edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): The Minister made it clear in his opening remarks that this is going to lead to cost savings. Now either he's saying that there has been some consolidation of registers already; if that's the case the fees the levies—whatever—should reflect that lower cost structure. That should be a given. But your opening statement made it clear—and you implied that ACT supported this—that there would be cost savings as a result of putting this together and allowing this to be a levy put across the 13 or 16 registers right? If you are talking about further investment how do you know that you're going to get further savings? Have you put up a business case or is that just you talking as if you think it may lead to it? And if you think it may lead to it—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Bayly a very liberal use of you" in there. Can we just—ANDREW BAYLY: Yes I'm sorry. Is the Minister just making an assumption and trying to make it sound like a fact or what is the nature of his opening comments?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'll respond to the substance; I think I have already. My understanding is that with the integration of existing systems some economies of scale have already been achieved. That is why—and I take it is a fundamental truth that economies of scale tend to achieve savings. That is generally the case. In any case the fees are set in accordance and after consultation with the users of the scheme. That's a requirement that's been laid down that we've already discussed. So I would anticipate that over time IT systems would continue to be more efficient and that would be a benefit to users. Now the fact that we can capture those benefits legally as opposed to in the past where it appears there was cross-subsidisation happening through an integrated system illegally—it's got to be a good thing in my view."
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. I'm not quite sure that answered the question as to whether we're still just enshrining the similar approach that was deemed illegal only up to a few months ago but now suddenly under this bill is deemed to be legally acceptable. I'm not sure I got quite the right answer on it. But the next question that the Minister raises and again he said in his opening statement that this is going to lead to lower costs. So what is it that's going to lead to lower costs? Have the IT systems already been changed so the registers can be managed in a more coordinated manner? Has that already changed? Because if that's the case the cost savings would have been captured and the fees presumably if it's on a cost basis would already reflect that change in the registers and maintain the registers. Or is he anticipating there's going to be a further investment in IT systems that would in time reduce the costs across the registers?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): My understanding is there are effectively a few systems which already are integrated across different registry users. So there are economies of scale now captured. How far back that goes I couldn't tell the member. I can't go back to the 1990s and the history of when those different systems became integrated in the way that they are now. But there is I think intention of the Government to continue looking at where further economies of scale can be achieved over time.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So just in reference to that can the Minister now tell the committee how the charging regime that is proposed under this bill is different from the way that the registers were previously accounted for? What's the big principle difference? From my reading of it we've still got a large scale of cross-subsidisation which is one of the issues that this Parliament doesn't like to put in place—cross-subsidisation between different entities or different groups and here we are we're putting it across I think 16 registers. So what is the difference in the approach taken under this bill from what had been occurring in the past?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): So obviously in the past there had been cross-subsidising happening it just was not within the legislative framework and that's what was uncovered. So what was anticipated previously was that a rigid user-pays model would be put in place and that suited well when there were separate registers as I understand it back before modern IT systems where you could get the economies of scale that you have now. We think that it's sensible to make use of those economies of scale so that the costs are less overall for all of the users of the scheme than they would be if separate registries were offered. That's part of the benefit of modern technology. It's the way that contemporary registries work in the world today.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair and nice to be talking at this committee of the whole House. I think I want to start off with the opening statement that Minister Clark just made implying this is a good method because it's going to lead to lower costs. Well that was the proposition. My first question I suppose is: how the heck can that be when the Parliament only probably three months ago passed under urgency a piece of legislation that was fixing up an absolute—I'm trying to think of my English words here—muck-up dog's breakfast where the Companies Office had illegally and for years illegally been taking fees and cross-subsidising a whole number of registers that are actually unrelated. So to suddenly ask for the good favour of the House to pass a piece of urgency very quickly to deal with this longstanding misappropriation of funding amongst different registers and to now suddenly turn round and say Hey presto this is the best thing we should have been doing and we should have been doing it all along and it's the ideal model"—can the Minister just provide some justification for that assumption?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the member for that question. Just to clarify for the committee that misappropriation the member refers to goes back we think to the 1990s. Funds we think have been moving between registers since then. Certainly at the formation of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in 2012 it seems to have been the case but we think for some time longer. Look it's something that came to light. Obviously it has happened under successive Governments. It's not what this bill is about now but the member raised it so I think it's useful background and context for what we're doing here. So parties across the Parliament agreed that we needed to set right what had been done previously. I think that was the right course of action. That happened at the Budget debate. This bill which we're putting in place today really is asking the House to say "Let's put in place a system that is contemporary that costs taxpayers the minimum amount necessary but that also picks up certain principles in applying the fees and levies that are to be laid down for users of those important registries." So that's what we're doing with the bill that we're putting through the House today."
Dean Jacqui; Webb DuncanCOMPANIES (LEVIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendment to allow levies to be imposed in relation to certain persons using services of certain registersCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 4—Amendment to allow levies to be imposed in relation to certain persons using services of certain registers". The question is that Part 1 stand part. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Williams Arena; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi o te raumati e haramai nei ki a koe.[Best wishes to you for the summer ahead.]This is my first call on this bill but it has been a pleasure to sit on the Justice Committee which has considered it. May I start with thanks to the submitters who came to the committee and brought their knowledge and their passion for this area and to colleagues around that committee particularly Nicole McKee who has been acknowledged around the House tonight as an expert in this area. Her expertise on this bill was very useful for all of the committee and if that member wishes to engage in some pest control and bring some venison to the committee then I'm sure that would be warmly received and we would congratulate her for her excellent service to the environment!I have one point to make: this is a good bill because it fixes a problem that will arise soon. Police anticipate that demand for new licences is about to increase rapidly. This will allow the agency to deal with this problem in a way which helps firearms owners and the agency to do this in a timely way and that's why I commend it to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill.
Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. I rise in support of the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill. I wish to thank the Justice Committee and officials. I know that we bring different skills to this House so I'm pleased about the expertise that my colleague Nicole McKee was able to bring to this committee—we don't often get to shine in all of the areas that we're good at when we come into this place—and I think her nickname as the Gun Lady" will be set for a very long time.I acknowledge those who are affected by this. Were he still with us that would have included my father and many many people who live in rural areas who don't always have access to computers to the internet and certainly wouldn't be happy with officials "mucking around with his business"!Thanks to those who submitted at extreme short notice. However this is still one of the few bills that we've considered over these few days that even have had that much of a chance for our communities our constituents and the people affected to have a say in the legislation that they're going to be bound by moving forward.Also urgency—we did not support it. It seems unnecessary for a bill which is literally to cause delays and to actually compensate for quite a significant delay that's been created—because this entire bill seems to me to be a workaround. The fact is that something which was entirely predictable something completely preventable enough resource wasn't allocated to it enough planning wasn't done to sort it out has to come to this House to be tidied up so that staff are not breaking their own laws for not doing their own job. We need to make sure that the people who are doing these have the resource to do it and then we wouldn't have to be considering this kind of law in such a short time frame.All the best to those of you who are going to be gritting your teeth through some of this process as you get your licence renewed but in the meantime let's get on with this. We commend this bill to the House."
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a brief call in relation to the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill. I'd just like to thank the Minister at committee stage for responding to some really practical and useful questions that were put by the floor and once again to thank Nicole McKee for her guidance during the select committee process but also for some very practical operational questions that I think were usefully put to the floor at committee stage. They actually echoed some of the practical questions that were put to us during the select committee including one on the online register put to us by the New Zealand Antique and Historical Arms Association. So once again I think we've had a really robust process a really collegial process across the Justice Committee and I commend this bill to the House.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Pleasure to take a call here at the final reading now of the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill. I think we've traversed it pretty well over the last hour or so with the committee of the whole House and the second reading immediately prior to that. I would just reiterate that this is not great legislation-making process in terms of pushing this through under urgency but as my colleagues have mentioned and myself in my second reading speech this needs to happen. It's impacting law-abiding New Zealanders without appropriate reason. It's unfortunate that it has taken as long as it has but we are here now we do support it and it will be a practical change. So on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): The firearms community has been understandably concerned about the impact on their lawful status and shooting activities if their licence expires prior to the police deciding on their application for a new licence. The delays have had a direct impact on those who need licences for their work or for their business. It has also placed those with collections of pistols prohibited firearms and restricted weapons in a position where they must continue to hold their collections unlawfully as alternative storage arrangements may not be readily available. It's good to see that this bill is going to reach its third reading and so quickly. We worked hard on the Justice Committee to make sure we brought it back to the House as quickly as possible and it's good to see it here tonight passing with support from all parties. After the bill is passed the police will be able to implement an intelligence-based triaging system to prioritise licence applications that require further investigation. This will help police to flatten the peaks in demand and processes that licence applications have come in in a far more sustainable manner. This is also known as the targeted renewal approach. I look forward to this legislation passing into law and making this area work far more smoothly for those people who need it. I commend it to the House.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look firstly can I acknowledge the Minister of Police the chair of the Justice Committee and the other committee members. We all worked on this as quickly as we could because we clearly understood that we had good law-abiding Kiwis from a very strong law-abiding community our firearms community that were put in the awful position that they were breaking the law because they were engaging in a process in good faith. The process was not able to support their application and so it was needed—unfortunately because in actual fact it's not good practice to have to pass legislation to try and fix a process. But the Minister has outlined some of the challenges in relation to that process and we accept that. Therefore it was a very easy decision to get behind the Government and to make sure that we expedited this through the committee. Can I acknowledge the advisers. I think the advisers' advice and skills and hard work on this bill were on display for us tonight with the great advice that we received through committee stage. Just finally can I acknowledge the Minister's response to Nicole McKee in the committee stage when she raised the issue around delivering of documents and for example an improvement notice through electronic means. I think that was a very important issue to raise because we all know—and the Hon Damien O'Connor highlighted and raised during his contribution that he has actually got a pistol club at his shooting club. They provide land on their farm for the club to be able to participate and go there and engage in their chosen sport. But probably most of them are farmers. They are volunteers. They don't necessarily have paid officers in the clubs and emails may sit in the inbox for a while and may not be checked in. So the 28-day expiry actually matters and it does count. I think that it was very important for the Minister to put on the record clearly and say that the intent of the bill is not to be punitive. The police intend to work with the community with the clubs to make sure that there are no perverse outcomes. I think that's very important because I want to acknowledge the work that the police do in terms of their job as the regulator but I also want to remind them that it's critically important that they have a strong trusted relationship with our firearms community. That is the best way that legislation under the Arms Act is going to work for us as a country. So it's incumbent upon the police not just to be a good regulator and make sure that our laws are followed but that they also engage in a very positive way with our firearms community to make sure there's high levels of compliance and with goodwill from everyone. So thank you very much Mr Speaker.
Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2 and Clauses 1 to 3
Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I thank the member the Hon Mark Mitchell and I apologise for my lateness—I've actually been at a police event this evening and the House has moved even faster than I had anticipated. For once the police actually held me late. Normally police events run bang-on time; this one didn't. So it is good to be here and I thank the committee for its patience and I apologise for my lateness. Perhaps if I could just traverse the fact that this isn't new; this is something that has happened every 10 years since the lifetime licences were abolished and it is something that I think is long overdue—time for the House to actually finally bring a resolution to this issue so it doesn't keep happening every 10 years.The bill does two things in regard to the 10-year peak: it means that your current licence will remain valid whilst you apply for a new licence—I did hear some of the discussion on the car radio on the way in and so I think it's important to differentiate between a new licence and a first-time licence. So yes you get a new licence. That doesn't mean it's treated as if it's a first-time licence; it means it's treated as a licence renewal. So it's still a 10-year licence when you get your new renewed licence. So the first thing it does is it means that whilst you've applied for your new licence your existing licence will remain valid. So the issues that were canvassed during the second reading—having to move their firearms around so that they stay with a licensed firearm owner is avoided because someone's current licence will remain valid even if it's after its expiry date which means that then the police will be able to triage the licence applications and process them in an orderly manner. But the second thing that it does is the new licence will apply from the date on which it's issued not the date on which the old licence expired. So what that will do—to use a term that we're all familiar with now—is flatten the curve. It will mean that whilst we go through this process once where people will have effectively a temporary extension of their existing licence 10 years from now we won't go through that same experience because we will have spread that demand out over a longer period of time.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I do want to acknowledge the Minister because he's not in charge of the bill—he's actually making a genuine attempt to answer the questions. I want to acknowledge the advisors that are working on it. But I just want some clarity—[The Hon Chris Hipkins replaces the Hon Damien O'Connor in the Chair]—it's good to see the Minister in charge of the bill is in the seat.So Minister just some clarity. We were just told in response to some questions that we asked that—just so that we're clear—there's only 91 current licence holders with either a five-year licence that come up for renewal in 1996. Have I got that right? [Official responds to member] Sorry 2026? There's only 91 with a five-year licence but that's not excluding others that are coming up for renewal—[Official responds to member] And the next 12 months after that 4000? Yeah. OK thank you very much. I think that—I don't know if we've ever done that before. Maybe we should do that more often.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah no. I think now that the Minister's in the Chair we might refer directly to the Minister. Because actually—Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. That actually works very well though Madam Chair. I like it. But—Harete Hipango: Got a straight answer.Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's right exactly—exactly.So in light of that I guess carrying on the question to the Minister is quite simply: we're bringing a bill into the House; we support that we understand why we have to do it and we're behind it. But it's legislation responding to a process issue and can we be confident that with the pipeline of licensed firearms holders that are coming in to be renewed that the process is going to be OK?
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look as the stand-in Minister I can't profess to have all the expertise that my colleague does in this area. Can I just say that just on a couple of the questions they were reasonable questions and I acknowledge the goodwill in the committee here. There's been a lot of moving parts in this space for a couple of years I guess and we're trying to move forward in a cooperative way with all parties in the House to get it right. I'm no expert. I have not had a firearms licence. I'll say that. But we've had a pistol club and a long-range rifle range on our farm so I'm quite familiar with the clubs and the way they run and I have a huge respect for those people and they run really really well. So this is an area in rural New Zealand of course and urban New Zealand that the Government wants to support. The fact that we're prepared to bring in legislation like this—it is rapid—to make some improvements is a sign of the goodwill that we have towards this. The police have been doing what they can. A recruitment process—it's a low-unemployment tight labour market but they do need to recruit the right people. They've been out there trying to attract more people into the positions to assist them. There's an education process out there to try to encourage people to apply you know not just at the last minute for their licence renewals and there's intelligence-led triaging of licence applications. And those that are low-risk indeed will be streamlined through the process so there's a lot of good things happening there. In terms of the particular questions—and I've got some advice here—I guess the 90 days' processing—thank you very much. On the 10-year licence premise a five-year licence at the peak would add a maximum of—it's good writing—less than 10 percent of the numbers of the applications. I think that only 91 five-year licences will come up for renewal in 2026. So in fact you know the conflation that I think was being referred to might not indeed be the reality. It is a bit of time between now and then and I'm sure that pretty much all the parties in the Parliament will be trying to move through with goodwill to sort out what are some pressure points that this bill is addressed to concern. So all I can say is that. The other questions—how can we guarantee that the process is fixed? As I say the goodwill the fact that we're trying to move through and enhance the capability within the police force should give some assurance on that. Thank you.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister carrying on from my colleague Mark Mitchell's question about the peak I guess that we were talking about that arrives in 2026 during the select committee process we had asked officials how they were planning to fix that peak. If we are looking at triaging now and we're still four years away from that peak—actually coming up more closely to three years away from that peak—I had asked police what their plans were. Was it to extend licences for two years or four years? And they advised that they still plan to keep to their key performance indicator of 90 days' processing.So I'm wondering Minister how the peak will be alleviated if in fact we're only putting people off by three months at a time—if we actually get to the point where we can process within three months. Or is it that there will be some who are deemed as not being an issue to police actually having to hold on to expired licences for a number of years? That could be quite difficult Minister when it comes to being able to check whether or not their firearms are actually still valid because the police had advised us that the only way others could check was to go online and use the police online checker. If some licence holders were going to have to wait a number of years and have to get to an online service every time they wanted to utilise their firearms licence how would that work? So for 90 days Minister I can see that being OK but if it's actually going to go for longer and be a number of years like some people are currently experiencing how is that going to work for them?
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on this the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill and join what's been a protracted long debate on this bill. My question to the Minister is quite simply this on Part 1: the Government has chosen to bring legislation into the House and take up the time of the House to try and deal with and fix what is a poor process—a process that is not working.So it was highlighted through the submission period that this is not a very good way of fixing or dealing with a problem. We support it because it has to be done—because the process hasn't worked and because the Government has been too slow to respond and act on it it means that you've got firearms licence holders who have engaged with the process in good faith in terms of renewing their licence because the process is so broken or it is not keeping up with the renewals. That means that their licence is expiring and then they've been put in the awful position through no fault of their own that they are breaking the rules around the Arms Act.So my question to the Minister is quite simply this—and the previous speaker Nicole McKee highlighted the issue. There's going to be another big bottleneck in 2026. How can the Minister guarantee and the Government guarantee—I'm talking directly to Part 1 in terms of the renewal of these licences—that the process is actually going to be fixed and that we're not going to continue to have an ongoing issue with continued bottlenecks with the process continuing to be broken and with the Government having to respond again and bring this back to the House to have to look at and pass more legislation? Thank you Madam Chair.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister in Part 1 of the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill new section 25A is in regard to application for a new firearms licence made by a holder of a current licence. The current regime is that when a person is renewing their licence they're actually renewing it as a whole new licence. It's not a renewal as such but rather they have to apply starting from scratch. Under the new regime that was delivered in 2020 arms legislation change a new licence is actually issued to a first-time person for a five-year duration. In fact that is going to exacerbate the 2026 peak that I spoke about earlier because those licence renewals will be coming up in 2026 as they were first issued in 2021 at the same time that the peak of the bell curve will be there.Minister I'm hoping that you can take the time to explain to those that are watching at home what the application for a new firearms licence actually means for them. I'm hoping that you can explain to them that those that are renewing won't be looking at a five-year licence only but will remain as a 10-year one. It's a question that I have been asked—whether or not the new regime implements those that are renewing under this regime.
O'Connor GregIn CommitteePart 1 Applications for new licencesCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill. Members we come now to Part 1.Tangi Utikere: Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. The question is that Part 1 stand part. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 6 and the Schedule—Application for new licences"."
Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. May I join in just congratulating you on your new role as other colleagues have done today as well. I would also just like to begin by reflecting on the collegiality of the Justice Committee. Often we deal with matters that are in a bit of a philosophical and high-level policy space. This felt very much like we were adding value to something that will make a practical difference in people's lives. There are two thankyous in particular that I would like to share. First to Nicole McKee as our chair has mentioned: just an extraordinary skill set that she brought to the room and I found myself asking questions of submitters and sort of getting the nod or the shake of the head from Ms McKee as I was asking various questions. But it wasn't just her expertise; it was also the clear relationships she held with submitters who came before us. I do think that that changed the nature of the discussion and meant we could have a really constructive discussion.The second thankyou would be to our submitters themselves who I thought were just excellently prepared both on paper but also to respond to our questions. What I particularly valued was that they raised issues both within the scope of the bill as well as novel issues that create practical problems outside the scope of the bill including one that stood out for me which was the registration of new gun owners and the delays that were sometimes caused in this space when those new owners needed to be licensed to engage in employment activities. So I thought that was extremely useful.Once again I would commend Ms McKee as well as our submitters. I commend this bill to the House.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Arms (Licence Holders' Applications for New Licences) Amendment Bill acknowledging first up that this has gone through a shortened process and we're going through the rest of it under urgency which is never ideal in terms of the democratic process but in this instance will probably put a lot of minds at ease. Generally the Greens' focus when we're engaging on issues around firearms is about ensuring good strong regulation and controls to keep our communities safe as well as making sure that the people who are using firearms are doing it for a purpose and have the appropriate skills to be doing that.This bill is not really connected to those wider issues except in a way that making sure that we're not actually—because of processing problems within the agencies that people aren't becoming out of step with the law through no fault of their own. There are delays in the system for processing and people who otherwise would've got their licences renewed haven't been able to and that is not through any fault of their own. So this is giving them that cover in that process and recognising that because licences have a 10-year renewal there's a peak approaching because the law I think was introduced in 1992 so we're expecting a whole lot of renewals to be coming into the system which is already clogged up. So we're wanting to make sure that people have the protection of the law while the processing catches up and the Greens are happy to support that.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call. This bill fixes a problem: currently the demand for new firearms licence applications remains high and is outstripping police's existing ability to process applications. During the submissions period on the Justice Committee we received 143 submissions during the one-day consultation period with 122 of those in support. We had a day of submitters and I would like to acknowledge all those groups and individuals that took time to submit to the committee at short notice. I'd also like to acknowledge the other members of the committee—both from the Government side and National and ACT; having Nicole McKee on the committee was like having a resident firearms expert. So that was excellent to have all of those questions being able to be answered immediately sometimes without even needing to consult officials. So I'd like to commend this bill to the House; it's an important change that needs to happen and the sooner we get it done the better.
Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm very happy to be speaking on the third reading of—and I'm going to say it as well—the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill—deep breath! What this bill does as previous speakers have said it's that it's for a good purpose—so I agree with Stuart Smith—and it's really because these small forestry participants could be in quite a financial pickle with the penalty set at that three to one ratio that the Minister spoke about. So we're extending their exemption from that penalty regime for two years. The previous speaker just talked about why we're in urgency. This bill had its first reading on 18 October which was this year—quite recently. It went to the select committee there were no submissions on point in the select committee and the select committee made no changes and why we need that fast process is because otherwise the three to one ratio would start from 1 January 2023 which is quite soon. So it's important that this bill goes through quickly so that those small forestry participants aren't hit with the penalty scheme on 1 January 2023 and can in fact wait until 1 January 2025. But in fact during that two-year period the intention is for a separate regime to be progressed that works for those small forestry participants. So as the Minister said this is very straightforward. It's a pragmatic bill and I commend it to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I had to make you wait for that one Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah I'd nearly passed you over.STUART SMITH: Ah yes well luckily we didn't. Actually this would probably be the only bill that is not as long as its title: the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. And I kid you not the bill is not much longer than that actually. But it is an important bill.The complexity of our emissions trading scheme when it comes to things like forests and their age which is an arbitrary line drawn only because of the Kyoto climate conference—it's a nonsense but anyway it is what it is. But unwittingly some farmers and landholders who own forests who are caught up in this are blissfully unaware and they fell it—cut the forest down or burnt it or whatever happens—and they end up with a liability three times what would have been the original cost but they were unaware of it in the first place. So this happens all the time actually; it's quite frequent. And I know farmers who've been caught up in this and then are terribly upset because they end up realising what's happened when someone tells them they're liable. And in some cases they find out anyway without being told by someone else. Quite frankly if they don't tell anyone they won't actually get caught anyway.It is pragmatic; I think it's a really good decision to do it. As I said the arbitrary nature of that—any time he's come up with legislation of this type then it has a good purpose but there are always unintended consequences. And it's until you get to the point where these things manifest themselves when people are being caught as they have done—we have to do something about it. Look I'm not quite sure why this ended up in the urgency motion. No one really knows why we're in urgency for all of these bills. I know really all they want to do is get rid of the five waters legislation. But this is necessary the National Party supports it and I commend it to the House.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you. Look I'm pleased to be here for the committee stage of the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. I'll keep these remarks very brief.Hon Member: So stop filibustering. Say that again.Hon JAMES SHAW: I'm pleased to be here for the committee stage. This bill represents a simple and pragmatic approach to ensuring that small forestry participants in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme continue to be safeguarded from the impacts of the three to one penalty if they fail to pay units on time while a revised and more proportionate penalty is finalised. A revised penalty is expected to take effect from 1 January 2025. This bill extends the current transitional arrangements for small forestry participants from 1 January 2023 until that date ensuring for a smooth transition. This bill also ensures that there will be sufficient time for participants to be educated on what a revised penalty will mean in practice before it takes effect. I welcome any questions on this very short bill.
Kuriger BarbaraCLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE (EXTENSION OF PENALTY TRANSITION FOR FORESTRY ACTIVITIES WITH LOW VOLUME EMISSIONS LIABILITIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Lewis StephSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to stand and take a brief call this evening on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill.So as the Minister said earlier this is an amendment to the 2001 Act which was passed and set up Fonterra. And I like to think being the MP for Whanganui which includes South Taranaki that my electorate is in the heart of Fonterra land—the wonderful mighty South Taranaki.Tim van de Molen: Not a patch on Waikato.STEPH LEWIS: Oh it doesn't quite get there. Pipped at the post by South Taranaki.Anyway back to the bill. This is a bill that Fonterra asked us to pass so as they can make some amendments to their capital structuring. In particular their goal is to make sure that it is easier and cheaper for young farmers in particular to get in and buy shares in order to be able to supply Fonterra with milk.On that note I also want to thank the officials who have helped us pass this bill through the select committee stage. And thank you as well to the submitters who participated in the select committee stage—it was a very robust discussion.There are as the Minister and previous speaker have mentioned some mitigations that have been added into the bill to make sure that it is fair to some of the other players in the market like Open Country and Synlait to make sure that the way that the milk price which is set by Fonterra is transparent and fair to those other competitors. And that can only be a good thing. So for example one of the initiatives is that the Minister has the ability to appoint up to two members to the milk price panel and there are some additional powers given to the Commerce Commission to work with Fonterra around how the milk price is set.So I think this is an excellent bill and once again I thank my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee the officials and the submitters. And I commend the bill to the House.
Cameron Mark; O'Connor DamienMARK CAMERON (ACT): Just very quickly Minister O'Connor if you'd be obliging just for the sake of a very short pause. The $350 million in the sharing-down reality: in what sort of realistic time frames could farmers expect leaving Fonterra to have those shares and the liquidity of sharing down realised? Just for the sake of pause.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look I think that will be very quick. I don't think there'll necessarily be a delay. They are able to retain their shares for—just saying I've been reminded—10 years and many might want to do that depending on whether they need to cap it or not. But my understanding is there should be no delay in being able to do that. They should be able to sell their shares into the market. Whether it's Fonterra buying them back or into a deal managed by the market maker that's something I can't judge at this point but there should be no delay in that situation.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I move That the question be now put.
Tuiono Teanau; O'Connor DamienTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Just on the subject of environmental degradation—I have to ask the question; I'm in the Greens—how do you see this bill playing out in terms of commitments to the emissions reduction plan? I can ask that again; it was just around the question of environmental degradation which has been brought up. How do you see this working in terms of the objectives of the emissions reduction plan—the ERP?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Madam Chair. Look to say they're not linked would be naive. Of course every part of the farming system and capital investment in farm operations is linked to environmental outcomes and I think we're moving to a more sustainable space. As I say the flexibility that this new structure will provide will allow farmers who might be facing an upgrade in the effluent system the ability to maybe sell shares and then to fund that. That might not be what they want to do but there'll be some flexibility here.The bottom line around environmental management—look the farmers have had those messages for a long time they're getting on and doing some amazing stuff in the space and there are some new requirements around water standards and there will be around emissions. So they'll be making those adjustments to meet the requirements not laid down or set out in this piece of legislation in other pieces of legislation and this flexibility here will help.
Tuiono Teanau; O'Connor DamienTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for those clarifications. Just building on the question that was just asked I was wondering if you could track for us different exit pathways. I'm interested in two of them actually. One of them is for a farmer who's retiring they want to get out of the game and live the good life with the mokopuna and what does that look like for them. The second pathway is for people that want to exit for different land use they want to do something more sustainable they want to be able to move and do that and what are the supports that are in place to enable both of those things to happen.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look Madam Chair thank you very much. I think the reference to the $350 million or thereabouts that Fonterra has allocated to buy back the shares and the valuation is set through the market and the unit prices and the share prices and without going into what has been a devaluation there based on I guess assessments of where this might end up that's unfortunate. But the reality is that those farmers who want to get out will be able to get out. There's a market-maker requirement here that says there has to be a market so it's no good the farmer exiting. They can retain their shares for a certain period—as many might want to—but the issue here is that there will be someone who will buy their shares and they can move on to other land use and use that capital for investment there.
Cameron Mark; O'Connor DamienMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just quickly Minister and to demystify the mystical for some of the detractors of the bill who have spoken about the environment degradation increasing because of this new dairy industry restructuring Act piece of legislation. Do you want to speak to that? Because I'm sure there are certain detractors of the bill that have raised concerns about increased environmental pressures and I'm trying to reconcile that personally myself knowing that the overall New Zealand milk pool has contracted. Coupled to that and quite separate from it there have been claims about the potentiality of predatory pricing from Fonterra—notwithstanding it is still about 79 percent or 80 percent of the overall milk pool in the country—and can you give clarity again for the sake of those that perhaps don't necessarily support the legislation about what the role of the Commerce Commission would mean for those that are concerned about that in terms of public transparency? And you've spoken again about the independence of the milk price panel—give some pause to that if you could very quickly.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Madam Chair. Very briefly I have traversed some of these issues before but without getting into the technical details that make my head hurt as well. I guess the oversight by the Commerce Commission with additional powers ultimately is what we must trust in to ensure that the milk price panel—and some say we should rewrite that. I don't buy into it. I think it's worked very very well. And those who come in objectively and assess it say we have a unique system unique in the world—nowhere else do they do that. I think we have to trust that. It will be open to challenge I guess over time but I think this has made the tweaks that have made it better; it hasn't rewritten it. Can I come back to environmental degradation? The view is that because it will cost farmers less to become a supplier of Fonterra and that the money that they might have used in buying shares might then be used to buy more cows so we might have more milk production and more environmental degradation. Look a long bow would be the kindest way I could put that. I think it's paranoia and I think that it will provide some flexibility for farmers who would otherwise put that capital into shares of Fonterra—and there's a philosophical debate around whether that's right or wrong—but that money will be used for improving farm practices. As people know that might mean investment in environmental mitigation on farm to allow them to continue. But the idea that this will drive further environmental degradation is absolutely false. It is wrong. What we're doing here is providing flexibility for farmers to get on and address the challenges of the future.