amended under the previous Government to remove the onus on the Crown to “promote” minerals exploration to the more benign “manage” of the minerals estate. This amendment takes us back to where we were prior to that amendment, and there are strong and large implications of that, of which that we do have questions for the Minister around. Of course, one of the reasons and the very raison d’être that’s been given for this bill is that the Minister has said we need to signal that we are open for business when it comes to minerals exploration.

I have some very specific questions for the Minister around that, because the Minister received advice. It was in the regulatory impact statement that, indeed, investment in minerals exploration in New Zealand had been declining since 2014—nothing to do with the legislation that occurred in 2018 and 2019, when our Government and Labour led the charge to end oil and gas exploration. There had already been a decline in terms of the exploration activity happening in New Zealand, before that change, and the regulatory impact statement very clearly puts that within the international context of what has been happening around the world. It points to the fact that we are seeing money shift away from minerals exploration and that that is a trend. We saw the peak of this happen in the early 2000s. I would like to know from the Minister what advice he has received that wasn’t in the regulatory impact statement that indicates that we are going to see an increase in exploration activity, when the historical data would actually point to the fact that there has been a decline. So that’s exploration.

The Minister has also talked extensively about the fact that we need to keep investing in those wells that we have. One of the things we on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee asked for advice on—and it is in the commentary around the bill—was the level of investment that was occurring in those permits that were running their course, which were put in place after we ended oil and gas exploration. We can see the long-run investment that was going into existing permits: from 2013, $1.5 billion; 2014, $2 billion; 2015, $1.3 billion; 2019, $1.15 billion; 2020, $1.02 billion; 2021, $1.1 billion; right through to 2022, $1.3 billion. We actually saw an increase of investment going into existing wells, which seems to run counter to the rhetoric that the Minister is using. I’d like to know from the Minister: what advice he has received that there hasn’t been investment going in to those existing permits that are there, and the need to change the purpose statement in clause 1 of the bill in order to counter that. Certainly, his officials were giving us advice in the select committee that investment has been going in.

The stark reality, which I’d like to hear from the Minister, is that despite over a billion dollars a year being invested in our existing permits in wells in New Zealand, there has not been a significant find of oil and gas offshore in New Zealand since the early 2000s. This is not for want of trying. This is not because we introduced a ban on new exploration permits. This is because it is simply not there in a commercially viable way. I’d like to know what advice the Minister has that, somehow, he is going to turn around the course of what has been happening for a very long time and is the long run of what we have seen in New Zealand. I have not seen a shred of evidence that his officials could provide to the select committee. I eagerly await hearing from the Minister and understanding what new evidence he has, because I’m sure this Minister would only make decisions made on evidence.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Shane—

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Jones, otherwise known as “the Matua of Mining”. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for enabling me to make a few introductory remarks, and I respect the fact that that senior member of the Labour Opposition, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, has laid down some important questions. But questions must be based on facts, and I draw her attention to Part 1, clause 4. A key portion and a key motivation for this legislation is to get rid of the dewy-eyed expression, backward-orientated—i.e., to replace the word “manage” with “promote”. We belong—which is the underlying impulse beneath this bill—to a Government who is possessed of confidence and optimism that gas and oil has a long-term role to play in the functioning of our economy, till 2050 and beyond. I only hope that I might outlive Moses to enjoy that sight in 2050, but that lies in the world of Providence.

One of the questions that the member asks is why are we settling upon the word “promote” rather than “manage”. If we do not promote—and I am being quite open and unfettered here in the philosophical direction that we’re travelling—our economy, if we do not promote our indigenous resources, if we do not convey to investors both domestic and overseas that we’re open for business and their rights will be protected and will not be summarily stripped in the way that that 2018 decision had the unintended effect of stripping people’s confidence and certainty—thus, they abandoned their rights. That is why the word “promote” is there. I don’t need to trail through the words and the detritus of various bureaucratic statements—this is what we were elected to achieve.

Now, if I can go on and respond to a few other remarks: yes, the member is correct, there are some challenges in terms of accessing the geologically existent gas resources. But the whole purpose of this set of amendments is to give the confidence to people that, if they make the commitment, if they spend the hundreds of millions of dollars, their rights will not be stripped in some sort of Venezuelan experience, which, sadly, has begun to infect the sovereign reputation that our nation currently is viewed as possessing. Oil and gas was, at that particular point in time, closed down, so it’s just not correct to say that it’s a geological reality, the chilling effect of an earlier decision. Reversing that foolish, naive, juvenile decision is what this bill seeks to do.

There are a host of other improvements, sir, and, with your acquiescence, I’d like to quickly outline them so that members on the other side of the Chamber can follow the narrative and identify where there may be opportunities for them to contribute. I’ve already spoken about investor confidence—that’s not to be trivialised. I will also, during the course of this debate, talk about the decommissioning regime. Why on earth should the taxpayer, exclusively, be left with the obligation of a liability to write out the Gregory to meet the costs of decommissioning—i.e., clean up after firms have profited from the utilisation of this indigenous resource?

At the same time, we do not want to impose such onerous obligations and duties that are so burdensome it scares away investors, and that’s why this is like a Swiss watch: finely balanced, not unlike the character of “the Matua of Mining”. That is what actually is going to be, I think, taking a bit of time this evening, the decommissioning. And there’s a loophole. Sadly, a loophole was left by the old regime that would have allowed flash Harrys and other untrustworthy characters from time to time to poke their nose into the affairs of New Zealand, and that is what we’ll be fixing up later this evening.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister for Resources for addressing some of those questions, but, more specifically, on the change from “manage” to “promote”, which is at the crux of Part 1 of the bill. I’d like to flag that the other piece that we will come to under this part of the bill is, of course, the provisions around the Government policy statement, but I’ll address that in a further call.

The Minister went through why they were changing from “manage” to “promote”, but that’s not actually what I asked. I asked the Minister what advice he had and, to quote him, why he is “possessed with confidence and optimism” that we can have oil and gas through to 2050—and why they are changing that provision in Part 1 of the bill around “promote”, given the historical data that shows us that, since 2014, we have had a decrease in exploration in New Zealand? They are the facts.

The Minister said that he wanted to deal in the facts. Well, the facts are in black and white, from his own officials in the regulatory impact statement: “Exploration activity in New Zealand has been declining since 2014, before the 2018 ban on new petroleum exploration outside onshore Taranaki. This is consistent with global trends in upstream oil and gas investment, which peaked in 2014 when the oil price crashed, and has not recovered to the same levels as oil and gas firms and traditional lenders navigate the energy transition”. The Minister tells the committee he is “possessed with confidence and optimism”. I want to know why that is, given what advice that he has received and given the advice that we are seeing from his officials runs absolutely counter to that.

The Minister also tells us—and, again, there’s a nuance on what was asked of the Minister and what he did not address with the contribution he made to the committee. I asked him why we need to do this. He talked about there being all this risk and investors fleeing. The evidence, the facts—it is laid out in the commentary to the bill—show that, actually, investment in existing fields increased after the ban. The facts do not stack up with what the Minister is saying. There was no investment flight. In fact, investors put more and more money into the existing permits that were left untouched after the 2018 changes, yet there were not the significant fines.

What evidence is the Minister working off? From what we are hearing, it sounds like a whole lot of rhetoric, and the evidence that his own officials have provided alongside this bill to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and through the regulatory impact statement runs counter to what the Minister is claiming. This committee deserves to hear what other evidence is sitting out there that we haven’t been privy to or that we haven’t seen that shows the need for these changes in Part 1? It certainly doesn’t stack up, and this committee deserves to hear.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before the Minister does rise to speak, I remind him that he’s been blessed with a very loud voice and he doesn’t need the microphone to make it loud. The convention in the chair is that you don’t use the microphone to increase the depth and volume of your comments. But, now, feel free to answer.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Sir, I shall take that admonition on board. It’s just that, in my life, I’ve found that volume is proportionately related to intellect.

I will now respond to the questions, and this is how this debate should work: the questions that the honourable member the Hon Dr Megan Woods has put before me—this is a very senior member of the current House of Representatives, and she is complaining that underlying the words in this statute is an absence of quality information. The information that I have amassed as a Minister often comes from the industry, and they were frightened to share that information with the former Minister. They were scared. They had been scared. They had been demonised.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Ha, ha!

Hon SHANE JONES: Now, my volume will rise if there’s too many interactions of an unprofessional nature. They were intimidated by the last Government, and they were so open after the election to sharing with me. For example, they were five days away from signing major contracts for that massive gas resource off the coast of Te Wai Pounamu, Oamaru, Timaru—five days away—and then that indiscriminate, random cancellation decision was made by that Prime Minister, aided and supported by the Minister—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Nonsense. The time line doesn’t even stack up!

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, I’ve been invited to provide insights as to where I might have got them from, and in this committee, I’m endeavouring to do that. Because the industry had been chilled, the industry had not been given an opportunity to openly engage, and they knew—they knew—that if they shared information, it would be used against them.

I’m so thankful that many of the representatives from the current industry are so open and forthright with their information. For those reasons, I’m possessed of a great deal of confidence and optimism for our country. We, of course, didn’t know—certainly, we the politicians of that time—that the consequence of cancelling the oil and gas industry in 2018 would be a growth in Indonesian coal, but the industry knew that. The oil and gas industry knew that, but they were afraid to share that with that Minister, because they knew they would be demonised. A number of them have been driven out of New Zealand. That’s why they are now flocking back—they are now flocking back.

They’re 10 deep in terms of people wanting to meet with me and share their enthusiasm in relation to trusting the word “promote”. All the word means is that, now, the Crown, the State, will promote that this indigenous resource is available to be exploited, available to be processed, and made available so that we have energy security. We are handicapped because we no longer have energy security as a consequence of Taranaki being shorn, Taranaki being denied, and Taranaki being undermined of economic resilience, due to a climate-alarmist decision that was made and, sadly, has now proved to be having a very devastating effect in that part. But, on Friday, I’m going there, and I’m going to share with Taranaki that there is a future for oil and gas.

The word “promote” does mean that our regions have a future, including ironsands, and I look forward to meeting the various stakeholders in that regard, because that’s what “promote” means. When we denote through legislation that we’re going to be active and outward looking, we’re entitled to have a different philosophical approach. I mean, one party over there believes in wind. Now, I’m not speaking against the god of wind—occasionally, I’m regarded as the god of wind—but all I’m saying is that gas and coal have a vital place to play, and we need to exploit it, and through these amendments, we will be exploiting it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I thank the Minister for Resources for that contribution, and I invite the Minister to share and table with this committee that evidence that has been provided to him. It comes as news to me that big oil and gas were so intimidated by me that they were afraid to show me this evidence. I certainly had many robust debates with them, and certainly officials had information shared with them.

I find it interesting that the Minister is telling us the industry is sharing with him information that clearly has not been shared with his officials, because it certainly isn’t making its way into the regulatory impact statements or any of the advice that has been offered to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. If the Minister is receiving off-book advice from some of these industry players, I think the committee would be very interested to know the provenance of that advice and to see that advice and to see it there.

The Minister opened up a very interesting area for debate in that last contribution that he made when he said that part of the reason for amending the purpose statement in Part 1 of this bill was, of course, around energy security. I have some very easy questions for the Minister. Historically, how long on average has it taken a permit to come from exploration to production? And, given the time that it takes, and it has taken historically, to take a permit from exploration to production, how many could have been in place after an ending of oil and gas exploration in 2018? How many historically new fields would we have seen in place? Does the Minister really want to continue telling New Zealanders that this is the answer to the energy challenges that we face?

He says with great glee that he’s going down to Taranaki to promote ironsand mining at the expense of wind. Wind energy, offshore wind, which the Minister brought up as something that he is going to privilege through Part 1 of this legislation, not only has the potential to provide New Zealand with energy security in the medium to long term but—this cuts to the heart of what Labour believes about this—offshore wind offers opportunities for New Zealanders in employment. It offers well-paid, meaningful jobs in terms of the energy transition, and this is what this Government is prepared to throw away in this name of “short-termism”. That is what we are seeing with the change in this purpose provision of the bill.

The Minister is showing through the contributions he’s making to the committee tonight that he is not serving in the best interests of New Zealand. He speaks with glee about the fact that he is here for, and to promote, the interests of the industry—for the big end of town. Well, we on this side of town, on this side of the Chamber, will speak up every day of the week for the people whose jobs are on the line, the people that need that well-paid meaningful work into the future, and that security. We will stand up for those communities and not for a Minister that is prepared to put the interests of industry first—certainly not New Zealanders first; that is not what we are seeing.

A responsible Government needs to take a long-term view of where opportunities lie in our regions and where opportunities lie for New Zealanders in work. The Minister is showing absolutely no ability to do that. I go back to the question that I started this contribution with: what advice is the Minister specifically referring to that he has received from industry, and will he table it so the committee can share in it?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): This is a short contribution because I’m confident that the Green member will want to have her say, and that’s fair enough. Although content is inversely related to relevance, I shall now respond.

What I have said is that, as a consequence of earlier decisions, investment confidence in New Zealand chilled. The word “promote” is designed to lift up spirits, and as a consequence of the high-quality interaction that I have enjoyed—which is why I have been dubbed “the Emperor of Energy” and a host of other high-quality descriptions. Now, far be it from me to exaggerate those names, but I can’t deny the fact that, when I go to industry fora, they are genuinely impressed that they have a politician that is pro-industry, that is pro-growth, and that is pro-economy. If you have any doubt—because this has turned into quite a wide-ranging debate, sir—go on to, I think it is, YouTube and you can see our former Prime Minister in a Time magazine interview giving her view as to why the gas and oil industry was cancelled by her. The foolish philosophy is reflected in that senior member of the committee, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, but this is a debate about democracy and ideas, and I accept that. All I’m going to say, yet again, is that “promote” is an active term; “promote” is a forward-leaning term.

Now, in addition to that, this particular part—and I’m hoping I can move matters along slightly—deals with the Government policy statement, GPS, shall I say, and this creates an opportunity for the Crown to state very clearly how gas, how this particular resource, can play a key transitional role. The member did raise transition. The fact of the matter is that because the gas and oil industry was cancelled by Labour, what do we have? Indonesian coal. We have Genesis bringing mountains of coal here, and so many industries—the corn industry, we heard on Radio New Zealand this morning, are no longer planting corn because the gas industry was cancelled. That is jobs lost in agriculture, jobs denied regional New Zealanders, so it’s not unreasonable for us to reinstate the importance of this particular resource being made available to investors, either domestic or fresh international investors.

And do you know what they’re going to say? They’re going to say, “But how long is this going to last?” That’s a very, very sad and, quite frankly, depressing prospect, because they fear that this lurching which has defined energy policy in New Zealand will continue. I suspect it’ll only continue for as long as that member is the representative of her party for energy.

Glen Bennett: Oh, come on!

Hon SHANE JONES: No, no—it’s quite true, quite true. So much of what we do in our positions is informed by the heritage we feel we need to protect. It’s all OK to say we made a mistake. I should never have stood with Jacinda Ardern in 2018 with my Kabuki faces and acquiesce with the worst decision ever made on energy policy in New Zealand. Now I’m correcting it, which is why I’m highly applauded throughout industry in New Zealand.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll just make the comment at this stage that while the Minister continues to make each of his replies sound like a general debate speech, it’s very, very difficult to narrow the topic. While he continues to introduce new topics, then of course it’s going to be very difficult for the Chair to rule that the debate has become repetitive.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Hon Members: This’ll be good.

STEVE ABEL: That’s very kind. I appreciate the acknowledgment of the Chair that the debate has been widened somewhat, and we do appreciate that, Minister “Matua of Minerals”. The suggestion that the Minister for Resources made, that it was juvenile to respond to the existential threat of climate change by keeping minerals in the ground—oil, gas, and coal—is an interesting suggestion, and I would like to ask the Minister, once I outline the nature of why his use of that term “juvenile” needs to be explained somewhat: is it juvenile to take into account the advice of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which says that we need to leave all oil, gas, and coal unexplored and unextracted from 2021—three years ago?

One of the members opposite suggested we should have nuclear energy in New Zealand. I do not think that’s a popular suggestion—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: That’s what the IEA says.

STEVE ABEL: Are you suggesting that there should be nuclear energy in New Zealand? I do not believe that nuclear is a good idea.

Now, given that the International Energy Agency suggests that we need to leave oil, gas, and coal in the ground, and it may suggest that in some regions nuclear is appropriate—there’s a whole lot of other problems with nuclear, and I’m sure most New Zealanders do not want to see nuclear here. Perhaps the Minister has a view on that, given that perhaps his colleagues think that nuclear is a good idea. Also, in the transition to a decarbonised society, there is an expectation that the remaining gas that we have will be used wisely, i.e., not expended on things that are inefficient; perhaps not exported as methanol, which is not the most wise use of gas if it’s such a vital energy resource for us, given a Canadian company is doing most of that exporting—and, in that regard, making the decision at a political level, in 2018, to say we will lock away the remaining oil, gas, and coal in the ground, and thereby begin that crucial journey of transition.

What advice has the Minister received that he regards as so juvenile on the climate and energy transition impact of reopening oil and gas, and coal, as he advocates for, in such a way as the Minister talks about locking us into a commitment and a dependency on that gas to 2050? What is the impact of New Zealand’s obligations and commitments to achieving global climate targets to deal with that existential challenge of climate change, which the Minister describes as “climate alarmism”? Is the Minister not only saying the International Energy Agency is wrong, but also saying the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incorrect when it says the greatest threat facing humanity—all of us—is existential climate change? And how has the Minister justified, in the light of whatever advice he has received, the reopening of oil and gas exploration?

Hon Member: Competitive energy prices.

STEVE ABEL: The energy crisis that the member opposite has interjected about—

Hon Member: Competitive energy prices—electricity.

STEVE ABEL: —I will tell you—is, in fact, a crisis of a failure of Governments to actually plan sufficiently for how we do the transition. A refusal to intervene in the market in such a way as it makes the generators build the consented wind farms that they have, as it makes sure that the actual market incentivises the creation of the new renewable energy that we need to electrify our entire energy system, to respond to the member opposite. This strategy of digging up new gas and oil does not take us on that journey to decarbonisation, and so my question to the Minister is: how do you, in the context of whatever climate advice you’ve got—which we’d like to hear what it is—justify this level of denial of climate change, this level of denial of the science of energy transition? Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I will respond to the allegation that the pulpit of truth now is in an international energy organisation. I am entitled to form a view that that is a disagreeable organisation run by corporate ruffians. We will not be embracing everything it says, because its advice does not suit the needs and it’s not well-informed about the trajectory that our wee nation is on of $400 billion GDP—a 5.2 million country who has historically had a hermetically sealed energy system. We’re on the verge of having to contemplate importing liquified natural gas because of the cancellation of the oil and gas industry.

Now, I want to keep it very tight and direct the member to Part 1, new section 12, the Government policy statement. That is where a Government of the day will lay down what is the virtue; what is the policy; indeed, what is the purpose as to why society would choose to continue to use this particular resource. This is a device. This is a platform that enables that narrative, those debates, to take place. Unlike what I inherited, we’re not going to make random, indiscriminate decisions based on the voters of Sandringham in Auckland. We’re going to take account of industry, we’re going to take account of employers, we’re going to take account of firms up and down regional New Zealand; not the tiny group of—I won’t say chardonnay-drinking because that’s so tired and old-fashioned. All I’ll talk about—

Hon Member: Champagne.

Hon SHANE JONES: No, I won’t talk about champagne either. I’ll just talk about the fact that a tiny, narrow group of swivel-eyed, ill-informed people living in that general area of—I’m astounded I’m saying this, because my nephew Stacey Jones actually comes from Sandringham, Point Chevalier—one of the greatest players of rugby league; I’ve no idea whether he depends on gas.

I just want to bring my contribution to a point for the members on the other side of the Chamber: the Government policy statement is where these priorities, these different points of opinion, can be articulated, and the public can have their say. Because I’m very, very open-minded, I look out to gather information in, but I’m not going to be guilt tripped by any organisation that is dominated by people who are anti-growth, anti-development, and have swallowed the virus of climatism—it’s just not happening.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I still don’t feel the Minister for Resources has addressed the question from my colleague the Hon Megan Woods around why on earth would he want to “lurch”—the word that the Minister used: “lurch”—back to the word “promote” from “manage”. We still don’t have a clear answer for that on this side of the Chamber. When he talks about lurching and energy policy lurching backwards and forwards, does he not acknowledge that this piece of legislation is lurching in the other direction? That’s my first question.

My second question—and I’m not sure if this fits with the Standing Orders but I will ask it none the less—is: the Minister spoke about standing on the podium with the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern in 2018. He confessed to the fact that that was the worst decision that he made. How can he justify that when he was actually in Cabinet and made the decision? I know it’s probably not something that he can answer in this debate, but I don’t understand why he stood—

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance? Relevance?

GLEN BENNETT: The relevance is that the Minister stood in support of legislation that he believes “lurched”, and I want to know why he says that.

The next question I have for the Minister is—the word that he used was “dewy-eyed expressions”. Now, I don’t actually understand what he means by that. I may be a bit too young for him. In his first contribution he talked about that. How is that actually relevant to this piece of legislation and this part of the work?

The other question I want to ask the Minister—because he has continued to go on and on and on and on about the cancellation in 2018. Now, I’d like him to table anything relevant to the cancellation, because if I look through the legislation in 2018, 2019, if I look through everything, Labour never cancelled—

Carl Bates: Labour never did anything.

GLEN BENNETT: We said a lot of things, thank you very much. I’m asking the Minister to actually give us some relevant information on that, because it’s not clear to me in terms of what the Minister is saying when it comes to this—the fact of, in clause 4, “Section 1A amended (Purpose)”, amending “manage” to “promote”.

The other question which is related to this is about when he says New Zealand is “open for business”. I am unsure what he actually means by that when we look at some of the industries that actually have been successful in terms of their work.

I also would like to have a response to my colleague the Hon Megan Woods, who has already asked about the period of time it takes from discovery to actually pumping that oil or gas out of the ground—what that time line is, if the Minister could explain it.

My final question is around what we talked about around a line in the sand in 2018—that he stood beside the Prime Minister of the time. Why does the Minister think it is important to go backwards; to “lurch”—the word that he used—back into oil and gas when it still exists and it’s still creating income for the country, creating income for Taranaki, creating income for the taxpayer? Then, when we look at things like solar, like geothermal, like green hydrogen, like wave energy, like tidal and wave energy, like offshore wind, the Minister seems obsessed with oil and gas. He talked about being “the Emperor of Energy”; he talked about people calling him “the Emperor of Energy”. My final question to the Minister this evening, in my contribution, is: who is calling him “the Emperor of Energy”? Is that his funders?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr—

Scott Willis: Willis. Scott Willis.

Francisco Hernandez: Francisco—oh.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Scott Willis. My travelling companion.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Could have been “Francisco Willis”, but that would have been—thank you, Mr Chair. My apologies. I know it is—what’s the time—9.50 p.m. It’s late at night, and I am not going to address the Minister’s climate denialism, as interesting as it is.

I do want to look at clause 4, the amended purpose, as has been addressed, because I was interested to hear that the Minister for Resources believes that we’re hermetically sealed in terms of our energy. We have never been hermetically sealed. We may have had an abundance of renewables, and we did something very well, even under the Muldoon days, when we built so much renewable electricity generation, but then we’ve rested on our laurels, and I’m keen to hear from the Minister where the energy strategy is at. Where is New Zealand’s energy strategy? Do we have a national energy strategy to be delivered before Christmas?

This is a really critical question, because what I hear from the energy sector is a need for consistency and a need for an understanding about what infrastructure builds we’re going to have. I have heard from the Minister that there are problems. We all understand there are problems. The Minister has even referred to the Electricity Authority as a “chocolate teapot”—not working for the benefit of the community—and I think we could have some agreement that there needs to be change in the electricity sector.

There is a bill, for example, called the Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill that the Minister would be free to pick up to enhance and more rapidly build the renewables that we have and to enable better competition in the market to ensure that we fast track the doubling or tripling of renewable electricity supply that is called for but that is not actually enabled through anything this Government is doing, because this Government seems fixated on fossil fuels. It talks about renewables but wants to fast track fossil fuels, so there’s a real inconsistency here.

My question to the Minister is about the energy strategy: are we going to see something delivered that will ensure not fossil fuels fast tracked but the doubling or tripling of renewable electricity generation, which is the other purpose this Government has told us they’re interested in? If we could see something that said, “Instead of fossil fuels, we are going to double or triple renewable electricity generation”, then I can guarantee that the Greens would be in support of something that would do that. At the moment, we don’t see anything down that pathway, so I’m really, really keen to hear about where we’re going and how we can be open for business to assist new wind development. Is there going to be a challenge with our minerals extraction that will put at risk some wind development? Perhaps the Minister might like to respond to that, as well.

Coming back to the ability for us to build the renewables that we need so that we do not need to dig up minerals, so that we do not need to dig up fossil fuels, and so that we do become a hermetically sealed, energy-sovereign nation and can electrify our economy and ensure affordable, cleaner, cheaper, smarter electricity for everyone, will we be able to have an energy strategy before Christmas? Will we be able to reform the market to enable the faster build of renewable electricity generation? Will we be able to see that we are focused on electrifying our economy based on renewables, rather than turning back to some bizarre past where we didn’t care about the climate—because those days are gone?

We do care. We care because we’ve got children and we’ve got grandchildren—some of us—and we want to ensure that there’s a future for them. I’m really interested in hearing how we’re going to support the transformation of our energy sector into something that will deliver for not just this generation, not just the next generation, but seven generations into the future.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Sir, I’m conscious that time is winding down. I just want to repeat again: I don’t want to broaden this debate, because we’ll lose the focus on the genius of this bill. What I would like to share with the committee is that this bill will have a Government policy statement, but this bill is only one contributor to energy security.

Now, when I was invited to hold this role as the associate energy Minister and Minister of—for—Resources—because I’m not “of” resources; I’m “for” resources—I came across a cobweb-riddled report that had been neglected and overlooked by the last regime. In fact, it was almost infested with the katipō spider. Now, after I got rid of that climate-riddled, exaggerated, hyperbolic critter, I found that there was a report that the last regime never followed up for deep, critical, magma, close, geothermal energy. It has fallen to me to identify how deeply relevant that source of energy is. They had tried plaintively in the face of the last regime, sought incessantly to talk to a former Minister of science and energy, but they were rejected because it did not suit the ideology. So, yes, I admit that this bill does turn over ideology and that it replaces it with practical, adaptable strategies.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That’s simply not true.

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, it is true that there are challenges with emissions, there are challenges with policies that are being imposed upon us, such as an ill-conceived deal that Jacinda Ardern agreed to that we’ve had to make the best of with the EU, but we must use our own resources to boost our resilience and maintain our productivity.

All that this innocuous piece of legislation does is restore to New Zealanders what they enjoyed four or five years ago, to recreate a level of certainty and confidence so that we can keep the lights on without importing Indonesian coal. What possibly could be wrong with that? That is why—and I won’t go on too much longer—the word “promote” is an active, doing word. A doing word is not some word like an adjective that you describe everything; it’s an active verb: you go and do something. You get out there and you ensure that people are instilled with confidence, as all the industry is—and they most certainly will be when this bill passes. Thank you very much, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will just say to the Minister that, if he’s going to make wide-ranging statements, I wouldn’t make too many plans for later tomorrow morning, because he is introducing a lot of material that the Chair has no choice but to allow and to broaden the scope of this part of the bill. I will certainly be briefing the incoming Chair tomorrow morning on that matter.

Given that, members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).

TUESDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2024

(continued on Wednesday, 20 November 2024)

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to purpose provision and Parts 1 and 1A of principal Act (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good morning, members. Members, when the committee suspended last night, it was debating Part 1 of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 13, “Amendments to purpose provision and Parts 1 and 1A of principal Act.” The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. As you say, last night when the committee concluded, we were having a very broad-ranging debate in terms of the purpose of the bill. There are still many questions that we have from material that the Minister has introduced into this debate around energy security.

To start off, this morning, I just do want to move on to another couple of pieces of Part 1 of this Act, one of which is the clauses in this bill that pertain to the tier 3 permits that are covered off in Part 1. Now, in terms of the size of the tier 3 permits, one of the things that we heard at select committee—we had many people asking why it was that the size of the area that was eligible for a tier 3 permit was decided on; that this seemed quite large in terms of what would be seen as a hobbyist permit, and some of the submitters were questioning that. I’d like to ask the Minister about the policy context, the advice he received—what was the policy context for settling on the size of the permit area that is before us in this legislation?

The other important piece that we will have many questions on in this part of the bill, in Part 1, is the provisions that are in here in clause 12, and that is around the Minister having the power to issue a Government policy statement. Now, this is a new mechanism that will come into play through this legislation; we haven’t previously had this. Obviously, we have Government policy statements in a range of areas, but I think there are some questions, given that this is a new mechanism that could be brought into play, for the Minister to inform the committee on. First of all, what is the time frame that the Minister is thinking of? Has he begun work on the Government policy statement, and when would he be thinking of introducing this? If the work hasn’t begun, where in his work programme does this work figure?

The other important question we have is that a Government policy statement is a place where a Government rightly sets out its strategic priorities and the work programme and the way in which it’s going to get to its outcomes. I’m assuming that the Government policy statement would be aligned with the purposes of this bill, but we also have another piece of legislation in this jurisdiction, and that is our climate response legislation that sets out very closely our emissions reduction plans. I’d like to hear from the Minister how it is that he intends to ensure that we have synergy between these two strategic documents that any Government will need to work from. How will the Government policy statement interact with the emissions reduction plans that the Government does adopt? We know, of course, that the Government is due to adopt new emissions reduction plans by the end of this year for emissions budget 3. What work has the Minister done to ensure that we are aligning what is happening under this legislation with that other strategic intent of Government?

What we know, from advice from the Minister’s officials, is that this legislation is going to increase our greenhouse gas emissions. There have been several pieces of advice that have been provided to the committee in terms of what the impacts on emissions budgets 1 and emissions budgets 2 will be, but, of course, we have emissions budget 3 coming—and the extent to which the Minister has been working with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that there can be those interactions and those alignments. The advice that we received from officials is that there will be a million megatonnes of carbon dioxide in emissions, as compared to the baseline for the second emissions budget for 2025 to 2030, and another 0.6 to 1.4 megatonnes for the third emissions budget. What mechanisms will be in place in that Government policy statement to ensure there is alignment with different pieces of Government policy?

As I said, there are a range of other questions that are still outstanding in regard to changing the purpose statement. Certainly, the Minister opened up a range of areas which just sparked the inquisitive nature of the Opposition and a range of questions that we’ve had time to percolate overnight that we’ll come back to on that material. Those are two very specific questions around clause 12 and the tier 3 permits, which are covered off in new section 2BA, inserted by clause 7. Thank you, Madam Chair.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Yes, I just want to echo my colleague Megan Woods’ expression of the usefulness of the Minister opening the conversation more broadly. One thing I wanted to specifically pick up on was the frequent justification for this policy being around the so-called energy crisis. A big part of that assertion—the deeper detail of that—isn’t gone into. One of the causes of the energy challenges we have is to do with the infrastructure around gas and its declining state.

Now, the other question that the Minister raised last night was the increase in the importation of Indonesian coal. I wonder if he has available the latest figures on Indonesian coal imports for this year, and whether he could confirm that, in fact, they are significantly lower than they have been historically. If we actually delve into this question of a problem of energy infrastructure and signals being sent in the energy sector as to the trajectory of New Zealand’s energy intentions, it is true, and the Minister rightly points out, that the effect of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration was to send a very strong signal to the industry that there was not a future in that industry. By doing that, it opens the landscape to those other forms of energy that we are interested in: renewable energy being the obvious one. The effect of this legislation, I put it to the Minister to respond, is that it is basically sending a signal to the fossil fuel industry that we would like them to be back in business and we would like them to invest in new infrastructure, and the effect of that will be to lock us into decades more dependency on gas and oil and coal, which the Minister also advocates for.

One of the immediate effects of those signals to the market, if you like, in his capacity as the “Mātua of Mining”, in his own terminology, is that Minister Jones has scared away the offshore wind industry, because he has so forthrightly advocated for deep-sea mining, sea-bed mining, off Taranaki, with huge destructive impact on the seafloor. The wind industry explicitly made it clear—

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance? Relevance?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I deem it’s relevant—if he’s comparing it to windfarms, he’s able to ask that question.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister did really elucidate at length about the energy system being the justification for this legislation. The effect, I put it to you, Minister, of this law is to send a message, in fact, to the renewable energy industry, and certainly in the instance of the offshore wind industry, that there will be new investment in gas and oil—we’re back into the old burning fossil fuels mind-set; we’re not so committed to the actual transition to renewable energy. That was the most powerful impact of the decision made in 2018; the bolder decision made, consistent with our climate commitments, was to say, “We are saying there will be no new exploration for oil and gas and coal.” That’s my first key question.

The other point I want to pick up on is the specific one that my colleague Megan Woods just raised about the tier 3 categorisation permitting quite huge areas of land to be mined for gold more readily—50 hectares. Now, what is mining for gold, albeit with sluicing boxes and 10-horsepower machinery as a maximum? What does mining for gold in a 50-hectare area of riverbed look like, Minister? How disturbing and impactful is that? And if you’re going to visit your local river, what is the effect on the other uses of that river, for recreational purposes, but also, more importantly, for the biodiversity that lives and depends on that river, of some local character being able to turn up there with his 10-horsepower diesel engine and dig up the floor of the river to mine for gold?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is getting a bit broad of the conversation—can we link it back to—

STEVE ABEL: It’s Part 1.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s tier 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry. Thank you; OK. Thank you, I stand corrected.

STEVE ABEL: Sorry, can I just complete, Madam Chair—make another call, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can. Sorry, I stand corrected on that one.

STEVE ABEL: Part 1 has the permission for easier permitting of goldmining.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right, OK. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: There is a quite huge area that miners will be allowed to exploit. It creates a new and quicker permit pathway, but what is the evaluation that has been taken on the impact of that, of this supposedly small-scale goldmine that, in fact, covers potentially vast areas of highly vulnerable or highly sensitive ecological regions, and the obvious thing being riverbeds? That is the place where people are going to want to do their gold sluicing, use their riffle boxes, set up their 10-horsepower engine, and what is the wisdom of allowing that?

Is it the expectation of the public, Minister, that they are going to walk down to their local beach to perhaps go and do some whitebaiting or do some fishing or simply have a swim in the local river, and find that somebody’s been given this very quick-to-get permit that allows them to be shovelling through the river bed looking for flakes of gold with a 10-horsepower engine banging away in the background? Is that really something that the Minister wants to be encouraging, and is that really something that should be so readily permitted without input from other members of the community and other members of the public?

It could well be that it seems like a low-level activity but, in fact, has quite a significant localised impact on people who also have interests in that particular river, and that particular riverbed, not to mention what the ecological evaluations of that are. What was the advice the Minister received on the impacts on our vulnerable fauna and flora that are dependent on those freshwater river ecosystems of this sort of goldmining that the Minister is advocating? Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I think it’s important that we respect the conventions governing contributions—and they need to be tightened up. They need to come back and focus on the black letter meaning of the proposed law.

Now, the former Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, posed a couple of questions. Let me start with the Government policy statement. Obviously, the passage of the legislation, as the member rightly identifies, will give status to this new instrument—and I need do nothing else than direct her attention to the relevant part—and this enables the Minister to initiate a body of work to create such an instrument. That body of work, in many respects, will be at the discretion of the Minister, and this Minister is terribly overworked at the moment on shepherding through this bill despite considerable opposition, inversely related in some cases to the content of the bill. But I direct her attention to new section 12(2A). Now, why it’s written in a slightly different colour means that it’s a fresh addition, and what it says is that the “Minister considers appropriate”. The Minister at this stage has not decided to initiate consultation to create such a body until such time as the law is passed. I don’t need to elaborate, because I covered last night what may or may not be relevant in terms of the broader debate.

In respect of the point about tier 3, I think the tier 3 references tidy up an area where risks are minimal and potential is broad, because we are going through a period of time where this Government believes that there is more that can be contributed—which is why we’re passing this bill—to our economic endeavours from oil and gas and minerals activity. That’s the philosophical basis; that’s the mandate that we have. Now, it’s arguable as to what is an appropriate size; sadly, I probably think it’s too small, but being from time to time of moderate character, I followed advice and I think that it’s a good balance between stripping red tape but enabling entrepreneurialism and those who are willing to risk their own time and resources at a relatively harmless level to boost the prospects of that part of New Zealand. There’s really not much more I can say to that.

The other thing that I’ll just wind up on: this legislation is not called the “Climate Response Act”. That legislation is under the leadership of another Minister. Now, in certain nightmarish moments, I do contemplate being the Minister of Climate Change.

Hon Member: Nightmarish indeed.

Hon SHANE JONES: There you go—there you go; I defer to brighter minds than my good self. For those reasons, I’m saying that we’ll park the elements of that Act and come back to this Act. This Act simply opens the gate, legitimises, tries to reinvigorate by creating certainty in the statute for those who may or may not use their own money, their own time, their own entrepreneurial energy to make a go of our indigenous resources. That’s all the statute does, and all the Minister’s doing is promoting that because this is a legitimate part of our energy security journey.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for his contribution there, and while I appreciate it, I’m sure there are many—and indeed the planet—that appreciate that he’s not the Minister of Climate Change. That was not the question that was put to the Minister.

The Minister was asked how the instrument of a Government policy statement (GPS) in this area would interact with other legislative instruments, such as the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions reduction plans that exist under that legislation. Ministers who have responsibility for particular instruments that they are putting in place through legislation do have to think about how they interact across the broader suite of Government and other policies that the Government has. While no one is suggesting that he is the Minister responsible for the emissions reduction plans, it is important for this committee to understand how it is that the instrument of the Government policy statement in this area will interact with those instruments. Surely, the Government has thought this through, and the committee needs to know what the mechanisms are that will be put in place, when there are considerations of what will be in those very detailed emissions reduction plans.

I do have some further questions pertaining to the GPS. One of the things that we know is that, across Government, there are a range of Government policy statements in a range of areas, some of which contain mandatory requirements for consultation and some have discretionary requirements for consultation. The legislation that we have before us is silent on whether or not it will be a mandatory or a discretionary consultation requirement that will sit with this Government policy statement. I’d like to hear from the Minister where his thinking is. What does the consultation look like? Will it be a mandatory regime or will it be a discretionary regime? Who will be consulted? What will be the opportunities for public input into that? While it may not be something that the Minister is planning on implementing tomorrow, as this committee is considering whether or not we should put in place the power for a Minister to have an instrument such as a Government policy statement in this area, we do need to understand how it is that the public are going to have input into that. We do know that the regulator will be the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), as it stands at the moment. That will be the responsible agency. What are the conversations that he’s had with MBIE around the consultation obligations, and, also specifically, who will those consultations be with?

One of the other questions that I want to come back to the Minister on: the Minister talked at length last night, and he’s come back to it this morning, around the issue that he sees in the changing of the purpose statement. What we’re doing in Part 1 of this bill, that little change as he sees it—we on this side of the Chamber would differ in terms of the purpose of the bill as being instrumental to energy security in New Zealand. He referred to it last night; he’s come back to it this morning. My colleague Steve Abel asked him the question around volumes of Indonesian coal—a claim that he and many of his colleagues actually repeatedly made—but there’s been a range of data that’s been put up to debunk the myth that members of this Government keep touting. It’s a very thin reason—but doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny—for some of these legislative changes.

Given that the Minister sees that this change that he’s putting in is vital to New Zealand’s energy security—we’re all concerned about New Zealand’s energy security—the question I have for the Minister is whether he has received advice from his officials that any new oil or gas, in particular gas, that could be found through these changes would not be available until 2035, and that this would be the expected time frame in which any new resource would be available to be used. How does the Minister see this solving New Zealand’s immediate energy challenges? What is he working with colleagues on? Obviously, he’s not the Minister for Energy—he’s the Minister for Resources—but what is he working with colleagues on in terms of that more short-term piece? Quite clearly, this is not the quick fix that the Government has tried to sell. Make no mistake about it, the Minister was very clear last night that he’s taking his advice from industry. He’s not listening to officials. He’s disagreeing with that and taking advice of what the industry are telling us. I think this committee needs to understand, if we’re not likely to see any of this resource until 2035, what it is that we’re looking to see.

Also, I would like to hear the answer to the question that Steve Abel put around volumes of Indonesian coal. This is a much-touted reason case for why this would be used, but I think what we’ve heard in terms of actual facts that have been put out there, not by the Opposition but by various independent commentators, is that this is just simply a myth. I would actually like to hear from the Minister on that. I know we’ve heard through the case of interjections from many members of the Opposition that they’re exploring other options such as nuclear power. We heard last night from one of the members over on the Opposition benches. I’d like to hear what it is that the Minister is thinking.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify the interjection from the member opposite: no, we do not support nuclear energy, you’ll be happy to know.

Miles Anderson: You were talking about it, though.

STEVE ABEL: Because one of your good people mentioned nuclear energy, and I responded to that and said nuclear energy is not a good idea.

Miles Anderson: Come on, Steve!

STEVE ABEL: I mean, come on, Miles.

Hon Shane Jones: Order!

STEVE ABEL: Indeed, thank you, Minister—order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll call order, thank you, Minister.

STEVE ABEL: I have a couple of amendments to put up relating to Part 1. I just want to return to the broad point about the very negative impact on the energy sector of reinstating the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration. It definitely sends a message—to the world, in fact—that we are not serious about the energy transition. Given that is so touted as the basis for this, I have an amendment to clause 4 to put that we firstly—and this was discussed last night also—get away from this idea that there is anything good about promoting that most harmful substance in terms of climate damage, which is—

Ryan Hamilton: Coal.

STEVE ABEL: —coal, and oil and gas. The members opposite are saying that coal is the worst. That is a very interesting assertion. I wonder if the Minister can tell us, in terms of that assertion, whether in fact, once you account for fugitive emissions from the extraction of fossil gas, it is a higher carbon intensive fuel than coal. And what about how the Minister mentioned important details. Last night, the Minister mentioned liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Minister specifically talked about LNG imports. What advice does the Minister have on the impact of the emissions of LNG, and how does it compare to coal?

Ryan Hamilton: What about indigenous gas?

STEVE ABEL: Indigenous gas—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Fossil gas, you mean, yeah?

STEVE ABEL: I mean fossil gas. That’s a ridiculous term—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Questions will be directed to the Minister, not to each other. Thank you. That’s the purpose of the committee stage. Interjections are fine, but I don’t expect members to be answering questions. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: Madam Chair, I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Take a call.

STEVE ABEL: Can I clarify, Madam Chair: is it correct that I have an ability to respond to an interjection from—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m happy about that, but there’s no obligation on the member to answer.

STEVE ABEL: I appreciate that, thank you. I just think there are some myths being touted about the nature of our energy sector that are important to clarify. Fossil gas is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. It should correctly be called fossil gas, as opposed to the other sort of gas that the members like to give special status to, which is biogenic methane, which is a particle and it has exactly the same effect on climate change as fossil methane. The members opposite like to separate out fossil methane from biogenic methane. Rather than call it natural gas, let’s refer to fossil gas and biogenic methane, if that’s how you want to categorise it.

I’m proposing that we remove this amendment which turns from “manage” to “promote”, as this legislation does, and we keep it as “manage”. It is appropriate, certainly in the case of the climate crisis, for us to be not promoting fossil gas exploration—that’s the first amendment. The second one is to clause 5. Currently, the overarching effect of this legislation, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, is to amend the Act to expand exploration beyond onshore Taranaki, which is the current restriction. This amendment that I’m putting up to clause 5 would in fact retain the Act’s definition of the onshore Taranaki region, thereby not make the expansion into offshore oil and gas exploration. It is a bold amendment. It is one which I call on the Minister to seriously consider, for the greater good of the community and the climate and life on this planet—that we actually need to not be reopening that 4 million square kilometres of exclusive economic zone to the interests of vested overseas fossil oil and gas companies. That is a disastrous move—Madam Chair?

Hon Members: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s actually made a call for another call, and I believe you’ve got another Amendment Paper?

STEVE ABEL (Green): Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. The amendment is to retain the definition of onshore Taranaki rather than get rid of it, so that we keep in place that world-leading ban on offshore exploration.

The final amendment would extend that principle—because we’re talking up to clause 14—to clause 14, clause 15, and clause 16. It would delete clause 14, page 7, lines 35 and 36; clause 15, page 8, lines 1 and 2; and clause 16, page 8, lines 345 and 346. It removes the provisions relating to the repeal of references to the onshore Taranaki region. It would thereby retain this prohibition on oil and gas drilling and prevent future oil and gas exploration outside onshore Taranaki. In fact, we need to also be not issuing new permits for onshore drilling in Taranaki, for onshore exploration and fracking. There is strong opposition to this, which we’ve heard for many years from people in Taranaki, to the ongoing exploitation of their region for gas, and that is something that also should have been prohibited and should be prohibited. But, in terms of this immediate legislation, these amendments would give effect to not getting rid of that ban. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of very specific questions—it won’t be a long call—for the Minister in the chair. This is in relation to the tier 3 permits. Clause 6(2A) says, “In this Act, Tier 3 permit means a permit that—(a) authorises mining for gold in the bed of a river, or on the foreshore; and (b) does not authorise mining for any other mineral;”. One of the issues that we have under the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, of course, is the pounamu extraction in the South Island. What I would like to know from the Minister—we know that alluvial mining is one of the critical areas in terms of pounamu extraction in the South Island rivers—is whether or not pounamu would be covered under these tier 3 permits.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to listen carefully to the debate this evening and this morning and over a few questions for the Minister. I understand that we have traversed it, but I’d just like the Minister to be really clear with the committee and with the public in terms of, right at the start there, when it talks about moving it from “manage” to “promote”.

Now, last night the Minister said that this is to signal that New Zealand is open for business, but then, when we look at the regulatory impact statements, we look at a lot of the paperwork that came through in select committee, I want the Minister on record to confirm with this committee the reason he wants to promote this industry when the evidence shows—and if you want to look at the regulatory impact statement, amendments to the Crown Minerals Act relating to petroleum exploration and mining, which is on the Table in front of the Minister, in terms of page 17, it has a very clear graph which shows in terms of the decline. If I look at it carefully, it has been on the decline for a long time, but we look at that peak of 2014 and it has declined rapidly since then.

So often in this House, the Minister has accused myself and others of being “woke”—which I’m very proud of, by the way; very proud of being woke. If you know the history of the word and where it comes from, it’s actually an honour to be called woke, and I appreciate the Minister calling me that, because it is an honour if you understand that. But the question I have—and the reason I’m asking the Minister about this “promote” thing—is because it feels to me like it is the Minister virtue signalling. It’s appealing to the Minister’s voter base and, I guess, to the coalition agreement, but when you look at the hard evidence, when you look at the information that is in front of the Minister, and you look at the evidence that was in front of the select committee, when you look at all of the evidence—if you want to do the work and do the research—the fact that you want to bring “promote” back in is something that actually isn’t possible, because what are you promoting? That is my question.

At least with “manage”—because manage is also an active word where it’s actually, “How do we as Government ensure we carefully and sustainably and in a way that actually is looking to the future ensure that we are looking after our people and our planet?” I really want to understand why on earth the Minister wants to put “promote” back in there. Why would he do that, when I hope that he clearly knows that there aren’t going to be people rushing back and going around the world to do it. An example is OMV, who, obviously, is one of the big players. It has been on the market for sale, and it’s not because of New Zealand; they have looked at their whole portfolio and are looking at greening what they do and looking at their whole Asia-Pacific portfolio, looking at moving on, not because of Aotearoa but because they are looking to the future.

I really want to understand from the Minister: is it virtue signalling? Is it just because it’s a coalition agreement? Is it just because it’s income for his mates? I don’t know. I don’t understand. If you can look at the hard evidence of what is happening in terms of fossil gases, it seems absurd and outrageous for him to put that word back in. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): We’re getting to a point now where repetition is defining the contributions. I think I’ve given, with the greatest respect, a very lucid response to the former Minister, but, unlike other contributions, she has actually posed quite a coherent question. She’s posed the question as to who owns pounamu, greenstone, and she’s correctly identified that, through the Doug Graham, Jim Bolger Government’s full and final settlement with the Ngāi Tahu tribe, pounamu is vested in the Ngāi Tahu people. In the event that a fossicker and in the event that a long-suffering miner—sadly, undervalued by former Governments but turbocharged by the matua. They have no right to take, sell, or extract that pounamu, and there are already cases where legislation has been called upon and people have been penalised for doing that.

In respect of a reference that was made to coal, levels of utilisation, for fear of protracting more irrelevancy I invite the members to write me a letter and I will respond formally with those details, because I think it will bring in the broader debate a level of clarity sadly missing from the Opposition’s conception of energy security.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll call the Hon Dr Megan Woods. We are homing in on a couple of things now. I have been listening to last night’s debate and this morning’s, and we’ve covered a wide range of issues. I’m looking for new information backed up by clauses.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for that clarification around the pounamu collection. It’s always a hot issue in the South Island, around how our mining legislation interacts with that Ngāi Tahu settlement Act.

I am going to ask a very specific question pertaining to the work programme for tier 3 permits, which are covered off in clause 7, “New section 2BA inserted (Work programmes for Tier 3 permits)”, but I would just like to remind the Minister that there are a couple of questions that are still outstanding that we on this side of the Chamber are very eager to understand. One is the way in which the Government policy statement will interact with other Government instruments, like the emissions reduction plan (ERP). We’ve had the Minister address that and say he’s not responsible for the ERP. We absolutely accept that, but what we want to know is how the instrument that the Minister is putting forward in this legislation will interact with those other Government instruments that they need to work with as a Cabinet.

In terms of the work programmes for the tier 3 permits, it’s very specific. The permit holder can mine for gold—we’ve established that. Section 2BA(1)(b) states, “the permit holder may only use the following equipment: (i) unpowered hand tools: (ii) riffle boxes and associated equipment: (iii) powered equipment not exceeding a combined total of 10 horsepower (or the equivalent of 10 horsepower) at any one time: (iv) other similar equipment that is consistent with small-scale non-commercial gold mining:” Now, while there is a great deal of specificity within these provisions, I think there are some questions. There’s quite a lot that is in there in terms of what that could be.

I’d be interested to know about the 10 horsepower, in terms of the powered equipment not exceeding that. What was the policy rationale for settling on that as the level at which the equipment could be used within these tier 3 permit areas? Is it that there is belief that there’ll be minimal environmental disturbance? Is it the most efficacious tool for that type of mining? What was the policy rationale that led the Minister to make this inclusion, this very specific inclusion, in the legislation? And while we have that very specific information in new section 2BA, it also says “(iv) other similar equipment that is consistent with small-scale non-commercial gold mining:”. I’d like to hear from the Minister, while he is discussing with his officials, what were the kinds of other equipment that were covered off here? I think it’s important for the committee to understand that, because this part of the legislation brings it really tightly in and defines very closely the power that this equipment can have.

We then have “any other similar equipment”. What does the Government have in mind when they’re inserting this provision, and why is it needed given the provision above it that does give very tight restrictions around the power that can be used? Then there is subsection (2)(b)(iv), “equipment permitted by regulations:” What regulations is this referring to? Can the Minister give a list of what the other regulations are that are contributing to this? Then there is, in subsection (2)(c), “a work programme that is otherwise in accordance with requirements specified in regulations.” I assume that will pertain to subsection (1)(b)(v), but I’m really looking to get into the detail of what is contained in clause 7, which inserts that new section. Thank you.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to be very specific about these points in the bill because I’m hearing what you’re saying and we have a number of amendments that are specifically proposed for changes in the bill.

The one that I’m talking about is a new section 12C. This is on page 7 of the bill, to do with Government policy statements (GPS). Now, this is a really interesting change to the Crown Minerals Act that I’d really like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on, because, prior to the change in 2023, the purpose of the Act was to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s actually addressed the GPS, so I perhaps think the member could ask some really specific questions around the changes in the Amendment Paper that the member would wish to see. Thank you.

LAN PHAM: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Chair. What this Amendment Paper seeks to do is, basically, amend the provisions relating to the Government policy statement and introduce a new requirement to publicly consult on any new GPS that may be put in place.

Now, why this is really important and why I’d love the Minister’s comments on this, about the public notification aspect, is that we heard really clearly at the Environment Committee just the other day from the Climate Commission how off track, for our second and third emissions budgets, we are heading. I would love to hear the Minister’s thoughts as to whether—because this has such serious implications for our climate emissions and the public’s concern about whether we will be on track to meet those emissions—there is a case for the Minister to consider public notification of this Government policy statement, if he is to actually put one in place. If so, what would be the time lines that the Minister is actually considering to put such a policy statement in place? Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Like my colleague Lan Pham, I do have a very specific question in relation to section 1A, the amended purpose, and the proposed amendment from my colleague Steve Abel, which is to replace “promote” with “manage”. I want to come back and do a little bit of a deep dive, but very briefly—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good.

SCOTT WILLIS: —into the Minister’s interest in super-critical and super-hot geothermal resource, which he mentioned last night. I think this does show where we have some common interest across the House when we are looking at minerals and when we are looking at how we either promote or manage. I’m interested, firstly, to hear more from the Minister about how the Government intends to support—is it support or manage—the investigation into super-critical geothermal resource, super-hot geothermal resource; where does that balance lie? And is the current funding arrangement a promotion or a management of that resource? How does that sit with the Minister? How does the Government view that?

Although it may be coming into some detail, we do need to know something about that actual resource, because what we understand and what the Minister referred to last night was the value of the power that we may be able to gain from such investigations. I’m interested to hear some detail, actually, about what type of temperature differential there might be in that super-critical, super-deep, super-hot geothermal resource and how we might manage those high temperatures—how that might be managed. Because we are thinking about what the climate impacts of the resource extraction is, how would carbon capture and storage be used for that resource? I’m not going to go much further, because I think the Minister has given us an opportunity to look at this really interesting subject, but I want to come back to whether this is promoting or managing, and where we can look for consensus or agreement across the House, we certainly should.

One last point I would make is that we are sitting here debating the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill while COP29 goes on; when we are trying to reduce emissions and meet emissions budgets, and, if we are opening up the fossil fuel sector but not looking at our renewables and our lower emissions sector, we are going against the global current. If the Minister could come back to me specifically on the geothermal question: super-hot, super-critical; and on whether the Minister sees this as promotion, currently, or management. What is the Minister’s position on this, and why is this so important for us? Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Look, I think early next year would be a great time for a proper briefing in terms of the geothermal matters, which I’ll undertake rather than burdening this particular portion of the bill’s passage—but I think it’s a good point.

On the question of equipment regulations, well, all former Ministers know that regulations promulgated under legislation generally happen after the legislation has passed. Obviously, regulations that are superfluous will be struck down, I should imagine, by my colleague Mr Seymour as I work with him to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose, but, at this stage, the provision enables the promulgation of regulations as we go forward. They could cover things like metal detectors, as something figuratively that will be needed by the Opposition to search for votes.

Now, we don’t need to go down to a finicky level of antennae radars—those matters can be addressed at a detailed level with the passage of regulations—but I say again: regulations are passed once the statute has been enacted. They are like a backstop. If a regulation is inconsistent with the purpose of the Act, it can be struck down as ultra vires. All members of the House know we have a Regulations Review Committee, and in the event that a regulation is described or found to be egregious—there’ll be very few of them as far as I’m concerned, because I’m pro-industry.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister, from a perspective of common law and statutory interpretation.

The Minister previously has discussed at length the terminology of “promote”, and this is clause 4—the terminology of “promote” and “manage”—promoting being an active word and also being forward leaning. I would argue that both manage and promoting verbs are both active words, but I would agree with the Minister that promoting is indeed anticipatory. However, when we’re looking at the Crown Minerals Act, which this is a part of, you can’t read section 1A(1) without also reading section 1A(2).

This is a new perspective that requires clarification, because in section 1A(2) of the Crown Minerals Act, it says “To this end”; ergo, subsection 2 pertains to the statutory interpretation of subsection 1. “Manage” and “promote” will have very different connotations in this case, because “manage” has an operationalisation perspective that “promote” does not have. I want to ask the Minister whether he has received any advice from his officials on how one would interpret section 1A(2)(c) and (d) of the Crown Minerals Act in the context of promotion.

Like the Minister said before, any regulation that he set aside that isn’t in line with the legislation will be struck out because it is ultra vires. In that case, would then the effective management and regulation that is not pertaining to promotion but pertaining to the existing management be struck out? Promotion essentially is a sales and marketing perspective. It doesn’t pertain to when something is actually approved. So it will be really important to get a clarification on that and the Minister’s intent from the perspective of what potentially will occur later on in the court of law.

The second question I have, which is also to do with something my colleague Steve Abel has mentioned before, is to do with when we’re looking at either offshore mining or if you’re looking at panning for gold in rivers and what that would affect in terms of other people’s enjoyment of that area. I want to ask if the Minister has received any advice from a common law perspective, because it’s not in the regulatory impact statements, around public nuisance and negligence.

Now, we have seen recently in the court of law that this is a significant area that has got people from Aotearoa interested in, particularly when we’re looking at the case of Smith v Fonterra. In this case, has there been any advice that the Minister received from the officials on what that would mean in the common law perspective, where potentially anyone could then take these companies or these areas to court and the liability that it would create in the context of public nuisance and negligence? Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 214 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to amend clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to insert new section 12C in clause 12 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to subpart 1 of Part 1B of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 14 to 35, “Amendments to subpart 1 of Part 1B of principal Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 2 of the bill is largely around how it is that permits are allocated. There are a range of things that go through all tiers of permits—tiers 1, 2, and 3 permits that are in here—but one of the critical changes that this Government is bringing into place is in terms of overturning the changes that the previous Government put in place in 2018 with the amendments to the Crown Minerals Act, as it was then, to explicitly restrict petroleum exploration permits to be allocated via public tender methods including block offer. This bill reverses this change, allowing for other methods to be used.

Now, obviously there’s going to be a lot of questions around these other methods—how it is that these are going to interplay; what the detail of this really means. What we know is that clause 14 of this bill removes sections 23(2) of the principal Act. In addition to reversing the ban on new exploration for oil and gas that our Government put into place, this removes the restriction on applications for petroleum exploration permits to only open block. This change allows for those other methods to come into play—for example, priority-in-time permits. I think this is a method for allocating permits that were in place before 2013. It was really only in 2013 that going to the mechanism of block offer really became the standard.

How is it that these two things are going to interplay? I think this goes to the crux of what we were talking about earlier in Part 1; it really gets down to that nitty-gritty detail. What we know is that since 2014, we have been seeing a long-run decline in exploration activity in New Zealand, and this is consistent with global trends in oil and gas investment, in exploration. It’s not just in New Zealand: 2014, I think everyone will note, is way before 2018, when the ban was put into place. This is actually about facing up to reality in terms of New Zealand’s energy future—that we’ve been seeing that decline anyway.

The first question for the Minister: is he envisioning block offers to come back into play? Is this a mechanism for allocation that he will be using, as was the case post-2013 and which became more of the norm of how we allocated permits in New Zealand? Of course, a block offer is when a Government identifies an area and goes out, essentially, to open tender, to the market, and invites people to bid in and say what they want to do in that area. Or are they going to allow the priority in time that, at any point in time, someone who wishes to have an exploration permit can identify an area where they’d like that and come in and apply for a permit in that area. This is one of the critical questions in terms of the balance and how the Minister sees that playing out in this new regime that he’s putting in place.

I’d also like to know the indications and the advice that the Minister has around the demand that there is going to be for these permits. He seems to be flying in the face of all the accepted wisdom in terms of the demand that sits out there for these permits, in terms of the appetite to come and invest and start exploration again in New Zealand. The Minister is hanging his hat on this being the answer to New Zealand’s energy security, so he must have some pretty rock-solid advice that there’s people sitting out there wanting—either through block offer or through a priority-in-time permit, or some other mechanism the Minister may be thinking of, which he can elucidate and inform the committee about, that there is going to be this international appetite that will be counter to what we’re seeing in other places—to come in and invest in New Zealand. It will also turn around the historical trend, that we’ve been seeing in New Zealand for over a decade now, in terms of exploration in this country. One of the things that we would like to know is all of those things.

In terms of the other application methods, other than this public tender that these amendments in Part 2 of this legislation allow, these will be in the regulations and programmes that will determine the detail requirements for the allocation methods. Given a lot of this detail sits below the legislation in terms of the regulations and the petroleum programme, I’d be interested, and I’m sure the committee would be interested, to hear from the Minister some of the detail that sits around what will be contained in those subordinate instruments that we are enacting and bringing back with these amendments in Part 2 of the legislation.

It’s fair to say that it’s very hard for the committee to make a call. I would have thought it’d be hard for all members, no matter what side they’re sitting on, without actually having the information and the detail that sits within that regulatory framework, to know how this is going to operate, because it certainly isn’t clear from the legislation. And the bill does not make any reference to the time frames in applying for a permit, for example, that sits in there—will this be in the regulations, will this be in the petroleum programme? What is that likely to be, when are we likely to know about it, how will the public have time to consult on that, and what is the detail? The committee needs to know that.

The other concern that certainly was made at the select committee was that adding additional permit allocation methods will exacerbate existing issues in regards to iwi engagement—so that was in 2013. The preferred method has been through the block office system, as cumbersome as this has been for iwi, particularly in Taranaki, to take part in—there has been a predictable way in which engagement has taken place through that block offer method. What will this look like if we have to go to this more ad hoc allocation method in terms of the priority time permits? What will the requirements for consultation be? What support will there be for iwi and hapū around that consultation? How long will they be notified in advance that there is a permit, and all those time frames? Some really important and fundamental questions to the operation of this legislation sit in Part 2. Those were very overarching comments—I will be back with some more specific questions around these clauses later in the debate.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): There’s a bunch of important questions there. Because this is a relatively modest and non-controversial portion of this amended piece of proposed legislation, the existing processes for hapū and iwi remain. They are provisions that are important to various stakeholders, certainly in Taranaki. The question as to what is the future of the block offer method—that will not be ruled out by this legislation, but the legislation introduces alternative approaches and processes for the allocation of an entitlement to reinvigorate, rediscover, recharge this indigenous resource called the gas industry. That’s all this portion of the legislation is doing. It doesn’t hobble the ability of tangata whenua to participate, providing that they’re very focused and they don’t pretend they’ve got a power of veto. The national interest of keeping the lights on goes beyond the interests of any segment of our community, and, let’s face it, this resource still does contribute to our electricity system.

I repeat: tangata whenua opportunities for consultation and engagement remain. Block offer options: they are enriched and augmented by other approaches. And I would say that the works programme today, in respect of the question offered by the former Minister, is out for consultation on this very day. On that basis, people can raise issues and have questions answered by the internet. But look, I’m looking forward to answering all manner of questions when I have my public meeting on Friday in Taranaki.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Could I just invite members—if we can get some question-and-answer dialogue going on, the Chair will certainly indulge that, rather than each speaker standing up and, perhaps, seeking to take up the whole five minutes and beyond. That way we might just get the proposed new method, which hasn’t really become in vogue yet, of extracting the right answers and information—bearing in mind, I understand it takes two to tango.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that opportunity, and, specifically, I would appreciate the Minister answering a little on the opening up of conservation land in Taranaki to mining. I wonder what specific advice he received from the Department of Conservation on how that would be managed. Obviously, we oppose the opening of conservation land for mining, but given that that’s the intent of the Minister, what advice was there on how that would be practically managed: would that include for the new tier 3 variety of mining, and would that include all other varieties of mining, as well? Could that potentially include some of the most intensive forms of mining? If it was goldmining, for instance, it could include the crushing of rock and the extraction of gold using cyanide, with tailings, and so forth. I wonder what the extent of that is.

The other question—which I’m happy to sit down to see if the Minister is happy to have a back and forth on it—is regarding the impact on Treaty settlements in this regard. I know that there are Taranaki iwi for whom important parts of their settlements involve conservation land and the management of conservation resources in Taranaki, and I wondered what advice the Minister has received on the impact on Treaty settlements. That’s some initial questions there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on, Mr Abel, if you’re of—

STEVE ABEL: OK, thank you, and just a follow-up on my colleague’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): But what I’ll do is this. The Minister is obviously taking advice, and if I have to wait to ensure that he is hearing the questions—

Hon Shane Jones: No, I’ve heard the questions, sir.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right. Carry on, Mr Abel.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. The other one is to follow up on my colleague’s question in the last round on the statutory definition of “promote” versus “manage”. I think it would be useful for the committee to hear a response to that, because it did seem to be of some concern that in the instance of an existing, active mining activity of whatever variety, the question of promoting it became no longer the relevant question; now, it became a question of managing it. Could he clarify the statutory definition of “promote” where it applies to the management of a resource, and is there a need to make it clear that the Minister still retains a responsibility for managing existing mining activities?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Can I direct the Green Party member to clause 31, where section 50A is repealed—i.e., Taranaki conservation land, for the purposes of petroleum entitlement allocation, is being changed. In relation to the connection between Taranaki conservation land and tier 3, there is no gold, to the best of my knowledge, being mined in Taranaki.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I appreciate your guidance earlier, and I particularly appreciate your use of language in terms of talking about how we extract the answers, which is obviously what this debate’s about—it’s about how we prevent it. I’ve got a series of questions. My first is around the amendment of section 28A, which is the “Declaration that permits not to be issued or extended for specified land for specified period”. In the change of legislation here, it says “After section 28A(1), insert:”, and it goes on to new subsection (1AA), which is “The Minister may declare that, during a specified period, specified kinds of permits”, and it goes on to paragraph (a) there around “specified land”. Now, I just want to clarify—I know it’s in section 24, just to make sure we are clear, and, obviously, there was your previous answer around conservation land—“will only be granted in respect of specified land”; can we just confirm what that is?

My next question is, if I flip the page and look at section 29B, which is—if I’m flicking through the Act here, 29B: “Process for considering application under public tender for conditional exploration permit”. What the Minister is inserting here is, “After section 29B(1)(a), insert: (ab) the offer specifies a date that is the latest acceptable reassessment date;”. Now, I just want to understand—the Minister could explain—what that actually means, “the [last] acceptable reassessment date”, because that sort of sounds like we’re holding on for dear life to the latest moment, to one minute to midnight or whatever it is. I’d like an answer for that.

My next question—I’ll just keep firing them through—is on the amendment of section 40. Looking at the Crown Minerals Act section 40, if I flip my page here, which is the “Surrender of permit”, and the Minister will be adding in “Replace section 40(9)”, and it goes on with a whole series of statements there. The question I have is right at the bottom there—sorry, looking over there, they add: “the permit was granted on or after 21 August 2003.”

Hon Shane Jones: This is in Part 3.

GLEN BENNETT: Is this Part 3?

Hon Shane Jones: Yeah.

GLEN BENNETT: Oh, I’ve run ahead. OK. Well, I’ll leave those other three questions for you, and I’ll come to that one when we get to there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That was actually correct. That was actually still Part 2, clause 26.

Hon Shane Jones: No, no, no, it wasn’t. Clause 40, he was talking about.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Clause 26. Anyway, we’ve got ample time to clarify that.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the things I’d just like some clarification on is an earlier answer that the Minister gave. Am I to understand correctly that the Minister is saying that the amendments to the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Regulations 2007, that this is the work programme that he is saying is currently out for consultation and that this is the work that is currently being consulted on? That would be good to clarify because, of course, after the passage of this legislation, amendments to those existing regulations will be required. Just some clarity, and also some time lines, around: if they’re out for consultation now, what is the expected time line to those regulations?

One of the things—I’m happy to stop for the Minister to hear the questions while he receives advice, if that’s useful, Mr Chair? Just saying I’m happy to pause so the Minister can hear the questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Are you ready, Minister?

Hon Shane Jones: Yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would like is to understand more around the tier 3 permits. This is, of course, a new mechanism that’s coming through in this legislation. When we have a look at the process to consider application for tier 3, which is: the application for a tier 3 permit “must provide to the Minister”—that’s all specified. Then we have: “Before granting a permit, the Minister must be satisfied—(a) that the applicant is highly likely to comply with and give proper effect to the work programme, taking into account—(i) the applicant’s technical capability;”. I’d just like some more detail on what it is that will be considered when making that assessment around the applicant’s technical capability? This is, of course, something that the Minister will be considering in terms of a statutory decision. What are the criteria around technical capability that will be put there?

Then, “(ii) the applicant’s financial capability;”—now, I won’t be moving into decommissioning, because that’s clearly in Part 3 of the bill—what will be taken into consideration, anything over and above the ability for decommissioning in terms of the financial capability of the applicant there? These, of course, are tier 3. And, around that, “(iii) any relevant information on the applicant’s failure to comply with permits or rights, or conditions in respect [to] those permits”—what are the things that will be taken in consideration when the Minister is making decisions, and any other relevant information? What does he see? What is the advice that he’s got that might be other relevant information that will come to bear on that decision making?

Then we go over to clause 25, which is the revocation or transfer of those permits. One of the questions I have for the Minister is that it spells out in this clause: “The Minister may revoke … or transfer the permit to the Minister (in replacement [of] the permit holder) if [he] is satisfied that the permit holder has contravened—(a) a condition of the permit; or (b) [the] Act or the regulations.” One of the things that I’m unclear about, and it doesn’t seem to be clear, is how that interacts with the earlier clause that I’m talking about. If you have had a permit revoked—if the Minister has revoked or transferred that permit back to the Minister—can you reapply for a permit? Can you reapply for the same permit in the same place if you go on to satisfy the Minister, or is that ruled out? What about someone who has had a permit revoked? Can they apply for a permit over a different area if they have failed to comply with the conditions of an earlier permit? Thank you.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to pick up on some comments that the Minister made a couple of answers ago, and I’ve got some questions off the back of those. I think that prior to asking the questions, it’s important to remember the context in which the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee received and heard submissions for and against this bill, and the speed at which that happened. The specific comment that the Minister made was about this being non-controversial.

My first question is, really, to know how he reaches the conclusion that this is non-controversial, especially given the context of just some excerpts from a couple of submissions. One submission from Te Kotahitanga Marae in Herekino, stated, “full and unwavering opposition”, and also went on to state that it “threatens the very land we live on and the future of our people.” I’m interested to know how the Minister would suggest that that is non-controversial. Secondly, a submission from the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand details international scientific consensus that the use of fossil fuels for energy consumption is the leading cause of climate change, responsible for more than three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the context of those two submissions alone, I’m interested to know—there are plenty more I could share—how the term “non-controversial” could be used in relation to this; and also, what the threshold for “controversial” would have to be, given the context of just that tiny sample of submissions.

I have further questions on that process. There was a theme that came through in, if not all, the vast majority of submissions: what the need for speed was with the movement of this legislation; whether the Minister has a sense of the total volume of submissions that were received—given the very, very small window of time—what that very large number of submissions was; what the percentage of those submissions that were in opposition were; and also, whether the Minister, particularly in the context of the excerpt from Te Kotahitanga Marae that I shared, could give us any examples of iwi submissions that were made in support of the changes suggested in the bill. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I want to deal with the question—it was a very detailed question—as to what’s the importance of the expression specified. It’s an administrative term and it pertains to the area that will be circumscribed as being available for extractive or exploratory or prospecting activity. It will be specified in such a way that there is no doubt as to where the boundaries are.

On the question of Māori submissions, I’ve covered that off and I’m the first to admit that the submissions reflect a wide array of passion and perspectives. However, that lay within the purview of the members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I salute them for their service. However, I have already pointed out, for the purposes of allocating entitlements under this statute, the provision enabling Māori engagement to take place has not changed.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your clarification just to understand, because I was speaking in my previous call to clause 26, which talks about section 40 being amended.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member’s right. You were referring to clauses 20 and 26, which are in Part 2. You’d be welcome to carry on your questioning or you might want to reiterate your question.

GLEN BENNETT: Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for the clarification. The reason I want to understand is because there is, obviously, a series of additions—

Hon Shane Jones: Section 40 is in Part 3.

GLEN BENNETT: It is, yes.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: But clause 26 isn’t.

GLEN BENNETT: It is clause 26. Thank you. Thank you very much. I just want to understand, because what it does, if I look at the Act which I have in front of me, is it actually adds something new in terms of—and I understand that in the current Act as it stands it does say the permit was granted before 21 August 2023—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, just what section are you on now, Mr Bennett?

GLEN BENNETT: Sorry, I’ve just been talking about—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Clause 26.

GLEN BENNETT: Clause 26, which then speaks to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you—thank you.

GLEN BENNETT: I think, on my paper it’s page 12 I’m looking at. What I’m seeing and wanting to understand from the Minister is currently, yes, it does have in replacement section 40(9)(b)(i) “the permit was granted before 21 August 2003 and was a permit other than in respect of petroleum;”, and then it goes on to add something which isn’t in the original bill. I just want to understand why the Minister has chosen to add the next part, in subparagraph (ii), which is “the permit was granted on or after 21 August 2003.”?

Now, currently, as it stands—I know it is in a previous part—but why is that being added in terms of “the permit was granted on or after 21 August 2003”? Hopefully, my question is clear, because I just don’t see it in the current legislation, but I see it being added to this new piece. I want the Minister just to clarify why that is being put in there. Thank you.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a very specific question and proposed amendment in response to the Minister’s response to a prior call by my colleague Steve Abel. This is about clause 31, in Part 2, which is on page 13 of the bill, and it was about the repeal of the restricted access to Taranaki conservation land. I’d really like to hear from the Minister, because we haven’t had a response, about what advice he has received from the Department of Conservation (DOC) on this, and if he has considered that advice in making this decision to repeal section 50A of the Crown Minerals Act.

I really want to point that out, because we have a proposed amendment to delete clause 31—this is on page 13, lines 10 and 11—which would have the effect of not repealing section 50A. I’m really keen to hear from the Minister about any advice from DOC and whether that has been considered in his decision to proceed with this clause. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Glen Bennett. Oh, sorry, the honourable Minister. How I missed you, I’ll never know, Mr Jones.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I can revert to volume, but for fear of being censured again, I’ll behave.

Look, I think the point that’s made about the Taranaki conservation land—obviously, in the development of any policy there is advice sought from a range of Government departments—but the point that this provision makes is that that land will now be made available. I accept that not everyone is of a single mind in that regard, and the fact that advice may have been drawn from Government departments is just part of the policy-making process.

I just want to go back to an earlier question, because it was a very important question and I’ve sought some advice. It had to do with clause 24: was there a process for assessing whether or not a person’s, if I can use that word figuratively, appropriateness or capacity to comply—is that being taken into account? The things relate, obviously, to what is the technical capability—as the former Minister has referred to, I think; will their financial capability be taken into place? Yes. And would one study their past behaviours? That criteria, whilst it may not be totally outlined legislatively, obviously it’s within the code of practice that we would expect the Civil Service to apply.

The overall test in terms of an applicant’s ability to comply with the work programme is such that there are cases where, if they don’t comply, they don’t get a permit. But, at the same time, the whole purpose of tier 3, and the references that are being made here, is to ensure that it’s not so burdensome that it squashes entrepreneurial resolve and actually ends up hobbling the industry. Quite straightforward and riddled with common sense, I’d have thought.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I thank the Minister for talking more about the criteria that will be applied for that decision making in terms of the suitability of applicants. One of the things that I am interested to know, that the Minister didn’t address, is whether if someone has a permit revoked, this will rule them out from holding a permit either in the same area or in alternative areas; whether there’s a time frame around that or what the Minister would need to be satisfied that someone had gone on the appropriate redemption arc in terms of the ability to hold a permit and what that would look like.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): That’s actually a very important point. Now, as in other statutory regimes, one smudge against an entity’s name should not condemn them to permanent exile. We have cases, for example, in the fishing industry where there may have been infractions in the past, but people consider the changes that they may have made, the efforts to improve their capacity to comply. I think that the former Minister is well aware, and I’m sure the more sentient members of the Opposition will appreciate, that the test is “likely to comply”. These are judgments that are made by the Civil Service within the confines of the law on a regular basis. I don’t need to recite examples where there have been cases of infraction but people have tidied their act up and they’ve been able to continue on. Indeed, the gold—I won’t talk any more about gold because I actually want us to focus on Taranaki.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister for that, and I do point him to the clause of the bill that I am asking questions on, which is clause 19 which inserts a new section 29AB, the “Process for considering application for Tier 3 permit”. While the Minister says these are considerations that bureaucrats need to take into consideration, what we’re talking about here is actually ministerial decision-making. What we have in new section 29AB, the “Process for considering application for Tier 3 permit”, (1) and under number (2), is it’s the Minister that must be satisfied. These are decisions the Minister will be making, not his officials—not bureaucrats that will be making these.

The Minister refers to “one smudge” not being out; I think the committee needs to have more of an understanding from the Minister what the kinds of considerations are that the Minister himself will be taking into account, because this isn’t something that is being delegated out through this legislation; this is something that the Minister will be doing themselves. In terms of that, any other relevant information—I’m still unclear whether or not, if you have contravened a previous permit, that rules you out either in coming further down the line and seeking another permit on that same area of land or whether you decide that if you’ve lost a permit in that area, you’re going to go and apply for a permit across the road. I’m still not clear whether that is something the Minister will countenance, and given there is a lot of power being given to the Minister with a new class of permit that’s being introduced through this section of the legislation, the committee needs to know this detail.

The Minister can’t simply say, “My officials will take that into consideration”, because the Minister has brought to the floor of this House a piece of legislation that is saying these are things that he has thought through, these are things that he is seeking permission to do, and this is how the committee can be satisfied, the kinds of things that will be taken into consideration.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. As was alluded to or spoken to by my colleague Reuben Davidson, obviously, there was a rushed process, and we understand the reality of that, but I’m going to be speaking to replacement section 35, inserted by clause 22, the amendment around the “Duration of permit”. I just want to understand from the Minister—I apologise if this is offensive, but it feels like this was done on the fly, in terms of being done very quickly and the expectation of officials to get it right. Therefore, would there be a chance or an opportunity maybe for us to consider some amendments? When I look at replacement section 35, inserted by clause 22, the amendment here, “(8A) A Tier 3 permit expires”, it’s got “10 years after the commencement date”.

Now, when I look at the duration period in section 35 of the original Act, there are so many different time frames in this. If I look at the Act, four years is one of them. Then there’s 15 years when it comes to petroleum. Or, if we look at other minerals, other than petroleum, it’s 10 years, which, obviously, is consistent with what is in here. Then it talks further on about a mining permit of 40 years. I don’t want to give the Minister opportunity to extend this—God forbid!—but, in terms of the consideration, when the Minister did obviously signal what he wanted in the legislation, and then what actually appears, has there been any consideration given to this Act, which, obviously, is more than 30 years old—there have been changes over the years—in terms of whether these duration time frames are right?

I mean, personally, obviously, this side of the committee would want, if and when this bill does pass, to see those time frames shortened, because we want to move on and transition to renewables. We want to transition away from our reliance on having to dig things out of the ground. My question to the Minister is: given that he is making some quite major changes to the Act, is there any consideration to maybe consider whether this duration period in replacement section 35 is actually fit for purpose in 2024 and going forward? And would it be important, maybe, for us to review it—if we’re here now, why not look at it and see what we could do to actually improve this but also look at how we speed up the reliance on fossil fuels?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Obviously, any reference to a Minister has the capacity to delegate down to the Civil Service. In relation to the last contribution, the man said that he may or may not have an amendment. If he wants to table an amendment, that’s up to him.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): One piece of information that I am still waiting on the Minister for, and it would be appreciated if we could have that information, is that clarity around the programme that he said was out for consultation: whether they are the amendments to the regulations that will be required by these legislative changes; if that is the case, what is the time frame, in terms of the conclusion of their consultation, and when we can expect to see those new regulations put in place? Or is this something else that’s out for consultation? It is a genuine question.

Going back to the core, one of the things that this part does, in terms of the new allocation methods, in terms of there being different opening periods—I think that is something that will require some change. In terms of prior to 2018, when the changes were made, New Zealand was using the block offer system, which was quite a regimented system. There was some certainty around time frames, but this is bringing in alternative allocation measures through these amendments to the legislation here in Part 2. The bill doesn’t make any reference for time frames when applying for these permits, where this was predictable under a block offer system.

There are still some live questions around what that will look like under a more ad hoc system where people can come and they can apply for a permit. What do the time frames look like? I think that is something that many people will want to know and something that needs to be answered. There were some suggestions made through the course of the submissions at the select committee. People were talking about bifurcated regimes in terms of onshore and offshore. Is this something the Minister is considering or is he considering there will be one regime that will go across both sorts of permits? It’s something they’re really keen to allow for.

Also, section 23A(1) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 allows for applications, of course, to be made to the chief executive. This is, unlike the previous clause that I was talking about, where the Minister will be making a decision, something that will actually be going through to the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, and the detail of that application process will be set out in the regulations. I circle back to how I started this contribution and this question: is that the regulations that are currently out for consultation?

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was actually struggling—I was physically writing my amendment; that’s why it took me a moment to get to my feet. I think this is important. Given the Minister for Resources has offered for me to put an amendment on the Table, I am going to propose an amendment, which I will pose. Also, I agree, and in no way was I trying to undermine the Minister in terms of delegation—I totally understand that, in terms of delegating this work to the officials—I think the officials need to be commended for the hard work they do to support the work of Ministers in and of this Parliament.

What I am looking at is an amendment to amend section 35 of the Act, “Duration of permit”, in new subsection (8A), inserted by clause 22 of the bill, to replace it with “A Tier 3 permit expires—(a) five years after the commencement”; removing the “10” and putting “five years” in there. The reason I want to propose that amendment is that I think this is an interesting space for us to be in, in terms of the tier 3 that’s being inserted into this bill. I feel like it’s just giving it a bit of time and a bit of space for us to reflect, and a bit of time and space to ensure that this legislation, once it becomes an Act of Parliament, is actually—not fit for purpose, but the reality would be, in terms of when you look at the potential damage that could be done or potential of the consequences. I read earlier about streams and rivers, and, of course, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that they are swimmable and they are usable.

I will continue writing my amendment as quickly as I can so I can get it on the Table, to look at it being five years, rather than 10. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was actually delaying getting up because I was hoping the Minister for Resources—and it looks like he might be updating us in terms of those critical questions around the regulations that are currently out for consultation and whether that is the 2007 regulations, so I’ll allow the Minister.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Yeah, consultation is available till February 2025. There will be, as is sort of consistent with the approach of this Government, ample opportunity for stakeholders to have their say—and, of course, I’m talking about the petroleum programme work, which is a regular feature of this part of our natural resource economy. It’s difficult to see what else I could say other than that. I have a sense that my capacity to answer questions has been exhausted because they’re getting repetitive.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 214 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to delete clauses 14, 15, and 16 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 31 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to rest of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 36 to 50, “Amendments to rest of principal Act”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Part 3 of this legislation is largely concerned with the changes to the decommissioning provisions in the legislation. A bit of context for this that I think is useful for the committee is that our Government changed the decommissioning regime in New Zealand. We did this for a very good reason, and that is because the New Zealand taxpayers were left holding the bill of nearly half a billion dollars for cleaning up after the operator left the Tui oil field. That is the New Zealand taxpayer that had to stump up nearly half a billion dollars—dollars that could otherwise be spent on hospitals, that could be spent on schools, that could be spent on housing, that could be spent on all manner of things, but instead the Crown was left with a liability for an international company that extracted its profits from New Zealand, then left the mess for us to clean up. This was in no way fair. Our Government moved to tidy this up and to ensure that New Zealand taxpayers would never be put at risk again.

As Minister, I was proud to bring those amendments to this House and to ensure that we were protecting New Zealanders from international companies that would come in and not only extract minerals in this country but extract the security of New Zealanders and their tax dollars as well. It simply is not on. Quite frankly, I am shocked to see this Minister bringing amendments to this House that put New Zealanders so far down the pecking order, that put the New Zealander taxpayer at so much risk and expose them to such financial liability. This is because—and this goes back to what the Minister told us in Part 1—industry hated it. Industry hated the amendments that they may have to take responsibility for their own risk. New Zealand moved to put in place the kinds of protections that we see in other First World jurisdictions, but industry didn’t like it—surprise, surprise!

What have we seen? We’ve seen this Minister, who’s told us he takes his advice from industry, moving to bend to the will of what industry want again. That’s what we’re seeing in Part 3 of this legislation: a watering down of those protections for the New Zealand taxpayer. The regulatory impact statement lays bare what the exposure to the New Zealand taxpayer is in terms of liability from decommissioning. The regulatory impact statement tells us that the estimated decommissioning of four offshore fields is over $2 billion—$2 billion are the estimated costs of decommissioning—and onshore fields are a further nearly half a billion dollars. The decommissioning cost per field can range from $2 million at the low end to $1 billion at the high end. The Crown Minerals Amendment Act introduced a risk-based decommissioning regime that reduced the risk to taxpayers. That’s what the official advice in the regulatory impact statement tells us.

David MacLeod: Question?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: My question to the Minister is: why is it that he is watering down the protections to the New Zealand taxpayer that were put in place? We will go into the details in further contributions, but the one that I want to concentrate on here and one that has attracted a great deal of attention is the trailing liability. Why is it that that would be limited only to the previous permit holder? What we saw when New Zealand taxpayers ended up carrying the cost and the burden for cleaning up after Tui was because of a complex set of transfers of permits—loopholes that the previous National Government had left in the legislation that exposed the New Zealand taxpayer. We risk this again if trailing liability is limited to only the previous permit holder. The Minister needs to explain to the committee the policy rationale and the advice of why it is that it is fair to New Zealanders that they have to shoulder the risk of multinational companies that come into New Zealand, extract profit, and leave us all holding the risk and the burden.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): This is an inoffensive part of the legislation. It deals with the fact of how to establish a balance so that we protect but have a very sophisticated array of options that the regulator can put upon permit holders without squashing and without ruining the sovereign appeal of our reputation for investors. We know that it’s important that we borrow the best practices; for those reasons, our trailing legislative options in this bill enjoy a great deal of resonance with the UK and other such OECD countries.

There has to be a balance, and the balance has been struck. We have tidied up a loophole. That loophole ensures that those who sell controlling shares in an entity that may have owned a permit, that they—i.e., the word “person” pertaining to both an entity and an individual—can be held responsible. Trailing is all about ensuring that the taxpayers, through regulatory surveillance and regulatory enforcement, can have confidence that those entities that do not comply and do not meet their obligations can be held accountable, but the ways to hold them accountable are not simply singular. There are a range of instruments that this bill enables the regulator to use, to impose that enforceable obligation. I won’t mention any firms because a number of the firms have inherited historical decommissioning obligations that go back to earlier companies.

I don’t think that clamour should be mistaken for clarity or coherence. I know that this is a slightly excitable portion for some members, but it’s a relatively inoffensive, technical set of provisions and it ensures that those people who hold permits cannot escape their obligations. It’s done in a modernised, sophisticated way by people who understand the chicanery of commerce.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I thank the Minister for that contribution. I think the question still remains: why is it that the Minister is choosing to prioritise the needs and wants of multinational companies over those of New Zealanders and New Zealand taxpayers?

One of the things that the Minister said is that this aligns us with best practice in other countries. Well, the Minister’s own advice, the regulatory impact statement, tells us that “Jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia impose perpetual liability on decommissioned wells and infrastructure. For infrastructure that is left in situ in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf”. What the Minister has told the House is simply incorrect. Actually, other countries seek to protect their citizens and their taxpayers over and above the interests of multinational companies that come in and seek to extract profits. I think the Minister needs to clarify that comment that he just made to the committee.

The other question that the Minister needs to answer to this committee is why it is, when the advice in the regulatory impact statement tells us that the option of limiting trailing liability to the immediate permit holder will “increase the likelihood that, in a case where a financial security fails and enforcement against liable parties is unsuccessful, the Crown will need to assume responsibility as a last resort.”, he is increasing the risk. Let’s not make any bones about it: it is not the Crown; it is the New Zealand taxpayer that that is being increased at. This Government is putting New Zealanders on the hook for the risk of multinational companies, and they are saying that it’s an uncontroversial piece of the legislation.

The regulatory impact statement also lays out the multiple uncertainties with the route that the Government has chosen to go down, talking about “the likelihood and scale of a financial security failing or being insufficient in a given case”. So, Minister, have you received further advice on this, and has this uncertainty now been cleared? Also, the nature of the field involved in the default—the small versus large; offshore versus onshore—what is the nature of the risk on that? Has that changed since the regulatory impact statement was presented? At the point in time decommissioning eventuates—whether or not it’s exploration versus production—has the Minister given any consideration to having different trailing liabilities in terms of the point of decommissioning of various wells, and, if not, why not?

The number of available liable persons—because the Minister is sitting there talking about these permits transferring from person to person. Let’s make it clear: these transfer from corporation to corporation. Often what we have seen in the past is that these have been shell companies that have been set up that don’t have the requisite number of liable people that are there. That is when New Zealanders were left holding a half a billion dollar baby to clean up after the international oil and gas industry. I can tell you going and asking for half a billion dollars to clean up after a company that wouldn’t clean up after itself—when I had to ask for that money, knowing we could have spent it on schools and hospitals and housing—was one of the worst days that I had as a Minister.

How is it that this Minister can stand with any integrity and tell New Zealanders he has their interests at heart, when clearly it is industry that are pulling the strings?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I direct the member to section 89, and there it will be evident that this Minister has closed a loophole that was left by the former regime. There was a level of dilatoriness because there was too much heat in the absence of light. Now, let me turn the torch on.

In relation to perpetual liability, that is exactly as I said. The reference that the member is making to post-decommissioned perpetual liability is actually correct, and what we are doing is introducing various instruments that can be imposed upon parties to ensure that they are on the hook and that the instruments will incentivise them to meet their compliance obligations.

Now, there was an omission—and I direct the member to section 89 as a consequence of high-quality work from the officials motivated by clear leadership and balance on my good self. That’s probably the most important portion of Part 3. Part 3 closes up a loophole where those who have wanted to practice chicanery can no longer shift around shareholdings and escape liability.

I want to repeat before I sit down: this is a relatively inoffensive, largely harmless piece of the legislation because it builds upon the better portions of what the last regime put in place to ensure the taxpayer wasn’t stiffed. But what they did is they left a gaping hole that crooks could walk through. We have closed that down and we have left options that regulators can use to hold parties accountable beyond one blunt instrument, because, after all, we need a level of investment in our natural resource sector and investors look for options that suit both the regulator and suit themselves. That’s how international commerce works: because we didn’t have that level of sophistication, international commerce withered under the last regime.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister raising replacement section 89 in Part 3. There is a direct tension between the desire of the Minister to promote and make New Zealand—in his words, he talked about “sovereign attractiveness”; I think that was the term he gave. There is the desire for the Minister to promote and, at the same time, the duty and responsibility of the Minister to manage the risk of any given mining activity. Here, in replacement section 89, is set out what the Minister has described as what can be the burdens that can be placed by means of acceptable financial security on those miners and extractors.

The challenge here—and I put it to the Minister—under section 89ZM, “Matters to which Minister must have regard in determining acceptable financial security”, it includes a number of factors to do with the nature of the person undertaking the activity. For example, the Minister must, in section 89ZM(1)(b), take into account “the prescribed criteria (if any) relating to acceptable financial security arrangements including, without limitation,—(i) the following particular kinds and amounts of financial security: (ii) any prescribed hierarchy of securities: (iii) whether there is a preferred kind of security in the particular situation:”.

How will the Minister evaluate, as he is obliged to do, things like “(1)(c) … (i) the estimated cost of decommissioning: (ii) the extent to which the amount to be secured will cover the estimated cost of decommissioning: (iii) the extent to which the financial security arrangement to be put in place will ensure that the Crown will obtain payment of the amount in the event that the permit holder or licence holder fails to carry out the decommissioning or separately meet those costs:”—as my colleague Megan Woods has pointed out, we have had a catastrophic example of this with the failure of a company—“(g) any information relating to current or emerging risks to the permit holder’s or licence holder’s ability to comply with their obligations under this subpart:”?

There are a multitude of things where it is the Minister who is responsible for determining how much of a burden will be placed on the permit holder to ensure that he is protecting the broader risks to us as a nation—both to the public purse but also to the environment—because, obviously, where there is a failure to undertake decommissioning, where there is a problem, where there’s contamination that is not dealt with, it is not only a burden on the public to pay for the cost of cleaning that up if the company in question has not done the job; it is also an impact, possibly intergenerational contamination of the environment, and something that may not be possible to clean up.

How does the Minister ensure that the tension between his desire to make New Zealand an attractive prospect and his obligation to protect the interests of our country from the risks and the harms caused by that activity, including the costs of decommissioning—how does he get those numbers right? Who will be making those evaluations? Who will be making those assessments? Is there not, would he not agree, a significant risk that in his desire to achieve “sovereign attractiveness”, he will fail in his obligation to protect the sovereign commons of Aotearoa New Zealand?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I first of all wanted to stand up for the people of Sandringham, who got a bit of a go over by the Minister last night and were belittled. People of Sandringham are people who are well informed, they’re very interested in this area, and they’re very concerned, Minister, about the implications of this section in particular.

This part is of concern because it has in it—we have the story, and you’ve heard Megan Woods talk about this, the story of Tui. We in Sandringham are particularly concerned about the risk that we face as taxpayers and the risk to the environment. What I would ask the Minister is: in the changes that are being made now, which he says strike a balance, can he give the people of Sandringham an assurance that in fact they are not going to end up—

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, the champagne crowd.

HELEN WHITE: They’re actually the hard-working tradies, sir, and they are the hard-working workers of our city. There are people who are very much from every walk of life in that particular suburb, which I’m very proud to represent. I want to know, for them, are they going to get into a situation where they are again having to fork out hard-earned taxpayers’ money? Or, in fact, can you give them an assurance today that your changed legislation will protect them in the event of another issue where there is a principal party that walks away, on sale, etc.? Now, I want to know whether there is an insurance you are confidently giving today.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Please don’t bring the Chair in.

HELEN WHITE: I’d also like to know—sorry, sir—whether the Minister is able to confidently give an assurance to the hard-working people of Sandringham of all walks of life, who often have small businesses, they often work for wages, they don’t have a lot of spare cash at the moment—is the Minister prepared to give them that assurance that this will not be a walk down memory lane where they end up having to fork out?

My context for that is that there are articles that talk about the amount of money that the oil and gas machine is making out there. I’ll just quote one of those: $2 trillion worth of profits in the last three decades of Exxon, Shell, BP, and Chevron. That’s $2 trillion. These are very profitable companies that are making money out of exploiting those gases, and surely they should be utterly responsible for the cost of repairing and decommissioning.

I guess the next question I have is: how big is that risk for the people of Sandringham? Are they in fact in a situation where that is a big risk or a little one? And has the Minister had advice on just how big it is? My understanding, and please enlighten me if I’m wrong, is that this covers all of the infrastructure that is present at the present time as well. We have a whole lot of pipes that will be deteriorating. I would like to know whether the Minister has had advice on the exact risk that we have in that situation.

Another thing that was asked at the select committee by me was: how does this marry up with the proposal of the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing—and the Minister of commerce—to look at phoenix companies? I never got an answer to that. That is a very interesting proposal—to hold people accountable—but I would have expected that to be something that was looked at in terms of this legislation. Is it something where there’s legislation coming which we can rest assured is going to deal with the issue of phoenix companies and really hold people liable, or not? I’d really like an answer to that question, because I think it’s a very valid point given there is another issue coming.

I would also, Minister, like to know further about the UK perpetual liability scheme, because it was mentioned earlier. Is it something that the Minister has actually looked at, in terms of should we be adopting that kind of perpetual liability? If not, why not? What is wrong with holding these big companies that are making $2 trillion worth of profit in the last three years, who have themselves referred to this as a cash machine—why would we not be holding them perpetually liable? Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for an opportunity to contribute to this debate. It’s my first contribution and I have a number of questions about what the Minister has said concerning his changes to section 89Z.

The Hon Megan Woods has asked the Minister some questions, in good faith, based on a specific example in New Zealand’s history where Cabinet was required to make some decisions which were heavy, which cost the New Zealand taxpayers, and where New Zealand does not want to be in future, and the Minister has said that this is a relatively inoffensive change. Mr Chair, I’d put it to you that that is ridiculous. If this Minister has come down to the committee to play the unwitting ingenue with the Hon Megan Woods, then he can defend his position that he doesn’t think that this bill is in fact watering down the protections for the New Zealand taxpayer and he should be made to defend that.

He should be made to defend the fact that this change is the most valuable thing for the industry that could be done, because the financial security arrangements that section 89Z provides for allow the industry to decide exactly what those arrangements will be. It’s the industry who provides, on notice—not in consultation, not in line with a number of regulations that are set out in either the primary or secondary legislation, but just simply on notice to the Government—what that financial security arrangement will look like. We don’t even say a forward contract for the risk. We’re not even saying that it will be insurance. We’re just saying some sort of financial arrangement will be told in a letter to the Government and that will suffice for this protection. That is not a protection at all; that is allowing the industry to decide what the size of the risk is, how much they think it should be insured for, what the kind of limitation should be, and how best they can minimise what they take on so that the New Zealand taxpayer can pick up the rest of the bill.

My question to the Minister is: has Treasury booked this? Has that Minister been told by Government officials what the size of the risk is, and is it in the Budget? Has he got a line? Has he gone to Nicola Willis and said, “Well, this is going to cost us a contingent liability of some hundreds of millions of dollars, Minister, and that’s what I’m making a decision about and so you’ll have to take that into account in your forward planning”? Has he got advice from Treasury about what the contingent liability is here? That is of interest to the New Zealand public, and it is of interest to the way that we plan for these things for the New Zealand public, to know that they are being asked to foot the bill in future. Is it the Minister’s position, as he told Hon Megan Woods, that this should be a personal liability? He said that it’s “people” who carry these on, and it’s useful for us to actually consider in the mining context that it is people—it’s magnates around the world who buy into New Zealand and who are worth billions of dollars themselves; it’s human beings here.

The Minister is relying on the protection of the corporate veil here, actually, where we give a bunch of special rights to people to set up a company where they are not personally liable for the risk that they are creating, but they are personally entitled to the profits. Why is it fair that the Minister has extended these protections but not required the human beings behind this system to actually continue to be liable for the mining permits when he actually said in an answer—and relied upon the idea—that it would be the people, he said, responsible for the corporate chicanery, I think. Why wouldn’t we then continue, in his version of the world, to require those people to be responsible for the clean up? If those people were responsible for the financial security arrangements that he has created in section 89Z, then there would be a level of protection for the New Zealand taxpayer, but he knows that that’s not the case, actually, and in his answer to the Hon Dr Megan Woods he might want to correct that point.

Finally, I’d put to him that there is no accounting for how valuable this is to the industry. We don’t know how useful this will be in the future because there is no seeing out what those financial arrangements will be or where they will rank in the event of an insolvency. It’s simply up to the industry to provide to the Government what that arrangement will be, but not whether they will be able to call on it in the event of an insolvency, not where it will rank in terms of bank debt, in terms of if there are other liabilities owing—which always in these situations there are. Will they be able to call on those financial arrangements that they will have to prove they have in place to actually do the job, or will this be a mere paper protection that doesn’t actually look after New Zealanders at all?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I repeat again—because we are now suffering a bout of repetition—section 89 lays out the fact that no one is walking away from their decommissioning responsibilities once they are caught by this regime. In the event an entity or entitlements are transferred, the obligation of making good travels forward. The reference to the fact that there might be phoenix companies is not only out of order; it reflects the fact that there has not been adequate study directed towards these overdue improvements in the bill.

I say again: the trailing liability is a backstop measure that enables, and is clearly reflected in this bill, that people not run away from their obligations. The former Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, makes a very good point. There was an egregious case of that. But, look, we can’t live the future on historical, random mistakes; we have to move forward and ensure that this sector attracts investment within guardrails, and that’s what section 89 does, in particular, by closing the loophole which I have spoken at nauseating frequency about during this period of time this morning. We are managing the Crown’s fiscal risk, but we’re also ensuring that we don’t squash initiative and close down this industry, because that’s not the position of our Government and certainly not the position of myself.

Once again, I feel that I’ve addressed virtually every question. There is one small matter that pertains to what the Minister may or may not be required to take account of, and I simply direct the attention of Opposition members to what the law actually says. The law is very clear in terms of what matters the Minister—and it’s not “may”; it’s an enforceable duty—must take into account, and that shows that whoever the Minister is in the future, or what’s delegated down to regulators, these are enforceable duties. They’re not discretionary duties, which would suggest that the members on the other side of the Chamber are playing for time, and, sadly, New Zealand does not have time to muck around on energy security any longer.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The last sentence that the Minister for Resources said there actually brings us back to some unanswered questions through the course of this committee of the whole House stage that the Minister has not addressed, in terms of the time—the time it would take for anything that came about as a result of this legislation to go from exploration to production. We’ve heard from officials and a range of sources that the earliest date we could expect would be 2035. The Minister’s need for haste is somewhat put into perspective when you consider the time that it is going to take.

The Minister made a number of interesting points there. I particularly want to home in on, within clause 41, the replacement that will be made to section 89ZM. It’s what the Minister just referred to, what the Minister must take into account. Before I get into the detail of that, the Minister claims we’re getting into repetition, but we’re not.

Arena Williams: Far from it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Far from it, because we’re still waiting for answers. One of those critical answers that we’re waiting on from the Minister is the advice that he received from his officials that told him that limiting trailing obligation would increase the risk to the Crown. It’s why it is that he is choosing—having had that advice, knowing that he is increasing the risk to the Crown; i.e., the New Zealand taxpayer, putting them on the hook—to go ahead with the option that he is; that is, limiting trailing liability back to one company.

Now, the Minister talks about a random mistake in the past. That was no random mistake; that was something that was allowed by New Zealand legislation and I am proud that our Government closed that down. What we have today in this Chamber is a Government that is choosing to blow that wide open again so that we can have more of that liability fall on the New Zealand taxpayer. The Minister says that this just puts us in place with other jurisdictions who have guardrails—

David MacLeod: Repetition.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —but the Minister has not answered the question—those guardrails that other countries choose to put in place for their citizens, for their taxpayers, are perpetual liability, not a limitation on trailing liability to the last permitholder. If we look to the UK and we look to Australia, they’ve put in place perpetual liability in their exclusive economic zone and in their continental shelf area. Why is our Minister giving New Zealanders a weak, anaemic, watered-down version of these guardrails? Why do we, as New Zealanders, not deserve the same guardrails that Australians or the British enjoy from their Governments in the protections that will be put in place?

In terms of replaced section 89ZN, what I’m wanting to know is, in terms of the subjective considerations that the Minister has to take into account—and is often the case with how legislation is written—are these cumulative criteria that need to be taken into account? Can the Minister choose, in terms of the hierarchy of the criteria that are laid out within the replaced section 89ZN? There is, obviously, a list that is put there, but is this the intended decision-making hierarchy that would be put in place when the Minister goes to make that decision? I think it is important that the committee understands how subjective ministerial decision-making will take place. This is a large piece of decision making that the Minister is carving out within this legislation, so it is important we understand what that is.

In terms of the estimated cost of decommissioning, if we look at the replacement section 89ZM(1)(c)(i), “the estimated cost of decommissioning” is the first—will that be the first one that the Minister has to take into account? Then add subparagraph (ii), “the extent to which the amount to be secured will cover the estimated cost of decommissioning”—is that the second or, within this subjective decision-making criteria framework, does the Minister have the ability to change the order of what needs to be taken into account? How does the Minister see that playing out and then how the various subclauses? Subjective decision-making is something the House always needs to understand further.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. It is interesting that members on this side of the Chamber have had to labour this question in particular, about this section, because it is serious, and I feel like the Minister has sort of just tried to fluff it up and make out that this is no big deal—you know, “Nothing to see here, people.”

I think that the New Zealand public need to see what is going on here and they need to understand. Yes, we have talked at length about Tamarind; yes, we have talked at length about what the Hon Dr Megan Woods had to take to the Labour Cabinet in terms of the money that we, as taxpayers, have spent and are spending on that decommissioning. But I would also just remind the committee that it’s not only the taxpayer; it’s also contractors and local creditors who are out of pocket in terms of that space. It’s not just the taxpayer; it’s actually the small mum-and-dad businesses that the other side like to talk about championing, but they were left out of pocket in terms of what happened there with Tamarind. That’s why, on this Part 3, we need to be really clear, and we need to take our time to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

The Minister has said that it’s just one bad apple and it’s just one thing, but the challenge that we have here—and I’m going to be talking about the amendments to section 89L in clause 37 shortly. The problem we have here—and in Part 1, when I spoke to the Minister—is around the fact that the decline that we’ve seen in fossil fuels since 2014 means that we’re in a position now where those who will come into this country to extract are, basically, trying to squeeze every last bit out, and we know that those businesses, those companies, are often the ones who are the rookies. They often are the ones who are doing all they can to squeeze that last little bit out. Yes, we have had this incident, but I am concerned that there will be more and more and more of them as we have less and less in the tank, so to speak.

On section 89L, again, we just want to be clear—and the Minister spoke earlier, saying that the word “must” is in there a lot. The word “may” does exist in there quite a lot, too. In section 89L(4), in clause 37(2), they’re wanting to replace “A financial security” with “An acceptable financial security arrangement”. Now, I am concerned by this because I think that changing the wording and putting in “An acceptable”—acceptable to whom? Who is this acceptable to? My concern is that, if it is acceptable to the Minister, that puts issues in place, where the fact is that a Minister who comes in could be someone not as diligent and not as well-thought-out as he is, and then “An acceptable financial security arrangement” could be unacceptable to the rest of us. The word “acceptable” is acceptable to whom? That’s open to discretion. It’s open to people to have their own game, where they’re looking at their own space and place. It is of real concern, and so I want to really challenge the fact that the wording is being watered down in section 89L(4) to “An acceptable”. I think that is unacceptable, that word “acceptable”, because who is that acceptable to?

I then want to move on, because, again, we are responsible, as people who administer the purse strings of this nation, as I’ve said, to local creditors, who are in a position where they are challenged in terms of this. Then I want to look at new section 89ZN, “Decision of Minister”, in clause 41. I come to new section 89ZN(3), which says that “The Minister may also direct how the financial security arrangement must operate in accordance with the prescribed requirements (if any).” Again, can’t we just put “must” in there, because I am concerned, and we on this side of the Chamber are concerned, that there are gaps and there are spaces where there is the potential for what we’ve seen in the past, which was the huge amount of money we’ve had to pay and the huge amount of, I guess, distrust that then came to the sector, but then also it was across all of those smaller creditors, who struggled and were unable to meet their demands when Tamarind closed down.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I want to clarify a matter because the former Minister, the Hon Megan Woods, has raised a very important point: how long will a liability exist for in terms of trailing? There’s two elements here: there’s trailing in some sort of Garden of Eden analogy, and there’s trailing back to the entity that will have held the entitlement. Their obligation is a perpetual obligation. It was possible for them to escape that obligation because of sloppy drafting and the ability for sharp practices in terms of moving shareholding around. That has now been blocked. So, yes, I think there’s a small measure of confusion here. The Minister is correct in that the perpetual obligation will not go back to distant holders of permits; it only goes back up the chain of ownership a certain level, and that is the balance between what the Opposition feel are the legitimate interests of the taxpayer, which I share, and also a common-sense approach.

Now, I go back again to section 89—I fear that very few people on the other side of the Chamber have read section 89—in each particular segment, it lays out the obligations upon the Minister, and yes, there is a change of language, and the Minister, with advice, had the ability to ascertain what is the most effective monetary deposit or enforceable financial instrument that should be relied upon by the regulators in the future. For those reasons, I say again, it’s a relatively inoffensive part of the bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): “It’s a relatively inoffensive part of the bill”—I think it is, actually, a huge challenge. We’re not talking here about a dairy owner ending their lease and walking away. We’re not talking about a shoe shop that’s ending their lease and moving on and leaving the chattels and bits and pieces floating around. We are talking about the energy industry, we’re talking about oil and gas, we’re talking about the ocean, we’re talking about these types of things where it’s not just unplug and off you go; it’s actually the challenge of ensuring that it is done correctly and in a way that is acceptable to environmental standards. Once these holes have been dug, once these wells have been traversed and used, there is a huge process that goes on to decommission them. Again, it is not just a simple shoe shop owner leaving the lease and leaving a few chattels and a bit of wallpaper; this is actually an environmental challenge, this is actually a challenge for those small mum and dad businesses.

When the Minister said this is just a fairly easy, simple bit, that is not the case. We are talking about the seriousness of an oil spill, we’re talking about the seriousness of a gas leak, we’re talking about in perpetuity. The challenges we have are not just for today, not just for this decade, but in decades to come, to ensure that we have it right, so we need to continue to prosecute the section to make sure that the Minister has considered every option, has considered every part of this to make sure that it is not only safe for our environment, that it is not only safe for small businesses, but also to make sure it’s safe for whichever Government leads. I personally do not want to be part of the next Government when we’re having to make a call that the Hon Megan Woods had to make in the last term. I do not want to be part of a Government that is having to fork out more and more taxpayers’ money when, as has been said, we could be spending that on housing, on roading—we could be spending that on hospitals.

This is a crucial part of this bill, and we need to make sure that we get it right and that the Minister actually answers the questions for us.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to address something that the Minister said in his last contribution. I think he is mistakenly thinking there’s confusion on the side of this Chamber about trailing liability and what that means. We understand only too well what this watering down of the protections for New Zealanders that is contained in this legislation is.

What I want to know from the Minister in the chair is what are the protections for the New Zealand taxpayer in a scenario where there is a transfer of a permit across two or three companies for the purposes of avoiding the liability because it only pertains to the immediate permit holder? What protections are there in the regime in this legislation or in other jurisdictions to stop the fact that a company will transfer a permit two times so that they can escape the liability and that that will end up with the New Zealand taxpayer? I don’t see any in this legislation. Maybe I’m missing it, but I look forward to the Minister in the chair detailing what provisions of this legislation contain those protections.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I’ll reiterate; I’ll give the Minister time to get some advice to point us to exactly where those protections are within this legislation. This is a serious question that cannot be shut down by a Government that does not want to answer questions about the fact that it is putting the New Zealand taxpayer at risk. I repeat to the Minister in the chair: where are the protections to prevent a two-step transfer of a permit so that the Crown ends up holding the liability?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I don’t want to water down what I’ve just heard—because I think it’s an absolutely critical question—by asking another, but I do want to ask another. What we have here is a regime for deciding on what a reasonable deposit is and for the use of that deposit, actually, for some of the decommissioning work. What I want to know about is that process of deciding a reasonable amount, what protection is there if the work, actually, that needs to be done turns out to be much more expensive than that deposit. There’s an actual use, from what I can see, of the deposit, if there is a deposit agreed that is cash or bonds, etc., for decommissioning. Well, what if the cost of decommissioning is actually way above the amount of that deposit? How confident is the Minister that we have the right kind of assessments going on and how related to the actual cost of decommissioning is the deposit?

What I understand the Minister’s saying is “It’s all a matter of balance. We’re going to just, basically, incentivise people to come here.” Well, we’re not going to be incentivising, from what I can tell in terms of the way he is looking at things, if the deposit is, in fact, the amount of the actual cost of decommissioning. Is he talking about amounts in bonds and deposits that are really a true reflection of the cost, or is he actually—let’s have it plainly on the table—giving people a discount? Is he saying, “This much is going to be put in by the prospector, but in order to promote this kind of activity, we are going to underwrite it as taxpayers to a much greater extent.”? And what is that balance struck?

I don’t like it—I don’t like the argument of the deposit and the balance—because I think there’s a problem there for New Zealand taxpayers and there is a problem with climate issues. I’d like to know how much security work we have beyond that deposit and also what is the amount of that balance in his head there, because I cannot see it written down anywhere. I just get words like “reasonable”.

David MacLeod: It’s defined by experts.

HELEN WHITE: Well, there’s a point being made across the table rather than from the Minister that, in fact, this is defined by experts. My concern about that is that there is just no transparency at all on who those experts are. I would ask the Minister—his colleague is suggesting that it’s defined by experts—who are those experts? What is their expertise? There is an issue of, really, ministerial vulnerability here of being sold a pup, quite frankly. That might well happen with expertise too, where, in fact, we do not have any criteria in this, from what I can see, that nails down who those experts will be, who’ll be giving that advice, and how much safety we have in this scenario.

I’m genuinely interested in that answer, but I don’t want to deflect from the critical question that’s been asked, and we have not had an answer about the actual issue of taxpayers picking up a tab here, because we do not really have any protection in this bill any more from—

Dan Bidois: Repetitious.

HELEN WHITE: And it’s not repetition. In fact, sir, if in fact we have not got the answer, all I’m saying is please do not lose focus on the issue that was asked about by the Hon Megan Woods. Thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just referring to the last two questions, the Minister for Resources has already extensively covered section 89—liability of specified persons for default by permit holder or licence holder—and the protections available within that, and the comparability of that with other jurisdictions.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next contribution, just to note that the generic issues around this section 89 have been addressed, but I do note that there has been drilling down into a bit more specific concerns around liability, for example. If future contributions could actually focus specifically on the clauses in terms of section 89, the committee would be grateful.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, and I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, for that contribution, but it doesn’t address the question of the protection around the liability. If I’m mistaken, I invite the Minister to point me, in section 89, to which bit does offer New Zealanders those protections, because my reading of the section 89 that is going to be amended, that is going to be put in there, which is about the revision of records, is that it does not contain any of those protections.

I go back to the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to tell us, to tell this committee, where the preventions for a two-step transfer of a permit exist within this legislation. It is not in the clause the Minister has just pointed to. It was not something that was addressed by the Minister who was formerly in the chair. It is something that this committee has not had answers to, to its satisfaction, and it is important.

There are a number of other questions that have been put in terms of the hierarchy of decision making, how the Minister will go through there—for example, with section 89ZM. Again, that has not been addressed. There are a number of outstanding questions, but first and foremost this committee deserves an answer, and New Zealanders deserve an answer, on what this Government is doing to protect them from holding billions of dollars’ worth of liability. There is nothing in this legislation, but if there is, I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, to point the committee to it, because there is nothing that has been discussed to date in this debate.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Mr Chair, this is a serious question that has been put before the Government to attempt to shut down New Zealanders finding out where the protection is of them holding billions of dollars’ worth of liability that is caused by multinational companies that come in and not only exploit our resources, but this Government is setting them up to exploit New Zealand taxpayers.

This Government cannot answer where the protections for New Zealanders are. This is outrageous. This shows this is a Government that is not putting New Zealand first. It shows that it is a Government that is bending to the will of industry. It is doing what industry asks without due thought—even a passing thought—to how it is we protect New Zealanders.

I put to the Minister in the chair—I will give you time to get advice; I understand that is what is happening here—where in this legislation is the specific clause that protects New Zealanders from a two-step transfer of a permit? That trailing liability now means the Crown will pick up that liability. This is a serious question, and shame on those Government members that are attempting to shut down a debate where New Zealanders could get an answer on this most important question.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I understand the Minister for Resources has spoken on this and I know that there was considerable discussion around this. The Minister has to approve transfers—that is the first protection—and also the previous permit holder plus controlling parties do remain on the hook because of that. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): That does not adequately answer the question. Once a Minister has done a transfer, that has to be improved—the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, is perfectly correct that a Minister does have to approve a transfer; that is a given, that is recognised, and that is indeed a regime that we put in place. But that does not speak to the fundamental question. It is after that decision has been made that New Zealanders will be subject to the liability; it is the two-step transfer. It is unknown to the Minister at that time of approval whether there is going to be liability. I do not think any Minister is blessed with the gift of the ability to see into the future to know whether that is the case. It has to be a retrospective protection that is put in place for New Zealand.

We’ve seen in other regimes, and the advice that this Government receives, that they do it in the UK and in Australia by having perpetual liability in place in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf. What the Minister in the chair is pointing to is not a protection in the question that is being asked; it is a provision in the bill—that is a given—but it is certainly not a provision to New Zealand. Unless the Minister can give us more detail, this is a Government that is leaving New Zealanders exposed to the tune of billions and billions of dollars of liability to pick up the tab for multinational companies.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Before I take the next contribution, just to note that Speaker’s ruling 82/5 states that it is for the Minister to decide whether to answer a question. There is also a balance that needs to be made between a Minister answering a question and members not being satisfied. I am trying to strike that balance and note that there have been a number of questions asked and answered on the topic of the liability. I encourage members to address some other aspects of that part.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 214 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 214 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule as amended 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): This is a bill that is set to come into force on 1 July 2025. This is a bill that is going through this committee stage while the world is meeting at the Conference of the Parties (COP), where we are discussing what the world’s climate obligations are and how, as a planet, we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change. Meanwhile, back in New Zealand, this Government is passing legislation that takes us backwards. It’s passing legislation that puts at risk our membership of several international organisations of countries we would like to align ourselves with. It puts us outside of where we would see ourselves with like-minded nations. This is yet another shameful step on the path. It also puts New Zealand at odds with its Pacific neighbours. For the Pacific nations that put up for COP at Baku, one of the key things they see is around the financial arrangements that are going to be required in order for them to address climate change. Certainly, New Zealand backtracking on its obligations is something that is going to be taken very seriously.

From 1 July next year, New Zealand will have set itself on a path that puts itself backwards. What did the Government hear about this? Well, the Government heard a lot about this from its own officials. I want to make it clear to New Zealanders, and ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, to respond to how it is that this Government can put so much at risk. Not only our reputation and our climate plan, but it is putting our very trade arrangements at risk. There was advice that was provided to the Government that was inadvertently released, and it was tried to be shielded, from the first regulatory impact statement, in terms of what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) had told the Government were the implications of the passage of this legislation. MFAT assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligation of several of New Zealand’s free-trade agreements not to reduce environmental protections for the purposes of encouraging trade or investments. These obligations prevent parties from reducing environmental protections to advantage domestic businesses.

In black and white, this Government was told our free-trade agreements with the EU and the UK are being put at risk because of the passage of this legislation. From 1 July next year when this bill comes into force and when this bill becomes the law of New Zealand, our free-trade agreements are put at significant risk. What does the Minister have to say about how New Zealand is going to protect its prosperity from 1 July when this bill comes into force? What is the plan of the Government to mitigate that? They have been told by their own officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that this is a likely implication. They also have assessed that reversing the 2018 ban, which is estimated to increase our carbon emissions, would be perceived as New Zealand not intending to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. Is it the intention of the Government —and the Minister can tell us—from 1 July when this bill comes into force, that New Zealand is intending not to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement?

That is the advice that the Government has received from its own officials, and we need some answers too, because as soon as this bill does commence on 1 July next year, that is the future that New Zealanders are facing from a backwards-looking Government that has no plan, that is putting everything at risk. It is putting New Zealanders at risk and it is putting our trade at risk as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next contribution, can I remind members that this is the “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. I didn’t want to interrupt the previous member. It’s quite a narrow debate, so just to keep that in mind.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some really specific suggestions for the title. I want to pick up, firstly, the very clear fact that this bill threatens to lock us in to a fossil fuel - dependent future that we know we actually need to be steering away so clearly from, and instead we’re heading towards it.

My first suggestion to amend the title is the “Crown Minerals Amendment (Shoddy Process) Act”. I say “Shoddy Process” because it has such serious implications—not only for Aotearoa but for the world—that it is an absolute disappointment that the submission process for this bill was four days. It’s an insult to New Zealanders; it’s an insult to democracy. Then, there were only two days of public hearings as part of that as well. I want to quote Victoria University professor Dean Knight. He called this “a meaningless opportunity that doesn’t do justice to the importance of the policy and the legislation.” He said it was “bad lawmaking”—which it is, hence the suggestion of my title clause—“and they know it”, because you can’t look at processes like this and think it is getting to positive outcomes. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) with this—

David MacLeod: Title and commencement.

LAN PHAM: On this title clause—which I’m suggesting; thank you—the PCE said, “The advice accompanying the bill does not provide a sufficiently thorough analysis of costs and benefits from repealing the ban”. He talks about New Zealand’s policy always being that all countries should be doing everything they can to reduce emissions, and that MPs must now decide whether removing the ban is consistent with doing that. I’d really like to hear the Minister for Resources’ thoughts on that specific title clause suggestion and whether there has been a very clear decision made by MPs in this Government to move away from that.

The other suggestion that I wanted to pick up on is a very important one, and this is about how, overwhelmingly, children and young people of today, but also future generations, will bear the burden of living with these climate impacts. On this, I want to suggest another potential title clause amendment, that it could be the “Crown Minerals (Rights of Children Violation) Act”. What is really clear is that this Government, and future and past Governments, have been signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child for over 30 years. The Government has a real, clear duty to these rights of the child, and we actually have a duty to make decisions in the best interests of the child under article 3.

Now, I want to pick up on this because UNICEF made a really clear submission to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and they actually had a young person—Thomas Blakie—come in and talk about his concern, and his concern for young people and those who will come after us, and the implications for them with this bill. He said, “We want to have a say on designing our future and the future of generations to come—my children, their grandchildren, and their grandchildren after them.” A UNICEF report called A Threat to Progress talks about how children are disproportionately affected because “they are uniquely vulnerable to environmental hazards compared to adults.” They talk about how this interplay of physiological, psychological, and behavioural factors, and the dependence on caregivers, means that children are more susceptible to detrimental health impacts of climate change.

I would really like to hear whether the Minister would consider really fronting up with what this bill is about and the implications for children, for young people, and the really concerning process which has led to where we’ve got to at this stage. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is—

Steve Abel: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I’ve just started voting—sorry. No one stood up and I just started the votes. The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 214 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 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 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

New Zealand is sometimes referred to as the Shaky Isles. Our reputation internationally and, of course, our awareness at home is that we are a nation that is subject to significant seismic risk. That is the context for the legislation that we’re considering. Of course, it is the context for our legislative and regulatory settings more generally in relation to seismic risk, in general, and the earthquake-prone building regime in particular.

I do want to acknowledge, at the start, the risk that exists. We are mindful of that risk. We understand it. We are aware of the need to legislate and regulate in a way that is responsible, given that life-safety risk and given the importance of resilient buildings of certain categories particularly, but, of course, also acknowledging the importance of the built environment. Our desire is to ensure maximum safety and maximum resilience, even as we balance considerations that would enable us to achieve a proportionate approach in relation to that risk.

I’d also like to acknowledge the loss of life in the Canterbury earthquakes of a decade or so ago. That formed the backdrop for the legislation that is now being reviewed and whose deadlines are now being extended by this bill. Again, I just acknowledge the importance of the subject matter and that, indeed, that particular loss of life is the backdrop for all of our decision making in consideration of this important subject.

Since those earthquakes and the tragedies associated therewith, legislation was put forward by the then Government that seemed to have a well-balanced approach to the question of risk. The only question remaining was the extent to which it would prove practicable, over a period of time, for those settings to be implemented such that building owners and local governments and other key players would be able to put those into effect and remediate and strengthen the buildings as was required.

In the intervening nearly decade, considerable progress has been made, and I want to start my reflections on that by congratulating and thanking all those who have acted responsibly to improve the built environment for the safety of themselves, occupants, passers-by, and so on. That said, the relatively easy wins that have been able to be achieved in that time are now behind us, so to speak. The question that we face now, looking forward, is the way in which we can continue to improve the housing stock, the commercial buildings, the infrastructure, and so on, as it relates to seismic risk and, more particularly, whether the settings that we have now are appropriate to achieve that.

It seems that for a number of key players—again, I acknowledge local government as an enforcement authority but also a significant owner of such buildings itself, in many cases, and many others affected by the need to comply with the rules and to achieve real-world life-safety and resilience aims. It seems to us that a review of the settings is now prudent. A review was promised that would otherwise have taken place in a couple of years. We’re bringing that forward. That is the lengthy background to the extension that this bill will give effect to.

As has been canvassed at previous stages of the debate, the extension is for four years, with the possibility of an additional two, should it be required. I emphasise—again, responding to the very reasonable point made by colleagues opposite—that we would prefer only to use four years as opposed to a total of six years for the extension, but we recognise that for external reasons or indeed the operation of the review itself, subsequent legislation may require that additional time. We’ll use that power sparingly if it should be required—noting, of course, essentially the “Henry VIII” nature of that clause within the legislation.

The bill also contains a few other items, probably the most significant of which relates to fire safety—no lesser risk of course—and naturally the Government and, I sense, all of Parliament is minded to take very seriously the risk to life and limb posed by fire no less than earthquakes. Of course, again, there is tragic background to our consideration, and I refer particularly to the Loafers Lodge tragedy, following which a least-regrets or no-regrets approach was taken. That is to say, in addition to the checking of boarding houses for compliance with the existing regulations, the previous Government undertook consideration of ways in which the regulations might be changed in a way that would prove helpful, notwithstanding that a broader review might then also take place.

That broader review is now taking place, but I think it’s prudent for that previous Government to have initiated a look into some of the actions that might be taken in the interim. We’re putting those into effect. They’re set out in the bill, and so I don’t intend to go through those in detail. Again, we did have that opportunity at prior stages of the debate. They included clarifying obligations, setting out offences, and so on so that independently qualified persons would have a sound legal basis or a means by which they might be held accountable in the event of failure.

In terms of other changes in the bill, again, I don’t propose to go through those all again. Legislative statements as well as the debate at previous stages have canvassed those pretty thoroughly, and they’re relatively self-explanatory and, while minor and technical, important in their own right.

I do want to acknowledge, before I conclude my remarks, that the engagement that we have enjoyed in this matter has been exemplary. I’m really grateful, particularly, to sector experts—in no particular order, by the way; I’ll start with sector experts—of an engineering and other relevant backgrounds who have shared their insights with me and the Government more generally and, I know, have been actively engaging across the House, and, again, I thank them for that. Local government were key players in this for the reasons I mentioned before—not only of large cities, including large cities such as Wellington and Christchurch, but also in regional towns in New Zealand that have a higher proportion, often, of earthquake-prone buildings and are so deeply affected by the regulatory settings and the legislative settings that we are putting in place, that we may change, and that, in the meantime, we are extending.

Building owners: of course, apartments, but also other building owners, some of which are heritage in nature—just to add an additional overlay of complication. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—the good folk who have been kind enough to advise me on various technical and policy-related matters throughout. And other parties of this Parliament: I’ve been really pleased with the engagement that I’ve seen and been able to be part of. I do want to acknowledge that, across the House, we’ve had that very positive level of interaction. It’s highly appropriate that a subject like this is treated in such a serious way, and I do want to take a moment to thank members of this House who have engaged in that way—in a way that will be helpful to the certainty that New Zealanders need to feel in this area, notwithstanding any political comings and goings in this place.

Finally, then, I look forward to the way ahead with the passage of this legislation, today, which will provide that certainty, lock in that additional four years, and a possible extra two. In the meantime, of course, the review proceeds apace, which is to say that this legislation is not an exercise in kicking the can down the road; it’s providing certainty in the meantime, while that review is taking place, in the hope that, in the meantime, we will be able to land on some regulatory and legislative settings that will prove helpful and meaningful for those looking to do the right thing and make changes to strengthen or, as the case may be, demolish and rebuild the environment of New Zealand. So, with that, I thank all again in the House for their participation—all those outside as well for their engagement—and commend this bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour wants an improved building system which results in the efficient use of the resources that we have to build more homes—warm, dry, affordable homes that people can live in, in our cities and our regions. That’s what we want and that’s why we’ve engaged in this process of a review in good faith. What we don’t want is pendulum swings between certain sets of rules under one Government and certain sets of rules under another, which destabilises the building sector and mean that, ultimately, more houses don’t get built.

Everyone in this House wants to see families with a roof over their heads and with an opportunity to get into homeownership, so we need more affordable places, and that really does affect a lot of these buildings which are affected by the earthquake-prone buildings rules. They are homes. They are people like you and me who have put all of their life savings into apartments in cities like Wellington. They are people in Christchurch who are affected by these rules and cannot live in their homes. They are Aucklanders who have buildings—the highest number of buildings, actually, on the list—that are affected by these rules and cannot develop them.

There’s a real level of gravity with which we’ve approached this debate, and we think this balance is appropriate in this context. But, boy, do we want to see the Government using this period of review wisely. Twice the Law Commission has looked into the rules underlying the system, about the liability of not only builders but also homeowners and the councils who approve their consents. Who should bear the liability of earthquakes in New Zealand is a really fundamental question, and we must—if we are taking a step back, we must—use this time well, we must resource it properly, and we must make sure that stakeholders all around the country are getting to feed into this.

I just want to make a few points. I won’t labour this, because I think we’ve had a very good parliamentary process where we have really hashed out some of these questions that have been remaining, including at the select committee stage—and may I commend the Transport and Infrastructure Committee chair, Andy Foster, for the way that he chaired that process for submitters to have their say.

The big question here is that there is a risk to life and limb in these buildings, and markets do not work well when people do not have the appropriate information that they need to gauge that risk. There’s a group of people in the building system who will be in a building that is earthquake-prone and will have no idea—say, the teenagers who might have used the Reading Cinema on the weekend might not have any idea of the earthquake risk—so it is appropriate not to let people use that kind of building. Then you have another group of people who have a reasonable amount of information. They may be casual users of a building—say, a car park in Wellington that might be earthquake-prone; say, guests of homeowners who might be in an apartment that is affected by earthquake risk. There’s people who have very limited information, and then there are also homeowners who, for whatever reason, do not have a huge amount of information available to them that they can rely on to make the risk. These are all people where it’s a very, very clear example of consumers who need Government to act in their best interest by setting the rules at a certain level that they can rely on; that they are not putting themselves at undue risk from any building that they go into.

On the other end of the spectrum, we also know that very sophisticated commercial arrangements around insurance, where information is readily available to the market, are not working well either—that insurance is very hard to get for many of the apartment owners in Wellington and for building owners around the country who are affected by the earthquake rules. We need a system designed so that the information that is being used is not too risk-averse and that adequately reflects the financial implications in the future and now, and so that we’re getting the right kind of market outcomes.

In some situations, it will be that the current owners need to sell buildings and then there needs to be redevelopment, but in some situations, it will mean that insurance should be cheaper for the owners because the real risk to buildings doesn’t reflect the current cost. We need Government to make a call to step into the market to provide the accurate information at a level that people can rely on, that everyone in the market can agree to, and then a standard going forward. There is a bit of an exercise here of drawing a line, and we must do that with some haste. We feel that this bill does that with a reasonable degree of certainty, but we think we really need to use this time and to not delay it.

The only final point I would make is that New Zealand has a history of very costly mistakes when it comes to building policy. Leaky buildings across this country—what one commentator estimated to be $47 billion in costs associated not only with the building sector, not only with participants, but to the wider economy as a whole. I would like to think that, in supporting this, the Labour Party is showing that we are willing to work through those issues and to not make the mistakes of the past.

We will continue to ask the questions that give building participants a level of surety that Government is designing a system which works for everyone; which does not tighten the level of protections at all levels of the building sector rules in such a way where the little guy is left holding the can—where, on one hand, you might make changes to the earthquake rules; on one hand, you might make changes to the consenting rules; and, on one hand, you might make changes to provisions for building products. If at all points in those changes you are leaving the little guy with the liability, then I will propose to you that we are in for a system problem.

We need to make sure that the system as a whole distributes the liability fairly—that is what I think is being done here by making an extension—but we will continue to pose the questions, we will continue to advocate for the little guy in this, and we will continue to advocate for Government not needing to be the insurer of last resort. It is really important, when you have vulnerable consumers, that the Government is not left holding the can. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support this bill because, as we have heard, this bill is something that is going to provide certainty for a lot of people while we conduct the review process of where we are at in terms of earthquake-prone buildings. The extra time is very much welcome. I’d also like to thank the Minister for Building and Construction for his level of engagement and contributions during the committee stage, because I think a lot of that was incredibly valuable and it also provided a lot of clarification.

There are a number of parts to this bill, so I would like to go through some of the major areas that are a part of this bill, with, as we know, earthquake-prone buildings being the most important element. I’ll start with that one, and then I’ll address some of the other areas.

One of the things with the earthquake-prone buildings extension of deadlines is that, in essence, it is a really, really good idea, as we have heard. There is a review that’s going to be happening. It’s going to provide a lot of reassurance for people in the community and for owners—particularly, in the context of apartment owners—that this is something that they’re able to have an extension on and to have some time. They can have that reassurance that they’re able to have this extension, so in that way, they don’t have to get everything all sorted at the immediate stage.

I think that the four-year extension does strike the right balance. There were a lot of conversations around the further extension of two years, particularly when it comes to the triggering of the “Henry VIII” clause in this case, but I think that upon balance and upon examination in the committee stage, the fact that the additional two years may not be triggered depending on where the review is currently at, plus the addition of the sunset clause, does allow some sort of restriction on the scope of that particular clause. The Green Party, in particular, is often quite cautious when anything like this does take place, and I think that in this case we have got some reassurances from the Minister that this is something that would be carefully managed.

In addition to this, some of the other things that we have also addressed when it comes to the earthquake-prone buildings deadlines is the retrospectivity element of this bill, which is that anything that is before 1 April 2024 will be covered by some of this, and then, after that, it will not be covered. We did question the Minister around the use of that particular term. I think that the Minister did clarify that, in general, when we were looking at the financial year, etc., 1 April seemed like an appropriate timing to use in this case, and there are always going to be people who fall on either side of that particular deadline who are not going to be entirely happy.

The other element that was addressed, and it was an element and an aspect of discussion during the committee stage, was around the risk and the potential risk to people’s lives. We are giving this extension of four years, and people who have more urgency during this period to undertake the earthquake-strengthening work that was needed may not see that as being urgent with a four-year extension, and we asked what would be the real-life cost of a lot of these. I think, again, this is something that both the regulatory impact statement but also the Minister mentioned that in terms of the life risk, it is reasonably low. For those people who are already going to make those kinds of changes and have been intending to make those kinds of changes, they are going to do it anyway, and for those people who still have that stringency of the previous deadline and who are unable to meet it, they weren’t going to meet it, regardless of whether the extension is going to happen or not. I think that that is the really salient point that has been mentioned during the committee stage.

Overall, that was the section around the earthquake-prone strengthening element, but there are a few other areas that I want to address that are also important as part of this bill and that we did have some discussions on during the committee stage. The first one is around the building consent authority (BCA) and there is a change in the liability to pay for the levy. As the current system says, when you get the BCA and they are collecting some of these levies, it goes to the local authorities as an intermediary step before they go on to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and in this particular bill, it proposes the removal of that intermediary stage with the local authorities and for them to go from the BCA straight to MBIE.

There were some conversations around whether local authorities would potentially lose out on some of this, and particularly, when we’re looking at clause 5 of this particular bill and the amendments in clause 7 to section 61 of the Building Act, the 3 percent levy that is retained by local authorities—whether that will see local authorities losing out. Again, this is something that we did receive clarification on with regard to the administrative nature of some of this, and, again, it’s just making that process a lot more streamlined.

One of the other elements that we did discuss during this bill as well was around the increased penalties for the independently qualified persons—or IQPs—who make erroneous claims or erroneous reports around the building requirements. This is an area that is missing in the current legislation and can be perceived as a loophole, and it is a loophole that potentially has been exploited by some.

This particular bill just strengthens some of that accountability element and transparency element of the duties of the independently qualified persons, though on other things, we did ask the Minister, and we did get clarification from the Minister on them as well. It’s around where the burden of proof lies when it comes to whether an IQP did actually make a reasonable mistake, and some of the context and scenarios around what constitutes a reasonable mistake. Also, there were further conversations around the proportionality of fines, and we were looking at whether the fines for the IQPs are proportionate to some of the other fines that we see here.

On the subject of fines, there was another area where we did discuss a little bit around clause 32 of the bill, in terms of some of the balance between the fines, particularly when it comes to people making false claims around certain building permits and building warrants of fitness, and the proportionality with some other parts. We did question the Minister as to whether the fines were proportionate with some of the other fines that we see and, again, we had some clarification around the fact that this is less about reviewing the fines on the whole and more around balancing and judging the proportionality and evening out fines of a similar nature, as well as looking at fines that, potentially, are different. That was, again, something else that we received clarification on.

I think the last thing I will mention, in the context of this bill, is around the display of a warrant of fitness for, in particular, dams, which is an element of this. That was something that I think, even during the select committee stage, we were trying to see. It is something that is going to be removed, because the current system potentially doesn’t quite make sense and it does add additional challenges for dams in general.

Looking at the broader context of this bill, I think it is really, really important that we do address the fact that earthquake-strengthening is an important factor. We do need to address the future of housing in Aotearoa, particularly when we are looking at instances where some of our urban centres are having increased density, and looking at how we can build it right in the first place, rather than having what we are doing now. We have heard previous speakers mention Wellington, as well as Ōtautahi/Christchurch, but also one of my colleagues, Celia Wade-Brown, mentioned during the committee stage some of the challenges to other areas of Aotearoa as well, such as the Wairarapa.

I think that, in this case, both in terms of our building code and our requirement around strengthening when building a first build for both residential and also commercial premises, that’s something that we do need to keep a very close eye on, because it does have the potential of not only costing us financially but also costing us from a human life perspective. I think, particularly when we’re looking at an element of natural disasters such as earthquakes, we also should consider climate change - induced disasters, such as the flooding that we’ve seen on the East Coast and also in Tāmaki-makau-rau/Auckland and how some of these things, as we’re considering the building code and the Building Act on the whole, are able to contribute to this.

Lastly, in terms of the earthquake part, again, it is good to just see some reassurances that this review will take place in the appropriate time and that we are going to be able to see some changes to those earthquake-prone buildings. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Building in New Zealand is full of uncertainty. From the moment someone comes up with a concept of a plan or to develop a piece of property or to renovate an existing piece, the uncertainty begins. We’ve got economic uncertainty: “Am I going to get the lending? Have I got someone to buy this development? Are there going to be the products available, the labour, the skills needed when I need them to actually get this project off the ground?” I would like to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward such a wonderful piece of legislation, because this country’s building industry needs certainty.

Unfortunately, the situation we have now in this specific part of our building industry is around the ways in which one can achieve earthquake levels that are seen as sufficient. Now, we’ve got a lot of players in our building industry. We’ve got the builder; you’ve got the owner, the client; you’ve got the building consenting authority; you’ve got the public and the safety which they expect and this Government is required to ensure; and we’ve got councils and planning. There are a lot of people with their fingers in the pie. Joint and several liability has led to a situation where all of those people are pushing the burden on to each other.

We need to get more certainty into our industry, and I think this piece of legislation, enabling an extension for a review to take place, is exactly what the doctor ordered in this particular instance. It’s setting the groundwork for future developments in our industry, with standalone building consenting authorities and making that a situation where they can be seen more as an independent organisation, rather than just another wing of the council, along with waste and parks and other assorted activities which councils must do.

I would be remiss not to, in this case, thank the submitters. At the select committee, we had some great submissions which raised some interesting points. In the report back, with other matters that were raised that weren’t exactly relevant but were raised, I think you can see that there is a lot of interest in the future make-up of the regulatory systems of our building industry. No lesser members than the independently qualified persons and the building warrant of fitness regime which they are a core part of have something to say. I think the Minister has sufficiently addressed that he is looking into that.

I will just thank the rest of the committee. I know I did in the second reading, but I think it was a very collegial committee, ably chaired by Mr Andy Foster. With that, I would like to commend this to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look, I’m pleased to rise to speak to this third reading and I also just want to pay my thanks to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. You’ve already heard from a couple of members there. We do work collegially together and, as I’ve said before, I’d invite any member of this House to come and have a look at how a collegial committee works together; it’s a good thing to see, because that’s the way we should be operating.

I also wanted to place on record my thanks to the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in particular, but also to the submitters. We did get some really good submitters. Some of those submissions, particularly around the independently qualified person (IQP) issues, were not ones which are—while the stick, in a sense, is in the legislation, they certainly made comments around saying, “Well, we need a regime which actually provides a lot better professionalism of that industry, but also the support mechanisms”, so they’re not left on their own, essentially, and other people have run for the hills. That’s really, really important. We got 23 submissions: 12 in favour, nine unclear—but that’s because they were raising these other matters—and only two opposed. It’s really great to see the bill really well supported in the House, because it makes good common sense.

I’m going to focus specifically on the earthquake-prone component. As we’ve heard already, it just simply extends the deadlines which were already there. If you’re after 1 April 2024, it extends it for four years. There is another two years, but as you’ve heard from the Minister, the desire is not to use that but to get the review through in time so it doesn’t need to be done. If that power is exercised, it can only be exercised once, and it can only be exercised for all buildings. You can’t cherry-pick; that’s the way it works.

I thought it was worth just reflecting on why we have seismic legislation, and the reason is, as we’ve heard from the Minister, that we live in some shaky isles. Look, it was interesting to reflect on and find out some information there: we get something like 14,000 earthquakes a year—14,000 earthquakes a year—of which we can feel probably around 250. We sit right on top of the Ring of Fire, of course. We sit on the place where the Australasian and Pacific faults or plates collide. If you look at a map of Zealandia, the continent we sit on, over the 70 to 80 million years since the separation from Gondwanaland, it has changed—and changed, and changed—and it will continue to change. And that, of course, brings seismic activity with it.

We heard from some of the speakers at the second reading suggesting it was inappropriate to compare the number of people who have died in earthquakes against the number of people who’ve died in road crashes, which I did, but it wasn’t to belittle by any circumstances the human stories, the human tragedy there is in earthquakes. The point that they made was that whether you lived or died in the Christchurch earthquake depended on where you were at 12.51 p.m. on 22 February 2011. Let’s be very clear that that was a tragedy; the Christchurch earthquake was a tragedy and the vast majority of the 185 people who died died because buildings or bits of buildings fell on them. A robust regime is an appropriate and fitting response to that.

For the record, since 1840, 493 people are recorded to have died in earthquakes—185 in the Canterbury earthquakes—and more than half of those deaths occurred in one earthquake, the Napier earthquake in 1931: 256 people. Just for completeness, I couldn’t easily find the road deaths before 1921, but from 1921 until now, the death toll on our roads is 41,821, which is more people than we’ve lost in every war put together. That’s something that is worth saying.

Let’s also be very clear, it’s my belief that we do need to have resilient building structures. When the whole IQP process started, over 7,000 buildings were deemed to be earthquake-prone. To date, something like 2,000 have been resolved. It’s about 27 to 28 percent of them that have been resolved, and as at 6 August, when this bill was brought to the House, 5,421 buildings were on the earthquake list. As I said, about 27 to 28 percent have been resolved.

I live in Wellington, we work in Wellington, and I’d like you to consider the likelihood of a major earthquake that might affect Wellington, because this has always been a serious issue for Wellington, right since 1855 when there was a first earthquake here which did cause some fatalities. Over the next 50 years, we’ve been advised that there’s a 75 percent chance of a magnitude 8-plus movement on the Alpine Fault, which would affect Wellington and affect, obviously, the South Island; the Wellington Fault itself, only a 5 percent chance of a magnitude 7.5; and the Hikurangi Fault, which is where those two plates collide, 25 percent for a magnitude 8 and, God help us, a 1 percent chance for a magnitude 9.1, which would be absolutely devastating. The risks to life and limb—I’ve given some numbers for the number of people who’ve died in earthquakes since 1840; if some of those happen, they may dwarf those things. This is serious business, and we need to be prepared for it.

Wellington City started an extensive programme of assessments in 2006, well before the Canterbury earthquakes, and has assessed 8,440 buildings. It found 1,100 of those to be earthquake-prone, and it’s down to about 572 now. Basically, 50 percent of those have been resolved, and it’s come at significant cost—it’s come at significant cost. Auckland: lower risk, but three times as many earthquake-prone buildings as Wellington. I might just say also that the authorities say there is a 10 percent chance in the next 50 years of major volcanic activity in Auckland. We do live on shaky and challenged isles. If we look overseas, we’ve seen that there are many countries which have suffered large numbers of deaths in earthquakes, largely because they’ve had very poor building stock, so being prepared is important.

The point that I was trying to make is that there is an immense cost to making our building stock resilient. Sometimes that cost may well not be warranted and sometimes we could do that in a different way, and that is the reason for this extension. That’s the reason that we’re doing a review. There are also problems for industry capacity, owner capacity, and affordability, and, obviously, making sure that the regime is optimal.

I just want to congratulate the Minister for undertaking the comprehensive review. I welcome that it’s being brought forward. I also welcome the comments made by my colleague across House, Arena Williams, saying that there is a desire for stability, because when you invest in a building, you invest in a building that you expect to be there for a long, long time. When the rules change—and we heard this in the submissions process, from Inner City Wellington in particular—you might have a building which is not earthquake-prone, 60-70 percent or whatever it might be, the rules change and suddenly you’ve got an earthquake-prone building. That kind of looks a bit like retrospective legislation. The point that they made is that it’s a moving feast—that it’s never done. That is not something which we should be imposing on our building owners.

We also heard from Inner City Wellington—and it puts a real human face on the challenge that there is—that many residents feel trapped. They’ve got a building; it’s suddenly earthquake-prone. It wasn’t before; it’s now earthquake-prone. Now they’ve got to work out how to afford the insurance, how to sort the finances out, how to deal with issues around unit titles legislation, because they’ve got to pull all these owners together, and the physical complexity of actually organising and strengthening a building. Those are really challenging issues. The last Government had a go at trying to put in place a regime to provide some support, but I understand that it was so complicated that nobody was actually in a position to take it up. I think one building might have got close, but they didn’t quite get there. Sometimes we’ve just got to take some risks and back people to do those things.

As you heard from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I’d like to also reflect on what this means, too, for our aspirations to densify the inner city, particularly here, but it’ll also be true in Christchurch and, I’m sure, in other parts of our country. If we’ve got aspirations to do that, we need to have—

James Meager: Timaru.

ANDY FOSTER: —Timaru; yeah—a regime that actually works and gives people confidence.

Just to finish off with, we need to make sure that we provide certainty for people. We also need to understand the way in which the market responds to reduced New Building Standard - equivalent ratings. We’re seeing that, by and large, people in this place want to say, “Well, look, we will not rent a place that’s not 80-plus percent. It was 80 percent; now it’s less than 80 percent, so now we’ll walk away from it.” What does that do for the market? That’s an issue.

Then there are issues around the credibility of assessments and making sure that people understand and can rely on assessments and that they don’t change over time. What about single-storey wooden buildings? Maybe I’m raising a few things here for the review to consider. What is the likelihood that they’ll collapse? What is the likelihood that they might kill somebody? We’ve got a whole heap of single-storey wooden buildings. I’ll bet you there are a fair few marae in there as well. Should they be covered by this? Because we don’t cover single-storey residential properties. There are a lot of issues which need to be dealt with through this review, and I’m looking forward very much to getting through its process.

Finally, the other thing I wanted to say is—and the Minister also did allude to this—there are often much-loved and economically valuable heritage buildings which are caught up in this as well. By no means all the buildings which are earthquake-prone are heritage buildings, but those are buildings which we need to find a solution for, because we list them not because of private good but because of public good, and we need to think about how we support those.

And finally, how do we stop ourselves building in dumb places? I’d like to reflect that the Christchurch City Council said, going back a few years, they didn’t want to have that development occurring in what is now the red zone. They fought against that. They got overruled by the court system; developers trying to develop it. That’s the red zone. That’s cost the country an enormous amount, and a lot of those homes have now, of course, disappeared. It’s a complex subject, a technical subject. That complexity is for the review, but this bill in this sense is a sensible one. It’s clearly well supported, and I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa. The marae is the focal point of Māori society and all communal activities—koinei ngā kōrero a Dr Ranginui Walker [these are the words of Dr Ranginui Walker.] Apart from many, many other marvellous things that he said, this is one of them that I want to focus on i roto i taku kōrero [in my speech.]

Again, we bring to the attention of the House the precarious state of marae throughout the motu, that may be forced to close and be demolished if they fail to meet the deadlines. Te Pāti Māori notes feedback from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which has proposed two minor changes for inclusion into the principal Act. One of them is the deadlines for completing seismic work, and the other is to allow the Governor-General to extend on any of those deadlines. For some marae, time extensions without the necessary funds required for seismic upgrades simply delays the inevitable, and this bill does not address the fundamental inability for marae and hapū to afford seismic strengthening. Often marae and hapū are called upon to assist with civil emergency efforts. Doors open willingly to accommodate and support those in need.

Most marae do not have a business plan—I giggle because that’s so true—and yet they are functional, available, and they’re good to go. Yesterday, we received a call—and some of us, maybe many, will understand this. Marae can be called into action immediately, as they were yesterday when we received a call from one of our marae that one of our whanaunga had passed. Suddenly, the marae kicks into gear, somebody heads down there and starts making up 200 beds, and suddenly there’s three people in the kitchen doing all that work to make that available for the kaupapa, as we did for Gabrielle in Whangārei. I was part of that effort—both Hūhana and I, actually.

I’m just making the point about the importance and the significance. A marae is more than just a building; it is a place of worship and gathering. It is a place that has whakapapa to it. When we talk about marae, we don’t talk about just the building, and we don’t just talk about the bricks and mortar of it; we talk about the tūpuna that it comes from. We talk about all the work you do when you dress your marae. All of those factors are key. When we need a marae in a civil defence emergency, that’s what you get; you get all of that. You get the physical structure, you get the four aunties in the back who are going to suddenly make bread for 200 people that are coming in the door, and you get all of that Māori capability. It’s an impressive thing. When these requirements come into play, it might sound relatively simple for a building, but it’s quite something else for a marae building.

Marae must be supported as the lifeline critical infrastructure that they are, and to realise this before emergencies occur. It cannot be left unsaid that many marae do not sit on the original sites where they once stood—illegally evicted off their lands, on to reserves, which we heard about in Christchurch recently, designed to be small, scattered, and temporary. Amidst these challenges, climate change continues to threaten coastal communities nationwide and further compounds funding challenges. You see, this removal of whenua and its conservation under European doctrines of financial power and control contributes to the death of people—of Māori, and, in this case, non-Māori as well.

This means our marae, urupā, and wāhi tapu are vulnerable to flooding, coastal erosion, storm surges, and tidal issues. This is a real-life experience of how ecological control has contributed to the financial challenges we face today. A special pathway for marae must be set to meet those deadlines, inclusive of funding availability, and that must occur, otherwise marae inherit all of the national expectation with no national resources. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Greens to provide this short offering of support for this legislation and the amendments. The extension is important. As we know, there has been a pipeline and pressure on the sector, industry, local government, and homeowners to meet the previous time lines provided. The four years is important, as we’ve heard across the House, providing the space and time for us to ready ourselves.

One of the questions that comes to mind is: what is the plan? Then also: do we have the workforce, do we have the resourcing and the tools available, the capital, the contractors to line up the work? And where is our focus? Standing here in Te Whanganui-a-Tara, it’s important to think about places such as Christchurch, Wellington, and Auckland, āe, but for people in the regions—and we’ve heard about the Wairarapa; we might have heard about Tai Tokerau; north, south, east, west—we all need support. What does implementation look like, ultimately, across the board as we have this four-year time frame for us to do the mahi?

In considering the types of buildings, and we’ve heard about good town planning, good regional planning, and not building in dumb places—that’s a good question in terms of joining up the system—what does that look like to prevent what we have experienced in the past, while still servicing the need to remediate the buildings of now?

I thank members for their contributions around our heritage buildings—heritage buildings which reflect our community and some of our colonial experiences, public buildings that are often also administered by community groups. We’ve got a lot of not-for-profits who have administered these buildings for many years and now have the burden of trying to figure out how to fund the necessary remediation in this space—this, coupled with marae, who again, as we’ve heard from my colleague from Te Pāti Māori, lack resources to be able to do the work in their local rohe. It’s all a part of the plan, so what does the plan look like? Incentives for our homeowners as well as those who are the administrating bodies of both public and heritage buildings are really important in terms of our trajectory for the next four years as we have the space to do this work.

I acknowledge the many who contributed to the select committee process. We as the Green Party are comfortable with where we’ve landed—the amendments recommended—and further, I want to acknowledge our workforce and my colleague from the ACT Party, being the voice of builders and construction in the House.

Many of our industry partners—we have big wait-lists, right? That’s just for your average stuff. Having the four years now, and I think about the Tai Tokerau perspective, how do we work with the workforce to get the necessary tradies in place so that the contracts are all timed well and those that are most at risk are put to the top of the list, but, equally, working with local government on not building in dumb places? It would be really good to have that joined-up space.

The big question, of course, is for the community, for the community who administer these buildings with love and care, whether it be a marae, whether it be a heritage building, or those that are with our community halls; you know, you get a little bit of a grant, but you’ve got to do the sausage sizzle on the daily to keep these buildings intact and delivering for our communities. What does that look like?

I know this is implementation kōrero, but it is timely for us to think about it, right? We’ve set the scene. We’re giving the space and time for us to now plan out our future in terms of remediating the space and providing the space for community and owners to do the mahi, for the strengthening of their homes and buildings. But, again, it’s a question of funding for our un-resourced community sector, for marae, for hapū, and wider Aotearoa, and homeowners. We can’t forget them. What are our incentives? Let’s keep the waka moving. On behalf of the Green Party, we support this. Kia ora.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise in support of this bill, the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, on the third reading. It’s been a very collegial process with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee being ably chaired by Andy Foster, and my other committee members—I’d like to thank them for their part in making some good, practical, and pragmatic changes.

I just want to focus mainly on the earthquake changes—the length of time extension. We always want to remember, as we’re doing this, that this stuff is very real and very recent, with the impacts we had recently in Christchurch of the devastating earthquakes down there. That’s always what sits in our minds as we extend this time frame out to work on what regulations we need around buildings in earthquake-prone areas, and regulations we come up with, as we review those regulations, to make them appropriate moving forward.

Speaking as the member of Parliament for Northland, we’ve got to actually take account of the risk factors in an area like Northland, which I would suggest are quite different to Wellington. Whereas Wellington sits on a fault line, Northland—gee! I think, in my entire life, I might have felt one earthquake, at about 3.2 or something like that, in the North. We just don’t tend to get them. I was on my motorbike at the time. As it happens, I can recall getting the cows in, as it was, so I was out there working.

So, look, I just think we’ve got to take all that into account, and I like to think, as we go through this process to review these regulations, that we take account of the risk factors, because different parts of the country will have different risks. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m.