Volume 706 Week 20 - Tuesday 23 June 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 706 Week 20 - Tuesday 23 June 2015[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4609. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 23 June 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsInter-Parliamentary Union—Secretary GeneralMr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Martin Chungong Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and accord him a seat to the left of the Chair.Mr Martin Chungong accompanied by Assistant Speaker Lindsay Tisch entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.Speaker’s RulingsCommittee of the Whole House—Presiding OfficersMr SPEAKER: Members have asked that I give consideration to the ways in which a debate in the Committee of the whole House may come to an end and to the role of the Chairperson in the debate. The Chairperson has a duty to ensure that all sides may take part in the debate and to protect the ability of the minority to participate. He or she does so by listening to the debate judging relevance keeping order and ensuring that members have the opportunity to contribute. This is particularly the case in the Committee of the whole House where members are usually entitled to seek multiple calls on a question.The Chairperson must consider the relevance of each contribution to a debate; he or she is the sole judge of relevance and the Speaker will not interfere with the decision of the Chairperson on the question of relevancy. Where a member’s contribution is not relevant to the question before the Committee the Chairperson may invite the member to return to the matter being debated. Equally a member who persists in repeating a relevant argument that has been advanced many times before may be invited to present fresh arguments. The Chairperson may terminate a member’s speech where he or she persists with irrelevance or tedious repetition after a warning.The Chairperson may terminate a speech but not a debate. There are several ways that a debate in the Committee of the whole House may come to an end. A time-limited debate will conclude at the expiry of the time allowed for it. Any debate will end if members no longer seek the call. In that situation the Chairperson should pause to ascertain that no member is seeking the call before putting the question. A debate may also conclude when the Committee decides to end it by agreeing to a closure. A Chairperson’s discretionary authority is triggered at the point that a closure is moved. He or she determines whether to accept the closure.The Chairperson’s judgment about whether a debate should end because members are no longer seeking the call or because a closure has been moved must be carefully exercised. Once the Chairperson has finished putting the question a vote must follow and there can be no further debate on the question. A vote once commenced must be completed. I trust this clarifies the ending of debate in Committee of the whole House for the future.Questions to MinistersMāori Television—Minister’s Involvement in Programming Decisions1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker tēnā hoki koe te kaiwhiu pātai.[Thank you Mr Speaker and to you as well the questioner.]Yes in the context that they were given.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he give an assurance to the Māori Affairs Committee that his staff had not questioned the composition of the panel for the Native Affairs Whānau Ora debate when that answer was false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: As I said in the context that they were given at that particular point in time in front of the Māori Affairs Committee that was the information that I had. On returning to my office afterwards to respond to questions given by the member Ms Curran I found out about an email tree and since then that has now become part of the record of Parliament.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is so why when he was specifically asked subsequent to the Māori Affairs Committee meeting “did he or his office discuss the planned Native Affairs debate on Whānau Ora?” did he answer no when he knew that answer was also false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: If the member is asking about my response in the select committee I answered no because I believed that to be—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters to repeat that question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why when he was specially asked “did he or his office discuss the planned Native Affairs debate on Whānau Ora?” which is in the Hansard did he answer no when he knew that answer was also false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: At that point in time I did not as I have explained have that information to hand and I found that out subsequently.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he tell this House on 17 June which is the Hansard for the last question that his office “also told Māori Television … that I”—that is him as Minister—“was prepared to appear on that programme.” when that answer was again false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The staff have advised me that the events of my appearing on that programme are as follows. On 14 May Māori Television’s Native Affairs made a request to myself. There was an interaction between my staff and Māori Television of which I was aware as often happens. On 14 May my staff responded affirmatively on my behalf to appearing on the programme. On 20 May we were advised by email that the programme had been pulled. That is as far as the information I had in front of me at the time.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is correct why did he tweet on 8 June—18 days after the programme was cancelled—that he had never been invited to talk in the Whānau Ora debate when he knew that information was again false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The interplay that the member is referring to is an interplay between my staff member and Māori Television. I was unaware of it at the time and believed when it was tweeted that that was the correct situation.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why after seven emails between his office and Māori Television and within 1½ hours of seeing the chief executive of Māori Television was the proposed Whānau Ora debate torpedoed?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The accusations have been made that I interfered with television programming and I reject that absolutely. Just for the record the email exchange between the Native Affairs programming states something along the lines of: “We thought it timely to discuss the programme in greater depth”—in greater depth—“to get a better understanding of what Whānau Ora is how it operates what its intended outcomes are its successes or otherwise and areas of improvement/criticism.” The response from my press secretary was—and this is no direction whatsoever—“Just wondering what would be the purpose of this korero? I don’t think the issue will be covered in any depth if you have New Zealand First on it for example.” There is no direction in that.Marama Fox: Did you at any time direct your staff to interfere with the programming of Māori Television?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The answer to that question is absolutely no. As I say the opportunity for press secretaries to engage with media outlets is a regular occurrence. They talk backwards and forwards all the time and at no point as I have just stated was there any directive given. In fact the response that came back from Māori Television on 20 May—just so the full record is noted—states: “A quick note to say that there has been a scheduling change here and so we’ve unfortunately had to cancel the planned Queen’s Birthday Whānau Ora discussion.” That should set the record straight.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Referring specifically to section 10(1) of that Act the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act which relates specifically to Ministers or their staff is it not a fact that he broke the law by committing an offence against section 10 of that Act—as clear as daylight—for which he should now resign?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Today I am not feeling very happy about those sorts of accusations and I will just have to tell the member that I intend to stick around for as long as the Prime Minister wishes me to be here.Government Financial Position—External Debt and Household Savings2.CHRIS BISHOP (National)to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in helping reduce New Zealand’s external debt position?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The latest current account data issued by Statistics New Zealand shows New Zealand is making some good progress in reducing its external debt. Net external debt fell to 58 percent of GDP in March. This is the lowest level since 2003. It is helped by the Government getting on top of its spending but households are making a positive contribution. In fact households had positive savings for the last 5 years and this has not happened since the early 1990s. Before 2010 household savings had been negative in all but one year since 1995.Chris Bishop: How is the savings behaviour of households contributing to New Zealand’s improving overall debt position?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If you look at the total numbers for household savings these have totalled $11.6 billion over the last 5 years. In the previous 5 years there was $15.5 billion of net borrowing rather than $11.6 billion of net saving. Of course a growing economy helps because it supports more jobs and higher incomes. In the past year 74000 more jobs have been created and average annual wages have increased by $5700 in the last 4 years. The economic confidence and the higher incomes assist households to save more.Chris Bishop: What steps is the Government taking to reduce Crown debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Households have been doing their bit by saving more and borrowing less and the Government is focusing on borrowing less. We are focused on getting Government spending under control. Core Crown expenses have fallen from 34 percent of GDP in 2008-09 to 30 percent next year. The Government has achieved this by focusing on controlling expenditure with around a billion of new money per year. However we will need to stick to this kind of fiscal discipline in order to generate the surpluses required to start repaying debt in the way that many households have been repaying debt.Chris Bishop: What recent reports has he received on the Government’s expenses and revenue?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the interests of transparent Government the Government publishes monthly accounts and those for the 10 months to 30 April show a turn-round from $450 million—around a billion better than forecast in the Budget just a few weeks beforehand. This shows that the Government monthly accounts fluctuate but it looks slightly more likely we could get to surplus for the 2014-15 year.Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that when he took office in 2008 he said that New Zealand was “in a reasonable position regarding debt” and that since then net debt has risen to over $60 billion?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the things the Labour finance spokesman needs to get up to date with is the global financial crisis. I know that at the time he was the tertiary education spokesman but that does not mean it did not happen and it is one of the reasons alongside the Christchurch earthquake for the growth in Government debt over that time.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were actually a couple of questions there—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is arguing they were not addressed in the final stages in my opinion they were. It did take some time but they were addressed. Certainly one was and that is all that is required.Grant Robertson: Do the Budget documents that he released earlier in May say that net debt will not be reduced in nominal terms until the 2019 fiscal year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to go back and check as you would expect. But the member would be correct if he was saying that the Government cannot actually repay nominal debt until it has sufficient cash surpluses as opposed to accounting surpluses and that is quite a challenge. That is why I look to the member’s continued support for the Government’s policy of fiscal restraint and effective Government spending.Housing Market—Auckland3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Building and Housing given that since he became responsible for housing the average Auckland house price has risen by $221000 which works out at over $250 a day?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Given that he inherited a doubling of New Zealand house prices and an 80 percent jump in Auckland prices under the previous Government yes and here is why. We have signed housing accords with eight councils including Auckland to speed up housing development. Since the Auckland Housing Accord was signed in October 2013 more than 16700 sections and homes have been consented. We are freeing up more land for residential development through 84 special housing areas in Auckland alone capable of providing 43600 extra homes. The Government is providing a $200 million loan to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company in Auckland to develop around 7500 new homes and we have introduced the new HomeStart package to help around 90000 first-home buyers into houses over the next 5 years.Andrew Little: Does he think that the average house in Auckland is affordable for the average Auckland family?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is always a challenge buying a house but one thing that average families will appreciate is the much lower interest rates under a National-led Government.Andrew Little: Given that last year his big housing policy was cheap and nails and since then Auckland house prices have risen by $115000 what effect will this year’s policies have on house prices?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member may have seen from the Productivity Commission and others the right response of course to the issues in relation to housing is around the supply side. As I mentioned the Government is putting more money into the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company special housing areas reform of the Resource Management Act and fast tracking the release of Government-owned land. All of these things are building the supply side and actually were endorsed by the OECD recently.Andrew Little: Has he seen any reports about the impact of building on Crown land on Auckland houses prices; if so have those reports been updated to base their conclusions on 30 conceptual hectares rather than 500 actual hectares?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I have seen is the Government’s policy that is going to release between 400 and 500 hectares of Crown-owned land. Given there are 150000 of them in Auckland I am pretty confident you will find that the Government will achieve that.Andrew Little: Given the long list of Nick Smith’s failures on housing in the past few weeks does he still have confidence that Minister Smith will succeed in finding 500 hectares of land that the Crown actually owns and that iwi do not have first dibs on and building a meaningful number of affordable houses on that land; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course he will and that is for the very reason—Hon Members: Ha ha!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Members laugh but they wanted to build—what was it—a hundred thousand homes. Where were they going to build them? That is right. On a cloud because on the pricing they had done there was no affordability for those sections.Andrew Little: Why is he content to sit on the side lines while his Minister makes a mess of Auckland housing and the Kiwi dream slips out of the reach of more and more families?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One of the problems with the facts in this debate is that they are very inconvenient for Labour. Labour’s Phil Twyford is on TV moaning and whingeing and complaining but actually he does not want to mention the special housing areas or the Resource Management Act or the extra land that is being released or the Tāmaki redevelopment or the first-home buyers grant. He does not want to mention those because those facts get in the way of the myths and that is why Labour is doing so badly.Phil Twyford: It’s not working John.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No one believes you Phil.Free-trade Agreements—Saudi Arabia Negotiations and Al-Khalaf Group4.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.James Shaw: Does he have confidence that all of his Ministers in particular Murray McCully disclosed all details about the threat of legal action against the Government by Mr Al Khalaf and his associates?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I will refer the member to the Cabinet paper on this matter.James Shaw: Did any of his Ministers suggest to Mr Al Khalaf and his associates that they sue the Government of New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I cannot speak for the other Ministers—I have never asked that question—but I know I certainly did not and I would be surprised if they did.James Shaw: Why then did Brownrigg Agriculture in a letter dated November 2011 to Murray McCully say that Mr Al Kalaf will be looking “to seek commercial redress as indeed suggested by your Government as a last resort option for him.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot answer that question because I was not privy to those conversations but what we do know by the paper trail that was released last week is that this problem was the making of Labour which misled that investor and misled Saudi Ministers. [Interruption] It is very inconvenient for those members but it is actually factually correct.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not relate to the last Labour Government.Mr SPEAKER: No no. The question was about was there any—it referred to a letter quoting Mr Al Khalaf and was he advised to seek legal advice and the Prime Minister right at the start said that he was not aware of that and not privy to that conversation. The question was definitely addressed.James Shaw: Did the Government encourage Mr Al Khalaf to seek commercial redress so that his Government could justify buying Mr Al Khalaf’s cooperation for the Gulf States free-trade deal?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of all the conversations that other Ministers would have had but the reality of the situation was that Labour inherited a mess by deliberately misleading the Saudis over this issue.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last two questions were answered by the Prime Minister in his first opening words and then it became straight away on both occasions an attack on the Labour Party. Now frankly that cannot be in order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: You will be able to note that the member asking the question referred to “the Government”. Mr Key was simply making it clear that it was a previous Government—and Mr Peters as a member of that previous Government would know it was led by Labour.Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members for their assistance. On this occasion because the issue is one that has taken quite a lot of time in this House and certainly it is an issue that has spanned over two administrations I do not think on that occasion I would agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the reference back to a previous administration was a direct attack on that administration.James Shaw: Why did the Prime Minister say to the media last week that he was not aware of any—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to start his question again.James Shaw: Why did the Prime Minister say to the media last week that he was not aware of any cause of action when Murray McCully claimed in the House that the reason for the farm in the desert was that New Zealand was exposed to “legal claims estimated to be up to $30 million”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the way I interpreted the question was had I actually seen the action of the $20 million to $30 million and I said I was aware of it. My point was that I was aware of it in the Cabinet paper but I was also aware that that was a potential threat and it was parked up when negotiations began.James Shaw: Given that he has said “I expect high standards from my Ministers” and “If they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action …” what actions can we expect from the Prime Minister to get the full story from Murray McCully?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think Mr McCully has provided the full story. It is fairly simple: the previous Labour Government misled the Saudis. This Government wanted to do a few things. One there was always the chance of some legal action. Two it wanted to complete a free-trade agreement. And thirdly it wanted to promote New Zealand’s expertise in that Middle East environment. In my opinion although the Minister found a creative way through he did everything above board.Hon David Parker: Does he believe that in 2013 the Al Khalaf group had a legal right of action against the New Zealand Government for $20 million to $30 million?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not for me to offer legal opinions in this House and the member knows that.Hon David Parker: I again seek leave to table the un-redacted version of the Cabinet papers that the Prime Minister says backs his claims but do not.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is unnecessary. Leave is sought to table now the un-redacted Cabinet papers dated back to 2007-08. Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon David Parker: Would a Minister who authorised a multimillion-dollar facilitation payment to be made to a disaffected businessman to unlock a free-trade agreement retain his confidence?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely and for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The previous Labour Government can run but it cannot hide. On two occasions it deliberately misled the Saudis. They know it. Phil Goff actually went to Riyadh—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Both sides of the House will now settle down.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it within the Standing Orders for the Prime Minister to accuse the Hon Phil Goff of having lied? That is what he said when he got to his feet.Mr SPEAKER: I do apologise. I certainly did not hear that. It was a heated exchange and there was a lot of noise. I did not hear that that was said. The way forward because the Hon Phil Goff is not here in the Chamber on the basis that the Prime Minister did make that statement is that I ask him to stand and withdraw that part of that statement. [Interruption] Order! If the Prime Minister said that the Hon Phil Goff lied that is unparliamentary and I am asking him now to withdraw—[Interruption] Order! I do not need the assistance from the honourable member. On this occasion I am asking the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Documents make it quite clear that he—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is now trifling with the Chair and there is the risk that he may well be having to leave the Chamber early.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is—[Interruption] Order! Mr Brownlee this is a point of order. I do not expect to have to point out to the Leader of the House that this point of order will be heard—[Interruption] I will accept that explanation on this occasion.Hon David Parker: What remedy does the Opposition have in this situation? We cannot table the documents because the Government refuses—[Interruption] Well—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is to remain silent—[Interruption] Order! I just want to make this absolutely clear. I am going to listen to a point of order from the Hon David Parker and if any member interjects or speaks out loudly that member regardless of who he or she is will be leaving the Chamber immediately.Hon David Parker: What recourse does the Opposition have when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs refer to redacted parts of the document as justifying their assertions and yet we cannot present the documents to the House because the Government continually refuses to allow them to be tabled?Mr SPEAKER: A reasonable point and this is a matter of contest. At the end of the day the member has the ability to seek leave to table the document. If that is refused by any member of the House then those documents do not get tabled in this House. The way forward and I suspect we will see more questions on this raised in the future is further questions and supplementary questions in this House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is only reasonable in the circumstances to point out that the comments referred to by the Prime Minister are in the redacted version that is publicly available.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! My patience will expire fairly quickly with one member in this House I can assure him.Prime Minister—Statements5.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding refugee numbers that “it’s not 750 and I think it’s 3000 or 4000 off the top of my head”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):No because I corrected myself at my post-Cabinet press conference yesterday by saying that when I made those comments I had actually been referring to a number that applied to the full refugee quota programme which is a 3-year programme and is in the order of 3000 to 4000.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer was he talking off the top of his head when he also said that New Zealand was sixth in the world in accepting refugees from the official United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees when in fact we are eighth behind the United States Australia Canada Germany Sweden Norway and the United Kingdom?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No we were sixth at the time that the programme was introduced. Actually we are seventh according to the advice that I have so maybe we want to meet in the middle. The ones above us are the US Canada Australia Sweden Norway and Finland.Hon Annette King: Was he talking off the top of his head when he said that Australia takes 20000 refugees and that “they have taken them for a long period of time” when in fact the last time that Australia took that many was in 1981-82 and it has been averaging around 6000 for the last decade?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think Australia would probably recognise that that might be right in terms of the programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees but I would be very surprised if the wider refugee number in Australia were not much bigger than that number given how many they do allow into Australia.Hon Annette King: Was he talking off the top of his head or from a hole in his head when he made reference to the Saudi payments—“as maybe the record will show in 2007 the previous Labour Government was well and truly aware of the situation and was looking to take its own actions.”—when released Cabinet papers confirm no such thing redacted or un-redacted?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No because I was right. The previous Labour Government was aware of the domestic legal risks. They are quite clear and actually it was looking to restart commercial shipments. It went to Riyadh as the redacted version shows and it misled the Saudis and it did it twice. Labour created the problem and as much as its members do not like my saying it unfortunately it is true.Hon Annette King: Why has it become a habit for him to make things up exaggerate use sophistry rather than substance and talk off the top of his head rather than be straight up and down with the people of New Zealand and the media; and is that appropriate action for a Prime Minister?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very marginal question but I will allow the Prime Minister to answer it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have thought that the member was a bit better than that but actually given the huge amount of media that I do—and I accept that I made an error in reading some information; I read 3000 to 4000 as a 1-year thing not 3-year thing—yes I made a mistake and I corrected it. By the way last time I looked there are lots of mistakes that are made by Labour but if Labour members want me to put out press releases correcting every one that they make I am more than happy to do it.Flooding June 2015—Government Response6.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)to the Minister of Civil Defence: What support is the Government providing to communities affected by the severe storm and flooding event of 18 to 21 June?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Civil Defence):The Government is contributing significant support to areas affected by the storm. At the moment the Government’s general support includes deployment of staff from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management in order to provide on-the-ground advice and support; reimbursement of local authorities for response and recovery costs such as accommodation and the transportation of food and clothing for displaced residents; repairing essential infrastructure; welfare assistance such as hardship grants through the Ministry of Social Development; police assistance with security and rural reconnaissance; and support to clear and repair State highways. Our thoughts are with the families and people affected by the severe storm and floods.Ian McKelvie: What is the current situation in some of the affected areas?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I can confirm that a state of local emergency has been lifted for Rangitīkei. States of local emergency for Whanganui and Taranaki will remain in place until assessments have been undertaken. From the advice that I have had from talking with local mayors I can confirm that damage assessments are under way in Whanganui in the hope that some people will be able to return to their homes from tomorrow. The river is continuing to recede building inspections are under way in Waitōtara and Fonterra and civil defence are continuing to contact people and farmers in the region in order to assess their needs. A range of roading assessments are under way and helicopters are dropping food and other essential supplies to isolated houses and are getting people who wish to leave out. In Hokitika 40 people have been evacuated or are in temporary accommodation. I will be meeting with mayors tonight and tomorrow in order to understand their plans around residents who may be out of their homes for longer. Over the coming days we will continue to get a clearer picture of the damage. Today I had a call with mayors from affected regions to get an update on some of the smaller towns and I will visit Marton tomorrow and meet with the Mayor of Rangitīkei tonight.Ian McKelvie: What additional support has been announced by the Government?Hon NIKKI KAYE: A disaster relief fund has been activated for the Manawatū-Whanganui region. Yesterday I announced the Government will contribute $250000 to that fund. We will contribute more if needed. I am currently in discussions with the mayors in Taranaki and Westland about further funds and Government contributions. Also Minister Tolley announced yesterday an additional $250000 package for Enhanced Taskforce Green. This will provide funding to councils to employ jobseekers to assist with the clean-up and to hire or purchase equipment and clothing to enable this to happen. Today the Minister for Primary Industries who was visiting the region declared a medium-scale adverse event. Minister Guy has announced $100000 for rural support trusts. The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Social Development will now assess the need for rural assistance payments. Over the next 24 hours I will be visiting Rangitīkei Whanganui Waitōtara and Marton to meet with local mayors residents and people working on the recovery so as to ensure that they know this Government is committed to helping communities get back on their feet.Business Innovation and Employment Ministry—Refurbishment Costs7.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North)to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement on who is responsible for the spending at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment: “Well the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is me”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I think that question was directed to the Minister for Economic Development—Mr SPEAKER: It was.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —but I stand by it in the context of my full statement which continues: “I have made it absolutely clear to the chief executive that I do not condone the expenditure on the sign he has accepted that and has given me a very clear assurance.” Overall the ministry has done a good job of reducing costs and actually through the move to a refurbished building—unlike the new buildings that the Labour Government used to build all around Wellington at the time—has actually saved $40 million to $50 million over 20 years. On top of that the merger will save around $9.5 million a year. Nevertheless those particular items were over the top.Dr David Clark: In light of spending on expensive signs information screens sundecks and hair straighteners at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the fact that the project came in $2 million under budget does he concede that he was extravagant when he set the budget at $18 million?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No there were savings through the budget and the budget was set by the ministry and approved by me and the Minister of Finance. As I pointed out to the member overall the savings of this project are $40 million to $50 million—savings of $40 million to $50 million—on top of the merger savings of around $9.5 million a year. But as I have made the point previously there were some individual items that were too expensive and I have taken that up with the chief executive.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether he was extravagant when he set the budget. He has talked about coming in under the budget but he has not talked about the actual budget-setting process.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister certainly addressed that part of the question. There is no doubt about that in my mind.Brett Hudson: How does the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s $16.5 million Stout Street redevelopment $2 million under budget compare with the cost of other Government building redevelopments in central Wellington? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just before the Minister answers—I want it to be within the responsibility of this Minister. I do not want that question to be designed to attack a previous Labour Government.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again this is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member in his question has asked me to compare it with other Government redevelopments which I think is an important—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is an important question and one that I did take into account when considering the situation regarding this redevelopment. So I think it is important for the House for me to have the opportunity to compare it with other Government redevelopments—and I note that in the member’s question he did not actually raise a particular example.Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling the question out of order. I am just asking whether the member is aware of Speaker’s ruling 174/3 which is one that would concern me potentially with the answer but we wait to see what the answer is. It states: “It is not reasonable to use questions from the governing party or its support parties to attack other members of the House.” And that applies equally to other political parties. I wait for the answer with interest.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have looked for other examples to get an understanding of how this particular project went. In fact there was a good example just a block from the new Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment head office in Stout Street. That particular redevelopment which is a Government redevelopment was costed at around $11 million initially. That figure then rose to $29 million and then it was revised again to $45 million. Remember it started at $11 million. It then jumped again to $53 million then to $65 million then once more to $77 million and by the time it opened in 2008 interestingly the cost had blown out to something like $80 million more than seven times the cost of the original budget. I am pleased to report we have done hugely better than that.Dr David Clark: What proportion of New Zealand’s small to medium sized enterprises that he visits have a $140000 TV screen in their foyer?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not aware of that. As I said to the member at the select committee the other day my point is that there were some items in this particular project that I am not happy with. I have made that clear to the chief executive. He has accepted that and he has indicated to me that they will be taking a different approach to the authority that the chief executive sets with particular expenditure items in the future.Dr David Clark: What proportion of New Zealand’s small to medium sized enterprises that he visits have a $260000 sun deck?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again as I said to the member the other day I am not aware of the answer to that question but I would say to him that in relation to the project overall it has saved significant money but there are some items that were too expensive. That has been made clear to the chief executive of the agency and he has in turn advised that he will be changing his processes for authorisation of expenditure as a result.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response relating to the barbecues that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has placed on its sun deck.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act response. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dairy Conversions—Environmental Impact8.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green)to the Minister for the Environment: Does he support the continued Landcorp conversion from forestry to dairy despite the impact dairy farming has on freshwater quality and the ongoing loss of forest as a carbon sink?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):Approval for these conversions is a decision for the Waikato Regional Council and the Taupō District Council relative to their regional and district plans or if appealed to the Environment Court. The Government is requiring a strengthening of these councils’ plans and rules in respect of freshwater quality with the 2011 national policy statement and the 2014 minimum standards. I also note that Landcorp is contractually bound to do these over $200 million worth of conversions and to manage the farms until 2049 under a deal approved by the then Government in 2004.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister addressed the first leg of the question extremely well but there is a second leg that was not addressed about the loss of forest as a carbon sink.Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister would be kind enough to address the latter part about the ongoing loss of forests as carbon sinks.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If any forest is lost as part of the deal they are required to meet those through the emissions trading scheme obligations. The price of the emissions trading scheme has been quite low historically but members should note that from 1 January this year when international units have no longer been available the price is currently sitting at about $6.80 and so there is a financial obligation for the loss of those forest sinks.Catherine Delahunty: Is it OK for a Government-owned farm operator to sacrifice the health of the Waikato River for increased dairy production in the upper catchment while displacing a carbon sink with yet another source of greenhouse gas emissions? Is that OK with the Minister?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The difficulty for the Government is that contractual obligations were entered into in 2004 that oblige Landcorp to be able to convert those farms. My understanding is that a number of about nine farms have been converted; about 29 are proposed in the deal. There is an expense to Landcorp of something over $200 million and it would be in breach of those contractual obligations if it did not proceed with those dairy conversions. The job of Government is in terms of the regulatory regime and that is why we have put in place a national policy statement and minimum water quality standards which the Waikato Regional Council is required to implement into its regional plan.Catherine Delahunty: Given the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the OECD economic survey have highlighted that standard mitigation measures such as repairing planting struggle to keep up with nitrogen losses what action is the Minister taking to reduce the density of cows on farms which is the source of nutrient pollution?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment complimented the Government on the very first freshwater national policy statement which we introduced in 2011. I commend my colleague Amy Adams on the very hard work that went into putting the minimum standards into that national policy statement. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted the momentum that has taken place across New Zealand in getting those national standards implemented at a regional level and that is what we need to see through if we are to deliver the step change in these impacts on water quality.Catherine Delahunty: Given that mitigation to date as is highlighted in the other parliamentary commissioner’s report of last week has not protected lakes such as Karapiro from turning pink from pollution will he admit that his strategy for protecting water from excess nitrogen from cow waste is failing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite. I would point to a lake like Lake Taupō and the progress that we have made with the specific initiative there. I would look at a lake in my colleague Todd McClay’s electorate where he has worked hard and Lake Rotoiti I am advised is the best it has been in 25 years. I would look to the partnership that this Government has formed in the Manawatū and the progress that has been made in that catchment. I openly acknowledge that there is more work to do and that is why the Government has been quite open about the next steps it intends to take around improving freshwater management with a discussion document by myself and the Ministry for Primary Industries planned for later this year or early next year to ensure that we take those next steps.Trans-Pacific Partnership—Support9.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Fletcher Tabuteau: Given that he stated that all New Zealanders should trust him regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal why then with the endgame now playing out and after years of negotiations is your Minister of Trade now saying: “It’s not to say that there’s a bad deal on dairy products; it’s more to say that there’s no deal.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister is technically correct. We are in a negotiating phase and so there is not actually a completed deal yet.Fletcher Tabuteau: In saying that he would like to do some more for the dairy industry what will he do for Beef and Lamb New Zealand and the Fonterra Cooperative Group which have gone on record saying that they would struggle to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement if like the Chinese free-trade deal and the South Korean free-trade deal there are no actual free-trade clauses for them in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will have to wait and see on the basis that the US Senate ultimately gets through it and we get to a deal. But on the basis of what I have seen as being proposed at the moment I think net-on-net the benefits are positive for New Zealand and many sectors I think will be happy.Broadband Ultra-fast—Progress10.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura)to the Minister for Communications: Can she provide an update on the build programme for the first stage of the Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications):Yes I can. On Friday I announced that the first phase of the ultra-fast broadband programme has now passed the halfway mark and is well ahead of schedule. The build is now complete in 11 towns and cities around New Zealand and eight more are expected over the next year. The first stage of the programme will enable at least 75 percent of New Zealanders to access fibre by 2019. The Government has committed to extend this to a target of at least 80 percent of New Zealanders. One indication of the success of the programme is that New Zealand now has the fastest growth in fibre penetration in the OECD at a staggering 272 percent growth.Hon Judith Collins: What other announcements has she made to simplify the roll-out of the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative?Hon AMY ADAMS: Recently I announced the release of the Land Access for Telecommunications discussion document which seeks feedback on ways to reduce some of the unnecessary costs and delays with the ultra-fast broadband roll-out. Although the project is ahead of schedule and uptake is exceeding expectations there have for example been frustrations where someone resides down a shared driveway or in an apartment complex and requires written permission from each and every property owner in order to get ultra-fast broadband. The discussion document proposes amending the way in which network operators seek permission in these situations enabling better use of existing utility infrastructure in order to roll out fibre more efficiently providing certainty to network operators for maintenance of fibre and ensuring that all disputes can be resolved easily.Hon Judith Collins: How does New Zealand compare with other countries that embarked on large-scale ultra-fast broadband projects? [Interruption]Hon AMY ADAMS: They do hate success do they not? I can tell you that in Singapore when the build was 50 percent complete uptake was very low—at around just 2 percent. Once Singapore reached 95 percent built uptake was at 16 percent. In Cornwall when deployment was at 48 percent they were at only 6 percent uptake. When London was 86 percent built uptake was only 12 percent. So at 13.8 percent at the halfway stage of the build the current level of uptake is very good and exceeding all expectations.Health and Safety Workplace—Reform and WorkSafe11.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North)to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by his statement that “What will improve our health and safety record is changes in behaviour and attitude and that is what I am promoting”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):I stand by the full statement I made which was that “a very strong legislative framework is important in improving health and safety yes. But laws alone will not prevent the types of deaths and injuries the member describes any more than road rules prevent death and injury on the road. What will improve our health and safety record is changes in behaviour and attitude and that is what I am promoting.”Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with the Employers and Manufacturers Association when it says: “Employers for the most part are prepared to lead much of that attitudinal shift but the strongest and most prominent leadership—even if it is unpopular among a small proportion of voters—must come from Government. Government must show real leadership in driving this legislation or too many New Zealanders will continue to be injured or die in the workplace.”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Largely yes but I do not believe one necessarily leads the other. The Government needs to work with business with unions and with workers to change behaviour and improve health and safety.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with the Employers and Manufacturers Association when it says: “If there was one piece of employment legislation demanding a lead role from Government this is it. This is what the Pike River inquiry and subsequent inquiries around issues of health and safety have found. This is why we must act. New Zealand’s ‘she’ll be right’ attitude just isn’t working for our workforce.”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have not had that quote but if that is what the Employers and Manufacturers Association said yes I do agree with it. I believe that the Government is showing exactly the sort of leadership that the association is calling for. This is the biggest health and safety reform in nearly 25 years. It is really important that we get it right. That is what we are doing.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with the Employers and Manufacturers Association in the letter it sent him that in order to prevent incidents like the tragic recent lime quarry accident in North Canterbury where the owner of the mine was operating without proper certification WorkSafe needs to be well resourced and active in enforcing workplace health and safety law?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I certainly agree that WorkSafe needs to be well resourced which is why the Government provided $35 million extra funding for the regulator bringing ongoing funding up to $80 million a year. There are now 167 health and safety inspectors including 17 new high-hazard inspectors.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he share the concerns of the Employers and Manufacturers Association that there are too few WorkSafe inspectors and even planned increases will come up 30 short of ILO standards and that without proper enforcement of the law his desired change in behaviour and attitude will not come about because WorkSafe will not have the resources to make it happen?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Certainly to the extent that the Government recognised that it did need to increase the number of health and safety inspectors on the ground that is exactly what we have done. What is also really important is that we target appropriate risk. WorkSafe’s role is to make sure that it focuses on those risky enterprises and activities in order that we do prevent those deaths and injuries.Welfare Fraud—Impact of Reforms12.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What update can she provide about the Government’s welfare fraud reform initiatives?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Social Development):This Government’s welfare reform initiatives continue to bring in outstanding results for taxpayers. Prior to these reforms approximately 26 percent of clients who had committed welfare fraud would reoffend. The most recent quarterly report shows that none of the 1698 clients who have left the close-monitoring initiative so far have recommitted welfare fraud.Paul Foster-Bell: Is the increased information-sharing between departments continuing to produce results?Hon JO GOODHEW: Yes. As at the end of March this year the welfare fraud initiatives have led to the cancelling of just under 10000 benefits after welfare fraud has been discovered saving around $71 million of taxpayer money.Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 18 June.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I am very pleased to take my final call on this piece of legislation that we have put through and I am very pleased that this is a piece of legislation that has gone through this House relatively quickly. It was introduced only a short time ago and it has worked its way through the select committee process and Labour is supporting this legislation as we have indicated at previous readings. The reason why we are supporting this legislation is that simply we had to because this is a fix up of a fix up of a fix up of a blunder by Nick Smith. This is a fix up of a piece of legislation that we should not be using this House time to debate. It is a fix-up piece of legislation that could have been anticipated.So let me take you through the various things that this legislation does in case people over the few days we have had away from this House have lost sight of the important things.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Could I ask those who are leaving to please do so in a timely manner. It is important that we hear what the speaker is saying.Dr MEGAN WOODS: So what this bill does is it amends section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. In effect what that does is allow the Māui Gas platform to continue operating. It has just recently only in the last week or so or couple of weeks had its consent approved. But what the original principal legislation of the exclusive economic zone did not do was put a transitional arrangement in place to allow the existing operators of which there are only four to come inside the new regulatory regime. So we were faced with the very real prospect at the beginning of this year of a piece of shoddy legislation from Nick Smith that did not allow for the existing operators to come in and the really real possibility that we would have had to have seen the Māui Gas platform shut down while this was worked through. All of this was entirely predictable.But what has also been entirely predictable is the passage of this legislation in the House. This is not the first time as we have talked about in previous contributions that we have been in this House playing fix up to the fix up to the fix-up legislation on this. In fact when the principal legislation was first brought to the House and sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee it took an entire rewrite by the select committee to get that legislation in any kind of shape. It had to come back to the House for something like 14 pages of a ministerial Supplementary Order Paper in order to make it fit for purpose and do what it purported to do. But within only a very short time frame in the last Parliament we were back in this House playing patch up to that legislation and here we are again. But what is even more disturbing is that this bill which was introduced to the House and sent off to the Local Government and Environment Committee when it got there had some fundamental flaws with it too.I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the select committee. I would like to acknowledge the work of the select committee chair Scott Simpson but above all I would like to acknowledge the submitters on this bill because it was the submitters on this bill who have meant that we are not going to be back here in a week a month or two or three months playing fix up to the fix up to the fix up to the fix-up legislation on another Nick Smith blunder. What the original legislation that Nick Smith tabled in the House did was leave things entirely open-ended. We were putting in place transitional arrangements to bring only four operators into a regulatory regime. Māui Gas platform’s consent expires at the end of June of this year but the ability of the fourth and final of these operators to operate under the environment that existed before the passage of the exclusive economic zone legislation does not run out until 2032. What the initial legislation that was tabled did was offer an open-ended time frame to those operators. There was no onus as to when it was that they needed to have their consents in by. This is the standard of work we have had from this Government on this piece of legislation.What this legislation does is it creates a bypass for the existing operators to say: “OK you were operating under the Crown Minerals Act and various other pieces of legislation prior to the passage of the exclusive economic zone legislation. What we’ll do is create a way for you to come in to the new regulatory regime. You need to have your consent in place and you need to transition in.” But it was only the work of the select committee and only the very fine submissions we heard from a number of submitters that pointed out that the legislation we had in front of us put absolutely no parameters around when it was that one of those operators had to have their consents filed by. So we were faced with the real prospect of consent-holders whose consents expire in 2032—quite some time away when there is not a real rush and urgency around the time frame. We were faced with the prospect of those operators being able to not put their consent application in until the day their consent expired or even before.But what the work of the select committee did was look at three options: 6 9 and 12 months for what is a reasonable time frame for one of these existing operators to have applied for a consent. We went through a range of options and looked for alignment with other legislation. We settled on 9 months because not only did it align well with other pieces of legislation in this space but also it was practical around the amount of time it will take for a consent to be processed. It is not only the consent being processed of course—that is one part of it—but what was putting the Māui platform really at risk was the spectre that we may indeed have appeals to that and that operator would not be able to operate while those appeals are heard. So this legislation brings the time period far more into line with what we see under the Resource Management Act although there is not total alignment. But it has brought it far more into alignment with that.It is of concern to us that there was a lucky catch by the select committee on ministerial incompetence from Nick Smith and that through his office a piece of legislation like that could land on the Table in this House and then could be sent to a select committee. I know that it is the job of select committees to examine legislation and we did support this legislation at its first reading. We said it was a piece of legislation that we wanted to look at very closely when it went to the select committee. We wanted to look for the fish-hooks. But when it comes to putting in place a regulatory regime that is going to govern something that actually could potentially have turned off over 25 percent of the gas supply for New Zealand not to mention a number of jobs being put on the line while the appeals were heard is not an acceptable standard from a Government.It is yet another example of a Government that is failing to meet the needs of ordinary New Zealanders when it is failing in the most fundamental role and that is to table legislation that is fit for purpose and is going to do what it purports to do. It shows a Government that it out of touch. Its members think: “Oh well it doesn’t really matter that we could see the Māui Gas platform close down. It might be a loss of a bit of natural gas.” It would be all those people whose jobs are put on the line. This is a distracted Government that is making mistakes. It is prone to blunders and lo and behold who do we find at the centre of this blunder? The “Minister of Blunders” himself Nick Smith. It is sloppy that this legislation got to this House in this form. This could literally have been the Government that failed to deliver a brighter future when the lights went out because we shut down one of our major energy sources in this country. We expect more.But we are supporting this legislation. This is a problem that does need to be fixed. It is yet another error in an error-prone piece of legislation. We will be supporting it and once again I would like to acknowledge the very important role that those submitters played when they came to our select committee and made sure that this was legislation that we did not have to come back to and in only a few weeks fix up another Nick Smith blunder. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):I rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill in the name of my friend and colleague Dr Nick Smith the Minister for the Environment and I do so with great pleasure. As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee I was able to work diligently and carefully with other hard-working members of the committee and we were able I think to do as the previous speaker has just indicated—bring back to the House a piece of legislation that is better than the legislation that was introduced at the first reading.I would like to spend just a minute both acknowledging and I guess criticising to a degree the contribution of the previous speaker. Dr Megan Woods is a valuable and diligent member of the committee and usually she makes a very good and energetic contribution as she has in the debate this afternoon. Listening to her one would have to think that some great terrible misdeed has actually occurred here when in fact there was simply nothing done to protect our exclusive economic zone during 9 long years of a Labour administration—her predecessors. I accept fully that that member was not in Government or in Parliament during those 9 long years and so has no personal responsibility but for her to stand up and wax eloquent about the shortcomings of this Government on legislation that has so well protected our exclusive economic zone rings a little bit hollow and strikes a sharp tone.Energy is absolutely essential to every aspect of our modern daily life. We use energy in every sphere of human activity here in the country from the north to the very deep south and everybody is involved as an energy user in some shape or form. Energy is vital for our factories our hospitals our transportation the production of chemicals and fertilisers manufacturing construction travel heating cooking and pretty much every aspect of our day-to-day lives. We in New Zealand have been fortunate to have always had a secure source of energy with the vast majority of our electricity being produced from renewables but occasionally we require gas to make up a shortfall when there has been a period of low rainfall. Back in the 1970s because of the development work done on the Māui platform we were fortunate as a nation to discover that we had significant oil and gas reserves off the coast of Taranaki. This bill provides the Shell Todd Oil Services organisation with continuity by allowing its operations which have been working very successfully off the coast of Taranaki for nearly 50 years now—in a very sensible and safe way I might add—to continue that process and to continue making a very significant contribution to the energy requirements and needs of us as a nation.A marine consent is required under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and it is required so that organisations such as Shell Todd Oil Services are able to continue their extractive businesses. As I have said they have been doing that for a long number of years now based in that oil-rich region of Taranaki on the west coast of the North Island. Shell Todd Oil Services is a business that is owned by Shell Petroleum Mining Co. and Todd Petroleum Mining Co. which each hold a 50 percent stake in the company. During those more than 50 years of operations Shell Todd Oil Services has set incredibly high and stringent operational environmental and safety benchmarks and they are leaders in the New Zealand oil and gas industry. What this bill means is that the marine consent—which subsequently has been granted by the Environmental Protection Authority since the introduction of this bill—will allow the company to continue operating beyond 27 June of this year. That was not the case when the bill was first introduced and had we not passed this legislation prior to the end of the month then the simple reality is that production would have needed to cease on the site and up to 20 percent—maybe it is more than 20 percent—of our energy needs as a nation would have been put at risk. In fact now that the application has been granted there is still a requirement for this legislation to pass before the 27th of the month in order to cover the situation of an appeal being lodged to the provision of that consent being issued. So this is why this legislation is still required.In her speech just a few minutes ago Dr Megan Woods made mention of the work done at the Local Government and Environment Committee. As chair of the select committee I also want to acknowledge the work done by committee members and I also acknowledge with grateful thanks the five submitters who presented on the bill because they did make good points. This was an example of a select committee working as it should in order to ensure that a better outcome occurs. The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill very carefully and we examined the amendments that had been put before us and then we listened carefully to the points that the submitters made. The net result of that deliberation was that an amendment to clause 4 was recommended by the committee which would provide for a replacement section 162(5) to specify that the existing petroleum operators must lodge a marine consent application and have it fully accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority at least 9 months before either the expiry of their permit or their privilege to extract gas or oil.We did consider a number of alternatives to the 9-month time frame. We looked at 6 months we looked at 9 months and we looked at 12 months and each option was considered by the committee. Eventually we settled on 9 months as I think a reasonable compromise. In a second reading speech my colleague Todd Muller the deputy chair of the committee made the point that any corporate employee worth his or her salt would simply never allow a situation to arise where the ability to trade and to operate their business was put in jeopardy by not having their consent in place and in full prior to that privilege or permit expiring. I think he made a good point when he raised that matter so we have stuck—sorry “stuck” is probably not the right word. We have now included as part of this legislation a clause that ensures that it is codified that there is a 9-month window and that businesses operating in the area must have that done before the 9 months are up.We looked at further amending clause 4 to include a further change to section 162(5) to clarify that those existing mining activities would need to have the applications filed 9 months before their privilege came to an end and that it must be in filing acceptable. It must be in a format that is acceptable and accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority as being in full. I think those changes made at the select committee were in fact very good changes. They were common sense sensible changes and the committee acted I think in a very prudent and diligent way. We worked well together. As I said Shell Todd Oil Services has now actually been granted its permit to continue production but there is still a chance that there may be an appeal and that is why this bill is important. We simply could not find ourselves or put ourselves as a nation in a position where up to 20 percent of New Zealand’s current gas supply would be uncertain in any way. This bill will not change anything for existing operators other than allow Shell Todd Oil Services to continue production pending any appeal that may yet be lodged. It is a good piece of legislation. It is a good piece of legislation to amend an even better principal Act and it has I think good support across the House. I think that this bill will be an example of how this legislature works collaboratively and congenially to achieve good outcomes for the country. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):I rise to speak in favour of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. Scott Simpson the last National MP who stood up said that this bill had wide support across the House and it was a fine piece of legislation that amended an even better piece of legislation. Let me put the record straight: we are supporting this piece of legislation out of absolute economic necessity. We think this is a very bad way to draft legislation and we think that the original legislation was an absolute mess.This is not the way to draft legislation and when that last MP who is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee stood up he said that it is vital that we support New Zealand’s economic sustainability. We agree with him: that is why we are supporting it. But another thing that is absolutely vital is the right of New Zealanders under a democratic process to appeal. What this bill does in essence is wipe away that ability to appeal. What this does is force a piece of legislation through. It is not under urgency but it is urgent because if this legislation is not put through and if the Māui Gas pipeline is not allowed to go ahead then there will be catastrophic consequences for the economy. We did have an incident when the Māui Pipeline closed down. What happened was it cost about $40 million a day over 5 days so we are talking about $200 million for just 5 days. This is why it is important that it does go through but this is a very very sloppy piece of legislation.It is one of these things that seem to be creeping in a little bit to this Parliament and it makes me feel very uncomfortable. What we seem to be doing a lot of is amending legislation—and I have spoken on a couple around veterans’ affairs and around superannuation—that has been before the House in very recent times because of sloppiness in the way that it went through the select committee. When I hear people stand up and say: “That chair did a great job for the select committee.” I beg to differ because if the chair of the select committee that put through the original exclusive economic zone legislation had picked this up—if the MPs and the officials had picked this up—then we would not need to be here. I mean we can blame Shell Todd Oil Services—it is a convenient thing to do. I do not blame Shell Todd Oil Services; I just think this whole mess could have been avoided if we had done things well.The other thing that really concerns me about this piece of legislation is that it plays into the sort of global brand we are trying to develop and that is on two points. First and foremost gone are the days when New Zealand was seen as the cowboys of the wild west. In the 1980s we were viewed by the Americans by the Brits and by Europe as the cowboys. They came over here and there was insider trading. They ran roughshod over legislation in all manner of things which thank goodness is now illegal and no longer happens but it used to. What this does is erode our global brand just a little bit by saying: “You know what? It is sloppy legislation. We don’t know how to craft bills that allow something as important to our economy as the Māui gasfield to go through and it is sloppy.” This is not the sort of message that we want to send to international investors who are coming across to our country to explore our oilfields or to work with our natural gas or to put up windmills or to invest in other forms of energy. This piece of legislation says: “You know what? If they get it wrong in New Zealand don’t worry. They will just legislate something through. It’s how they work in New Zealand.” That used to be the way and it should no longer be the way and that is why this really concerns me.The other thing is that we are trying to build a global brand around “clean green” and “100% Pure”. In fact it is the brand we go out to the world with. This started in 1984 when David Lange said no to nuclear ships. I think it was a completely unintended consequence actually but suddenly those around the world stood up and said: “Goodness me that country actually stands for something.” and ever since 1984 we have stood for something as a nation. We go to the world with this “clean green” brand that is “100% Pure”. The study done by—I think it was Deloitte; it may have been PricewaterhouseCoopers—one of those big consultancies anyway said that 80 percent of New Zealand businesses that seek to engage in the export trade leverage off our international brand. The Ministry of Economic Development when it existed tried to quantify the value of this brand and it said it was worth about $20 billion. But if we devalue this brand—and this goes a little bit into this—then what we end up with and what we end up as is just another small economy trading commodities into a shrinking global market place.That is the last thing we can afford to do because our global brand is one of the very few things we have got that cannot be reproduced in the backstreets of Shanghai or in an office block in Mumbai. It is our unique selling point and it is our global point of difference. Anything—anything—that seeks to damage that brand or tarnish that brand must be banished and one of the things that I think this Government has done very poorly over the last 7 years is damage our brand. Let me give you one example—and this sort of plays into the whole energy sector—and that is global warming. It does not matter whether you support action on global warming because there is a beachfront property you own and if sea levels rise by a metre you are going to lose that property or whether you want to save polar bears or whether you want to save the world—it does not matter. The reason why I think it is so important is that again it plays into the global consciousness of what New Zealand stands for.We used to be leaders on this. Under the Clark Government we were out there leading the debate on the global stage and now we are seen as laggards. We are going to go to Paris and we are going to be absolutely caned and rightly so—and rightly so—not only because of how we have let our global position slide but because we have actually let the reality of what we once stood for slide as well. We have to stand for something.There are a couple of other points that I would like to make which I think the previous National MP was a little disingenuous around. There is something called the Energy Trilemma Index and it is put out by—I think the organisation is called the Global Energy Council. What it does is measure three very important energy variables that go into making up a global ranking for our country. We actually came in at 10th in the world which is very very impressive but part of the reason for that is our political stability and our economic strength. You would get that under any Government; it is just what happens in a highly functional democracy like we have. But the interesting thing is that in energy security we are 16th up from 19th but in energy equity we have dropped from 18th down to 28th. What energy equity is is basically the ability of our citizens to afford energy and this plays into the whole fuel poverty argument. What fuel poverty is is the ability of people to afford electricity in order to heat their homes in the middle of winter and we have a real problem with this. When we are 28th in the world in terms of energy equity we have a problem that we really need to address.The other one is environmental sustainability. Again this plays into our global brand. We have gone from 36th to 42nd in the world in terms of environmental sustainability with regard to our energy sector. That says to me that we need to work a lot harder in how we actually manage our energy sector. Now electricity generation is a very good story—there is about 80 percent renewable. The Labour Party and I think even the Government have bought into the target of 90 percent renewables by 2025. It is an admirable target and again it is a great story. But when you combine it with the global perception of how we are doing it is not particularly flash.I am going to bring this back to the legislation. It all ties in with this piece of legislation. In a way this legislation epitomises how we are treating our global brand at the moment and the lackadaisical way that we are saying: “It’ll all be right. Don’t worry about it. If we get it wrong we will legislate it.” The previous speaker Scott Simpson highlighted and I have re-emphasised how important passing this legislation is for our economic well-being. We cannot have the Māui gasfield going down because a cost of $40 million a day is unconscionable. The fact that this gasfield employs 300 people in Taranaki shows that it is a vital part of regional infrastructure but this—and I think even members on that side of the House will admit this; well they should admit it—is not a good way to pass legislation. It does not play into how we see ourselves as a country. It is not a good way to sell ourselves internationally either as a global brand or in terms of how we do business or how we manage our energy sector.Labour is supporting this not because we think it is a good piece of legislation but because we think it is a vital part of our economic infrastructure. We would really request that we do not see any more pieces of this legislation and that the Government gets its legislation right before it brings it back to the House. Thank you very much.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri):It is a great pleasure and an honour to rise and speak in support of a very important bill. It was disappointing that in the speech of the previous member Stuart Nash the only relevance to the bill was his getting the title correct; everything after that had no relevance whatsoever. So I will attempt to go a bit further. I will mention the title the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill—third reading. This bill is about business continuity. It is about a Government that cares that believes in New Zealand and that believes in a productive economy as well as protecting the environment. That is why New Zealanders backed us last September—why they supported us. They trust us; they know we are responsible. Today the guilt and the envy are palpable in the House.Can I acknowledge first the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his work in this area and the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson. The guilt and the envy are palpable—the guilt of a Labour Government that over 9 years did absolutely nothing in this space and the embarrassment that that causes them. And for the Greens: the envy and resentment of our delivering what they wanted to deliver. For the Greens it is like the player who gets subbed off halfway through a game resenting that they never really performed at any sort of level. For the Greens it is like being the water boy who is always looked over for selection but is holding on that one day he will get the nod—the guilt the embarrassment the envy and the resentment.There is with this Government a lot happening in the environmental space—in the blue-green space. It was great to see this legislation go through the legislative process from the first reading where there were some concerns conspiracy stories to the way the bill was managed through the select committee process where we heard about five submissions each of which had very valid points which the select committee had to think through. There were very collegial discussions and in the end this legislation was amended through the second reading and now we have this final reading.We are talking about a sector where there are very real consequences. We do know from the regulatory impact statement that if Shell Todd Oil Services were to cease operations in the Māui field it would have a significant impact on New Zealand’s economy. We are talking not only about the economy but also about New Zealand’s well-being. What we do know is that the Māui field produces about 26 percent of New Zealand’s gas supply and it is a big employer in the Taranaki region employing about 300 people. So it is right that this Government work to protect a valuable sector of the New Zealand economy and a valuable employer. We do know that we have the old Pareto ratio of 80:20 in this case. This field produces around 80 percent of the gas consumed and it provides for about 20 percent of sites—petrochemical sites and electricity generation as well as large industrial users in our export economy.We as New Zealanders do know that it is the export economy that drives this country forward and that improves the well-being of all New Zealanders. The regulatory impact statement outlines also that a previous outage in 2011 cost the economy $200 million—that was $40 million a day. So we do know that it is right not only to grow the economy but also to protect our environment. That is this National Government’s approach—the blue-green approach. I do not see this approach more than in my electorate of Waimakariri where the residents and constituents understand this. It is a great area for primary production and produces a lot of export goods. We know that it is about improving the quality of water water storage and increasing the productivity of the land. So it is great to see this Government delivering in this space.A key part of this bill was around the specified time frames for Shell Todd Oil Services to apply for a marine consent. What this committee did quite rightly was to work through those issues. There was a proposal for 6 months which would have put it in line with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act the Crown Minerals Act and the Resource Management Act. Six months looked pretty credible. There were proposals for 9 months and 12 months also. Twelve months did seem like a long time but the reason why this committee settled on 9 months was the 140 statutory days needed for this application process as well as time for appeals and objections. So this committee did settle on 9 months.And why is it right that we have time for appeals and objections to take place? Some of the submitters were concerned that this might allow for an open-ended application process. But that is only right because every New Zealander expects to be heard; they want to be part of the process. Only a country like New Zealand allows every New Zealander the right to submit and to present their submission orally. So if that takes time then so be it and it is great that everyone will have the time to make a submission during this process. It was great to see the legislative process working its way through as the committee decided between 6 9 and 12 months. We had a submission from Frack Free Kapiti and Beyond. It was very concerned about the open-ended process that I have just talked about. So it is great to see that submitters can be involved.A key part of this bill is clause 4 which amends section 162 of the Act and is around the inflexibility of this section. What we wanted to do was make the Act flexible in order to allow these petroleum companies to fit into this new regime and to continue operating when their previous permit has expired. I think that is right because these large petroleum operators needed business certainty and business continuity. You could ask any small medium or large business throughout New Zealand and they are all about business continuity. Even the farmers in my electorate measure themselves against reliability—reliability of water to feed the stock and to produce what they can. So it is quite right that we are supporting business continuity with this piece of legislation.I also highlight that I think the submitters to this bill got it right. They were very concerned that this petroleum operator knew about the issue did not get its act together and should have provided more information up-front. I think that most New Zealanders are pretty astute and it is pretty hard to argue against that. When we heard submissions from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand which was representing the petroleum operators and other individuals and the private sector I urged them to be involved in this process a lot earlier. There are now clear time lines and expectations of being a bit more interventionist with petroleum companies to ensure that they get these applications in on time.I wrote down a bit of checklist in my first reading speech and I think it is still very relevant. I had a look at it and it says: “Does this bill support our fourth-biggest export commodity earner?” Yes. “Does this bill avoid the closure of a gasfield at $40 million a day?” Yes. “Does this bill protect 300 jobs?” Yes. “Does this bill support existing operators to transition into the exclusive economic zone Act?” Yes. “Does this bill protect $800 million worth of taxes and royalties from operators in this sector which pays for public services such as schools hospitals and roads?” Yes. “And—very important for the Greens—does this bill support the retiring of coalmining by supporting gas exploration and exporting?” Yes. So very much like myself and Ron Mark this bill is small and simple but very effective and I support it in this House.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. In the series of debates on this legislation there has been a lot of talk about gas oil companies and economic development but what I have not heard about is the environment—the actual place that we are talking about which is the exclusive economic zone. It has been entirely absent.We are incredibly lucky in New Zealand. People do not often think about New Zealand as a super power. Obviously we are a pretty small low-population country but when it comes to the marine environment we are a super power. We have got the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world—an incredible environment. We have got maybe 1000 undersea mountains and incredible endemisms—species that live here and that do not live anywhere else on the planet. We have got huge resources huge fish stocks some incredible flora and fauna down there and some things that scientists advise us we know so little about. In fact less than 0.41 percent of this is actually protected in marine reserves. So sure although we are talking about a bill that is granting transitional drilling powers to one particular oil company let us not forget what we are talking about which is this large rich diverse thriving marine environment which we still know so little about. More people have been to the surface of the moon than have been to the bottom of the deep ocean. It is the world’s second-deepest submarine trench and a place that most likely none of us will get to in our lives but one that is deserving of our protection.When you listen to the previous speaker Matt Doocey you would think he was Al Gore or St Francis of Assisi or that he had just driven here in his electric hybrid from some adventures on the Rainbow Warrior as if he were some sort of environmental champion. Let us not forget though that what the Government did was basically to build on the work of the previous Government in finally getting around to a Resource Management Act for the sea. This was something that the Green Party had been calling for since we were first elected to Parliament under our own steam in 1999. What we got was far short of what the country actually needed or what was happening in other world-leading countries around the world which was a comprehensive oceans policy. What we got was resource management for the sea tilted in favour of extractive industries.It has been interesting to follow this process in this House and in the courts over many years and here we are with another iteration. We saw the original legislation passed I believe in 2012. It had to be amended to fix up some problems. I followed the High Court case when Anadarko was taken to court. I submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority on both the Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal applications which were thrown out. And here we are now seeing yet another amendment to this legislation. What we are not talking about is improving the legislation. We are not talking about fixing it—in terms of some of those glaring gaps—or about how we move forward to take advantage of and protect the fourth-largest marine environment in the world. What this legislation does is patch up a loophole—a loophole that could have been identified by officials or Government Ministers originally.But the blame should lie fairly at Shell Todd Oil Service’s door which is a company involved in the process surrounding the passing of the original legislation and which has operated in New Zealand for decades which is worth tens of hundreds of millions of dollars which knew its permit was expiring—it had ultimately decades of notice—and which did not get its application in on time. As someone who hears often about personal responsibility I ask why we are not applying it in this case. We urge personal responsibility for beneficiaries but when it comes to big corporates why did we not ask them why they did not get their paperwork and application in on time? Why was the executive not asking the company why it was lobbying it to pass a law of Parliament—a statute—before it even got its application in? It does look a bit cart before the horse when you have a company that has not made an application and runs instead to Cabinet which decided in fact on 8 December to pass this legislation before the company had even got its application in when ultimately it had had years and decades of notice. That is why the Green Party opposed the first reading of this legislation. It really did look like one law for oil—a law for a single corporate.Many members are concerned about crony capitalism or support only for a few corporates with relations with whoever is in Government and this is something that we were concerned about. Ultimately there are a whole host of legislative solutions that this House should be taking to grow our economy to build a more prosperous economy to grow jobs and to protect our environment. It is not this choice between one or the other. In fact protecting our environment is our key to our economic prosperity. But we are not debating those things; we are debating passing a law to help a company that did not get its application in on time despite all the notice.However we were pleased to note the constructive positive atmosphere in the Local Government and Environment Committee. We would like to acknowledge once again the chair Mr Simpson the members and the five submitters. We have made improvements and that is why subsequently we are changing our vote to support this law. Ultimately what this law does is a single thing: allowing transitional provisions in the case of an appeal by a marine consent applicant whose permit expires. We will not see this in effect for decades given the other applicants with marine permits will not be applying for marine consents for some decades. So we are talking about transitional provisions something analogous with what we see already in the Resource Management Act and something non-controversial but we have managed to clarify it by adding new section 162(5) which allows the 9-month or 140 statutory day - consistency with the existing primary legislation in order to incentivise companies to actually get their applications in on time. If this amendment had not been made there would have been an incentive for a marine applicant or the oil company in this example to put its application in the day before its permit expires because it knows that it is protected by statute and that for the course of the process through the Environmental Protection Authority and any future appeals it would be protected and its activity could continue.Secondly in the same section we sought clarification around what an application meant. The way it was drafted it was dubious and could have been challenged in court. By clarifying that it must be a complete application which gives the Environmental Protection Authority the powers to request additional information such as an oil spill impact assessment in the case of an oil industry company applicant there is certainty. It must be a complete application. It is important because I am aware of a few applications despite the small number to the Environmental Protection Authority where considerable information has been presented. So we have signalled our concerns. We identified that we would be lodging a protest vote in the first reading. We are happy and would like to acknowledge the work of the members on the committee to improve the bill. That is why we will be changing our vote.Let us get around to having the real conversation which is about how we look after the fourth-largest part of marine space in the world which is owned by a company. We had concerns with the original exclusive economic zone legislation—that it was too focused on extractive industries. At the time I called it an “easy drilling bill” because of how much weaker it was than the Resource Management Act and because of how the precautionary principle was not carried over despite the international importance of this principle—it was only a precautionary principle. So we have got concerns that we are not protecting our taonga our heritage our beautiful natural environment.So what is next? What we need to have a conversation about is how we see greater marine protection across the water out from 12 nautical miles in the exclusive economic zone. It is a scandal that in 2015 we still cannot create marine reserves in the exclusive economic zone and that is why we have in total less than half of 1 percent of our waters protected in marine reserves. What we need to be doing is taking a smart approach. What we should be undertaking is a spatial-planning approach to our marine environment and having those conversations about where the special protected areas are where the areas are that we need to find out more information where the go areas are for extractive industries where the no-go areas are. What we have seen under the current legislation is two companies Trans-Tasman Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate investing tens of millions of dollars and having their applications thrown out from the Environmental Protection Authority.I personally submitted against them because of the huge environmental consequences they had. But it is unfair I believe for these applicants when they lack certainty. That is why I am calling for a seabed moratorium. We should actually undertake some of the fundamental scientific questions and undertake the spatial planning so that we actually know what is down there in the go and no-go areas when these companies apply. Who knows whether they will have a case in the future or in a different location but when they are literally throwing tens of millions of dollars away because of a flawed process I think it is in everyone’s interest to work together to undertake this policy.Just lastly instead of looking at individual species under the quota management system or individual areas in isolation we should in fact be taking an ecosystem approach. We are calling for a spatial-planning ecosystem approach and greater protection. These are what are going to protect our shared—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry. The member’s time has expired.RON MARK (NZ First):I am pleased to be able to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and make what will be the final contribution to this piece of legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I think that the debate so far has pretty much traversed everything that could be said about what is quite a small bill. It seems to occupy a lot of the House’s time for its size but clearly the bill amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. I remind the House of that because that is actually where the problem was created in case people have forgotten that.New Zealand First acknowledges that our exclusive economic zone is one of the largest in the world and together with our extended continental shelf is about 21 times the size of our land mass. That places huge responsibility on this nation in terms of how it manages its resources within that sphere. So for legislation that seeks to manage the environmental impact of industrial activities in our oceans it is absolutely crucial that it be right and hopefully that it be right the first time round in order to save everybody a lot of heartache and actually to ensure productivity in this House is maintained at a higher level than this bill might suggest it is being.When it was introduced by the Minister for Land Information on behalf of the Minister for the Environment into the House it was stated that “This bill will ensure that when operators apply for a marine consent for their existing production activities they will be able to continue operating as they have done for the last 40 years until their marine consent application is decided on by the Environmental Protection Authority.” That was the aim and the purpose. I want to go one step further. The thing that I found interesting is that as the Minister for Land Information said in her first reading speech the Government would have preferred that Shell Todd Oil Services had applied in sufficient time so that this bill was not needed. That is a really interesting statement because although I myself and New Zealand First were a little critical of Shell Todd Oil Services for not actually getting its application in early it also became clear to me as we made our way through the legislation and through select committee deliberation that it was not entirely the fault of Shell Todd Oil Services. The problem was actually injected into the original legislation either by the oversight or incompetence of the Minister Nick Smith.I applaud the Government members of the committee for the way in which they diligently go about their work. I specifically want to acknowledge and applaud their ability to listen to argue to discuss and to amend a bill where they too accept that there is a sensible change that can be made for the benefit of the oil exploration companies. And I do think that I will also applaud their level of loyalty to a Minister who consistently and persistently seems to charge out of the blocks waving his flag and telling the nation that he is doing good work for it only to trip stumble fall and break his nose at the taxpayers’ expense—and we end up back in the House redressing. I have to say that when I look at this legislation I cannot help but be mindful of the debacle in Auckland with the housing issue: the same Minister again. And then I think back to my time as the Mayor of Carterton and seeing the absolutely appalling way that same Minister handled legislation in the local government amendment bill that went through a couple of years ago.It was the same act: wave it around we are doing the country a favour this is going to be environmentally good for the country this is going to help the oil exploration companies get on with their work protect the environment and protect the resources. OK—then bang it falls over and here we are back in the House. I just wonder loyalty aside on the back of this little debacle how long we will have to endure until we see someone like Scott Simpson move up the ranks and take Nick Smith’s job and allow him to quietly with dignity move off into the ether and into retirement because this actually is another one of his errors and his flaws.I have spoken about the amendment so I will not dwell on that further. I just want to thank the Government members for listening to the debate and for also coming to the conclusion that not only is this good for the Government it is actually good for the industry itself—giving it that extra time. I go back to the departmental report where it was actually recommending 6 months right from the get-go and yet the committee agreed unanimously that 9 months would be better for all in terms of that amendment in clause 4 to section 162 of the principal Act.The submitters were interesting. It is interesting that I think we actually had only one submission in favour of the legislation which naturally came from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand. We had two groups opposed to the legislation Frack Free Kapiti and Oil Free Otago along with Miss Linda Hill. We had one from Tanea Tangaroa who although she expressed her outrage on behalf of her people her hapū as to the way in which oil exploration is handled in general within New Zealand waters and particularly within their rohe did not actually make it clear and go so far as to oppose the legislation. Well she certainly did not say those words in her submission.But the concerns against were interesting and I think most of them were within the range or the sphere of Green Party thinking. They were concerned about giving existing operators legal privilege. Oil Free Otago opposed for a range of reasons all environmental. Miss Linda Hill again opposed for environmental reasons. But it is interesting that at the end of the day even with Tanea Tangaroa who had a lot of cultural concerns and expressed those on behalf of her whanaunga and her hapū here we sat at the end of the day with a committee that had a number of us from across party lines all of Māori descent looking at it and deciding that this legislation in its amended form should go forward. All of us agreed at the end of the day despite the concerns raised by people opposed to it on environmental grounds. The Green Party also came in behind and are now supporting the legislation.I myself had to take a step back because I was strongly critical of Shell Todd Oil Services at the outset because I think it could have got its act together. But I do accept now that it is not entirely its fault. If the original piece of legislation had been a little tighter and more comprehensive and had been given a little more thought this piece of legislation would not have been necessary. In summary good work by the select committee: good amendments. It is a very small piece of legislation but a very important piece of legislation in terms of how we protect yet take economic advantage from our oceans. I will just put on the record that New Zealand First supports this third reading and the passage of this bill and welcomes the fact that all other parties despite their initial views and concerns particularly environmental have likewise come to the same conclusion. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this third reading debate on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill—that is quite a mouthful. I would like to begin by thanking Ron Mark the member who just resumed his seat for his gracious comments about the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. If I could also add my support for what he said it is a great pleasure to work under the chairmanship of the member for Coromandel Mr Scott Simpson who does I think approach these matters in a very cross-party and multipartisan way to get the best-possible results putting aside the politics of these things.This is a very important issue for New Zealand and I have to disclose I suppose on the record that I did my Business and Parliament Trust work placement recently with Todd Energy a very fine company and a New Zealand - owned business. It is probably the largest New Zealand - owned private business operating in this country. Todd Energy has been producing energy in the Taranaki region for 40 years now and has done so in a very safe and effective manner—environmentally sustainably in terms of certainly not producing any spills or environmental degradation—but also with great regard for the safety of its staff and the people who work in its facilities.This is a very important issue for New Zealand because this is a field that produces 20 percent of our natural gas supply. This is not just what we cook with and what perhaps heats our water for our morning showers if we use gas as a consumer but whilst doing my placement with Todd Energy I had the opportunity to see how else the gas is used. It is exported and is a valuable export commodity for New Zealand. Not only does it earn us those export dollars but it is often shipped up into the Pacific region to places that do not have the same energy resources that we do. It is very important for those small economies.Also it is used in the peaking power industry. It operates gas turbine power plants so that in situations where we have a drought and have insufficient water in our lakes to sustain the generation of hydro power or at other times when there is a high demand such as during the cold snaps we have experienced over the last few days it will use natural gas to fire turbines and supplement the baseload that is produced by more sustainable means such as the hydro and geothermal plants in New Zealand. So it is a very important issue.We have had some contributions from across the House that I think actually necessitate my putting the record straight. I do not want to be ungracious myself. I welcome the change of heart or at least the coming to their senses of the Green Party in voting for this bill and I also welcome the support from Labour and New Zealand First—in fact I welcome the universal support of this House for this piece of legislation. But there have been some comments made in the debate that do necessitate a response I believe—firstly from Mr Nash. I acknowledge Mr Nash’s expertise in this industry. He himself has worked in the petrochemical industry. But Mr Nash accusing the Government of making sloppy amendments or in fact making amendments to sloppy legislation is a little bit rich given Labour was the Government that passed the Police Act for which extraordinary urgency was required to correct a drafting error that had led to a large number—dozens—of New Zealand police constables not being correctly sworn in. It potentially could have had very grave ramifications for the administration of justice in New Zealand.Similarly Gareth Hughes when he made his contribution claimed that we have the fourth-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. This is not correct. When consulting publicly available sources on the internet you will see that we are the eighth-largest or ninth-largest depending on the definitions used unless you want to include the Realm of New Zealand which are the small countries that we are in free association with—Niue Tokelau the Cook Islands and parts of Antarctica. I think it would be a far cry for the Greens to be embarking on that sort of imperialism where we would want to claim the resources of those countries with which we have close relationships but we do not purport to own what is under their seabed or in fact the fisheries and other resources that go with that exclusive economic zone. So I think it is important to correct those issues.Shell Todd Oil Services is the first and probably the foremost company when it comes to passing this amendment in that it had a permit that expired on 27 June. It is true that that situation is less problematic now given that it has been given an approved permit but there is a matter of principle here. We came in as a Government when there was no protection whatsoever for an exclusive economic zone. We had had 40 years of oil companies and gas exploration in New Zealand with very limited controls and now I am quite proud to be part of a Government that has brought in comprehensive and consistent controls and a process for registering and seeking permits to be able to explore and extract petrochemicals and gas.It probably should be unsurprising to us that with such a substantial and also new and innovative piece of legislation there will be issues that need to be amended. This is a correctly named bill in that it is a transitional provisions amendment bill. So it is Shell Todd Oil Services that is the first beneficiary if you like of this piece of legislation but there are several other companies that have permits expiring out through the 2020s for which this bill was also required to give them sufficient time to lodge their applications and have them reasonably heard and also to give our environmental protection agencies sufficient time to review those applications and make sure they are making a well-advised and fair decision on those particular cases.In the select committee—and I think other members such as Major Mark referenced this—we did hear differing views. My personal view was that an application period of 6 months by which a company must lodge a consent for its marine permit is a reasonable time. That was my personal view. I particularly favoured 6 months because it was in line with the Crown Minerals Act. I thought consistency between exploration onshore and offshore was fairly important. But as Mr Mark referenced we are a fair and reasonable committee. Our ears were open. We listened to the arguments that were made. It was not my personal preference but we came to a time line of 9 months by which that application must be lodged prior to its expiration date. Although my preference was for 6 months I think 9 months is a good compromise. It is something that the companies will be able to manage and ensure that they continue to function producing that valuable export commodity and energy for the New Zealand market.As the law currently stands were we not to pass this bill those current applicants and operators that are applying for marine consents would find themselves in breach of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act if they continued operating beyond the expiry date of their permits under the Crown minerals regime—the previous regime—even if there was an appeal in process. To me that strikes as something that is manifestly unfair. If you have got your application in in good time but you are going through a very lengthy appeal process—and it can take many months even years for some of these technical details to be fully worked through in the appeals process—it does seem somewhat unfair that that company would be unduly penalised and that is without even taking into account the knock-on effect on New Zealand energy consumers and the wider economy. So we simply cannot afford to have an energy resource—a gasfield that produces 20 percent of our domestic supply—to have any uncertainty over its operations and for this reason I welcome the support of other parties in the House.I also need to note that this bill does not change anything for other operators. Those that have their existing permits and consents in place will continue to be able to explore and extract until their applications are further decided. If the amendments were not made before 27 June then Shell Todd Oil Services would have found itself in breach of the 2012 Act if it was operating without a marine consent. So it is very timely that we are passing this legislation. In fact one might say we are even getting it in a little bit early before that final deadline.This is an important piece of legislation. I welcome the cross-party consensus on this bill and I do commend it to the House.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):I understand this is a split call. My colleague Gareth Hughes explained why the Green Party was opposing this legislation at first reading. We opposed it because it did seem to be preferential treatment for Shell Todd Oil Services. But through the submission process we have come to support it and that is largely because it does make the administration of the exclusive economic zone legislation more efficient administratively. It is largely a procedural issue rather than a substantive change to the decision-making criteria in the bill and that is of course because it does allow holders of existing permits or privileges under the Crown Minerals Act to continue to operate while they apply for a marine consent under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act provided their application is lodged 9 months before their existing permit expires and provided they lodge a complete application.But as others have said this is definitely a patch-up piece of legislation and although we are supporting it we would like to highlight another one of the concerns. We are concerned that we are going to get another patch-up job because when one reads the 121-page Environmental Protection Authority decision on Shell Todd Oil Services’ actual application for a marine consent—and I have not yet read all of it—one of the things that is highlighted in the expert evidence around the decision is that when the authority is considering marine consents such as the other four that will come before it from other operators there is no ability for the authority to consider final decommissioning. That is outside the whole scope of the marine consent because as one of the authority’s staff members noted there is nothing in primary legislation in New Zealand that gives effect to international decommissioning requirements. It is not all about business continuance as Mr Doocey and others have talked about in their speeches.There are major environmental impacts from both oil and gas exploration and from the continued operation of the drilling rig and what happens when it ends its life and yet in the exclusive economic zone Act we have nothing that controls decommissioning. So it is unclear as to whether the oil rig and the gas platforms can actually be left in place. Just what will happen to them at the end of their life when Shell Todd Oil Services has extracted all that it wants to? Is that another piece of ad hoc legislation that we will see coming to this House to patch it up because as with this bill the Government has neglected to take a comprehensive overview of all of the requirements that are needed to control this industry?The other issue where there is a big gap of course is in marine protection. This House and the Government has acted with speed to get this legislation passed potentially by 27 June when Shell Todd Oil Services would have been in breach of the principal Act yet it has failed to operate with the same speed the same commitment to actually ensure that we have got adequate marine protection.In the select committee last week the Minister of Conservation noted that the responsibility for new marine protected areas legislation which we have been promised by this Government in every election is now going to be part of the responsibility of the Ministry for the Environment rather than the Department of Conservation. The concern is that we expedite special legislation to assist the oil companies but this Government fails to expedite legislation to actually protect parts of our exclusive economic zone. So we have no deep-sea marine reserves and if we have the Ministry for the Environment with its sustainable management function now being responsible for marine protection rather than the Department of Conservation which of course has the function of preserving and protecting natural resources we are likely to see a lot of Clayton’s marine reserves where fishing is allowed to continue and there may be just some restrictions on fishing methods. We are supporting this bill but there is a major gap in our law in that we do not have effective marine protection legislation.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):Can I just briefly send out a mihi to all of the whanau hapū and iwi in my electorate who are suffering floods right at the moment and say that I am thinking of them right now.This bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill which the Labour Party is supporting at this third reading—I endorse those comments from members who have stated that the principal legislation was rushed through this House and was badly drafted. I am quite astounded that this issue was not picked up at the original passing of the principal legislation. One would have thought that modelling would be done. We expect that many community organisations would do their homework when they are doing things like applying for funding etc. It would not be too much to ask during the drafting of that legislation that modelling around the application process would have been done so that everyone would see how this process should work. Clearly it was not done and so we find ourselves in the House today passing this legislation to correct that so that businesses like Shell Todd Oil Services can continue operating under the current legislation.We heard from the member Matt Doocey who said that we need this legislation because of business continuity. And that is correct; we do need business continuity. The problem that I have is that it seems to me the Government restricts its identifying of business continuity to only certain businesses. If we applied that member’s logic to Relationships Aotearoa there would be 183 people who would not be out of work today. He talked about the 300 people who would be lost from the mining industry if the current legislation was left and said that there are appeals under that process.That is an ongoing issue that I actually have with the members opposite. They are very good at putting up legislation that helps big business but when it comes to supporting community organisations like Relationships Aotearoa 183 people lose their jobs and 7000 of its clients have to find alternative services for the issues that they have.I want to acknowledge the submitters and in particular Tanea Tangaroa. She has put in a submission to the select committee. She talks about a number of issues that I think are relevant and that I think need to be noted in the House with regard to this piece of legislation. Albeit she focused on the ongoing extraction of oil and gas from Papatūānuku I think it is still relevant that someone like her should be able to make a submission to the select committee around her concerns about this legislation and so I mihi to her.It is a very small bill of course—only four clauses and the relevant clause is clause 4 which amends section 162 of the principal Act. We would not be in this situation—I will congratulate the members of the select committee because the bill is substantially changed from the first reading and I think it is obviously due to members of that select committee. I congratulate them on coming to a consensus around the time frame that organisations have for their applications. Thank you.JOANNE HAYES (National):I rise to take a final call on this amazing bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. This bill is in the name of Dr Nick Smith our Minister for the Environment.I just want to make a bit of a comment around what our colleague in New Zealand First said about our loyalty to our Minister. This is what this National-led Government and this National Party is all about. We are loyal to each other. It does not matter whether you are a Minister or not—we are loyal to each other. I believe that that kind of loyalty is a model that many parties within this House could take a page out of our book on when it comes to loyalty to each other and loyalty to the philosophies and principles that run our party. The Hon Nick Smith is a very good Minister. He is a very thorough Minister. He cares about our environment and has done a lot of work around the protection of our environment and also leading our Bluegreens caucus group which has been successful from day one through his leadership.A couple of other things that I also want to mention here are when one of my colleagues talked about business continuity—and the other member who spoke just before Adrian Rurawhe talked about how this is a Government that looks after only big business. This particular bill is actually for key businesses—for key petroleum gas and mining businesses that play a key role in the economy of this country. We cannot and will not be taken aside and beaten up about that. These are organisations that make sure that the people of this country are able to access gas without any interruption whatsoever.So yes as we have acknowledged in our select committee capably and competently led by—Tim Macindoe: Scott Simpson.JOANNE HAYES: —Scott Simpson our chair—I just about forgot his name! We are a committee that listens to the arguments. We listened to the arguments about changes and amendments and weighed them up and thought yes this is a good way to go. I am really pleased—I am really really pleased—to see that our colleagues in the Green Party have actually changed their vote and are now supporting this bill because it is a very important bill to support.The amendments that have been proposed in clause 4 amending section 162(5) allow existing operators who have applied for marine consents to continue operations until the application is decided so that they can go a little bit further working and operating until their application is agreed to and any other subsequent objections or appeals are determined. That is good for the industry of New Zealand. If the amendments were not made Shell Todd Oil Services would be in breach. As we know just recently Shell Todd Oil Services received its marine consent to operate but we still need to get this bill through to make sure that if there are going to be any appeals the organisation can keep on operating in the Māui field.The Māui field currently provides 20 percent of New Zealand’s gas. It is really important. We cannot afford any uncertainty in that for the people of this country. I can say that many constituents would actually have a go at us and say that we should have done more around this area and we have. That is the whole point of this. It is a narrowly focused bill but it is a bill that is so important to the economy and livelihoods of the people of this country. That is how we on this side of the House view all the bills that we put through especially around environmental protection.Currently as the law stands current operators who apply for marine consents would be in breach of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act if they continued operating beyond the expiry date. This bill allows them to carry on past the expiry date until the Environmental Protection Authority has approved their application for consent. Even having a marine consent application being considered by the Environmental Protection Authority under section 162 of the Act does not allow operators to continue their activities as I said beyond the expiry date of their permits under the Crown minerals regime. This bill will actually make sure that that does not happen.As I said when I talked about big business as was talked about just recently and the dates for permit expirations we are looking at Shell Todd Oil Services whose permit was to expire on 27 June but has now been renewed for 35 years. We are talking about Australian Worldwide Exploration whose marine consent expires on 24 November 2025; OMV New Zealand Ltd whose marine consent expires on 1 December 2027; and Origin Energy Resources New Zealand—or Origin as we know it—its marine consent expires on 26 June 2031. We know that Shell Todd Oil Services did not apply early enough but what has happened now is that its application has gone through and now we just need to carry on and get this bill through its third and final reading. We cannot afford to let any of the 20 percent of the New Zealand consumer’s gas be held up by legislation that will stop that so that is what this bill is all about.Our natural environment as I have mentioned before is our greatest asset. Through the exclusive economic zone we have ended up with 44 marine reserves and the Environmental Protection Authority came into being. That is really key because pre-2008 there was no legislation in this country to protect our environment. The previous Government allowed 34 wells to be drilled without any protection for our environment. I believe that is quite irresponsible towards the people of this country and our environment because so many things could have gone wrong in those 34 wells that had been drilled without any sanctions or rules or a watchdog body looking after them.I heard what our Green colleagues said about there being no deep-sea marine reserves approved. That is fine—we have 44 of them so far and yes most of them are inshore and slowly—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to invite the member to address the bill.JOANNE HAYES: Yes that is part of it. Slowly but surely we would be looking at those into the future. So this bill does not change anything for existing operators; it just tightens up everything and makes sure it all works.What it also does is give surety into the future for those who are consumers of gas and oil products. It also gives surety for the employment of people working on the Māui field. As I have said in previous speeches I have not seen too many Taranaki people walking around with their lip drooping because of the Māui oilfields. The Māui fields have given so much security for the people of Taranaki around employment and economic development. I have been to Taranaki and seen beautiful walkways there and the development of their town. That is all attributed to the people who work at and operate Shell Todd Oil Services who operate those Māui fields.I am as I have said before very pleased and very proud to support the progress of this bill into legislation. I am very proud of the work that Nick Smith does contrary to what some of my Opposition colleagues have actually said. He is a hard worker and one whose book many people could take a leaf out of on how to do things right—how to do things right acknowledge certain things need changing and do it. It is when people do not acknowledge it and do not change things that we get into trouble. This is a Government that listens. We weigh it up we have discussions—we are very open about that—and then we present it back to the House. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):The Labour Opposition supports this bill and supports it because we did not want to be responsible for putting the environment at potential risk if this piece of legislation did not pass. I will talk more about that. The second point is that we have been critical of the relevant Ministers right from the outset when the main legislation was passed and debated in this House in 2012. We said then that the main legislation was poorly drafted it was weak legislation and this bill is evidence of what we said then. The third point I will make in my concluding remarks is to acknowledge that despite our criticism of the Minister for the Environment and this Government we do acknowledge that the select committee that reviewed this piece of legislation the Local Government and Environment Committee actually improved the legislation. I give credit to the chairman Mr Scott Simpson for the way that he ushered through our debates and discussion and I would suggest to that side of the House that he ought to be a fine replacement for a Minister I saw last week who seemed very frail and seemed all beaten up. The last thing is that I would strongly commend those from the public who took the time to submit on this piece of legislation because it is not a piece of legislation that is inviting for the public to make submissions to.It is a piece of legislation that has only four clauses and the first clause is really about the title. I said in the Committee of the whole House that the title is a mouthful: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. That itself prevents a lot of our public from participating and coming forward. In fact the first thing is you would wonder what the legislation really is all about and the title does not give that away. Clause 2 of the bill is a standard clause. Clause 3 then makes reference that the main Act the Act that came into force in 2013 goes back to 2012. I will repeat again that our criticism of the then Minister Amy Adams and of the present Minister in this portfolio is that they rushed through the legislation. It was poorly drafted it was weak legislation and again having us being here in this House debating this bill is evidence of what we said.The Government members pointed out the fact that we also had legislation in the previous Government that needed improvement. I would say to the Government: do not use that argument because the present Government is now in charge and has the power to make these changes if it so wishes. Using the argument that previous Governments made mistakes actually sends a bad message to the public because what the Government is saying is that because the previous Government made a mistake it is OK for it to make mistakes. Our role as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to help the Government provide good legislation. The sign of an arrogant Government is when it stops listening to the Opposition and that is what I mean. If it had stopped being arrogant and actually listened to the Opposition this legislation—the main Act in 2012—would have been a far better piece of legislation and we would not have to debate this here today. I acknowledge that the Government did on this occasion listen to some of the public submitters and on the whole it was because of the workings of the committee chaired by Mr Scott Simpson that we have a piece of legislation that we are pleased to support.The final clause of the legislation is really the major amendment. The reason why we are having to amend it is because of Shell Todd Oil Services which is a company that operates the Māui Gas platforms. If this amendment does not pass we then put at risk the environment by having to temporarily close the operations of the Māui Gas platforms at great cost and also potentially put the environment at risk. That is the sole reason why we are supporting this. By amending this legislation it allows Shell Todd Oil Services to put its resource consent in barring any appeals that may come in place. I note that some of the submitters were quite critical of the fact—and I reiterate what some others have said—that a company such as Shell Todd Oil Services surely would have had the means and the resources to have got its act in place so that it could have entered its resource consent with sufficient time taking into consideration any potential appeals that might have come its way. But on this occasion we have had to amend the bill to give them sufficient time in order for the Māui Gas operations to continue and not to put the environment at risk.Some of the key issues raised by submitters were that they did not want to provide an open-ended time frame for existing operations to continue outside the exclusive economic zone legislation regime. I think the select committee heard that the select committee took note of that and as a result we put a time frame of 9 months. Another key issue that was raised by submitters was the preferential treatment for the petroleum industry. We have not talked about this in the debates but it is an issue that comes up time and time again from many in this country of ours who are concerned about the way this Government seems to be able to freely argue that for purely economic reasons it is OK to exploit oil and gas without any due consideration for the environment. Its rhetoric about maintaining a balance—I think the public stills needs to see evidence of that. Yes we can exploit for economic reasons but where is the protection of the environment? Where does that lie? Who becomes responsible for the wreckage of the environment? Because in many cases on an international level we see examples of that with oil spills in other parts of the world and what not. We have been fortunate but that does not mean we are immune. I think that if we are allowing companies to believe that they can run roughshod over our legislation and if Governments are not vigilant to the point where they are producing legislation that is weak and poorly drafted as is the case with the main piece of legislation then we put our environment at risk.I remember some of our elders—and these are mana whenua in Tāmaki Makaurau—who often remind us that they have a world view about protecting the environment and the reason is because we are passing the environment to the next generation. What is it that we pass on to the next generation if we do not take care of the present environment that we are living in? To argue that purely for economic reasons it is OK to allow certain companies to have unfettered power to exploit and to explore our environment—I am just issuing a word of caution to the Government that if it talks about the blue-green argument then it needs to produce evidence of how it is that it is protecting this environment for the next generation coming through. I want to acknowledge the submitters. There were few submitters on the bill but I say again that I am grateful for the way that they conducted themselves and the evidence that they produced. Thankfully all members of the select committee were able to take on board what they said and I think that is what we saw in the final draft of this bill here. Thank you.NUK KORAKO (National):Āe e mihi atu ki a koe e te Mana Whakawā ā huri noa i te Whare tēnei Whare Pāremata e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.[Yes I acknowledge you Mr Assistant Speaker and all of you throughout the House this House of Parliament.]Before I talk about this particular bill I just want to acknowledge the passing of the Rt Hon Sir William Birch’s wife Lady Rosa who passed away yesterday. So I am just thinking of Sir William and also his whānau at this time.I rise to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I will be ticking off another parliamentary milestone today in the fact that this is the first bill that I have seen go right through the legislative process. I spoke on the first reading. I sat on the select committee. I spoke on the second reading and now I speak as the final speaker to hopefully allow it to be passed through into law.As the final speaker on the bill I want to summarise the situation that necessitated this bill the details of what it does and finally give the broader picture. I do acknowledge members from both sides of the House and particularly the previous speaker Su’a William Sio who spoke about responsibilities around legislation the role of the Opposition and the role of those in Government.When National first came into Government in 2008 there was no regulatory regime in place to protect our oceans. I think that is really a major point in this whole process. Our exclusive economic zone which is very vast over 4 million square kilometres really does contain some untapped potential. As a Government that is committed to improving the lives of New Zealanders creating jobs and lifting income levels we are committed to making the best use of those resources and that should be a commitment from all members of this House.What we should also be doing—and it is what we have actually done and it is a reflection of this bill—is making economic use of the exclusive economic zone. We understand that this carries a risk to the environment. So it is vital that we protect this vulnerable environment—it is very very vulnerable. We need to try to minimise as much as possible the environmental risks. So this is what National did. National introduced the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. So this is the one that we are amending. We put in place for this country for the first time the first comprehensive regulatory regime of the exclusive economic zone. I think that milestone is really important to highlight in this final reading.The Act we are amending here was indeed a major reform. It was a very significant and a very complex piece of legislation. In fact there were not 121 pages; there were 129 pages. So it is no surprise that there have been unintended consequences. The provisions around the transitioning of the four current platform operators into this new regime have not been as clear as they could have been—this is major legislation; very comprehensive containing 129 pages. Granted it would have been nice to see Shell Todd Oil Services allowing much more time between its application for consent and the expiry of its current permit. If the permit had not been granted in time Shell Todd Oil Services would have had to cease operations immediately. The effect of course—and we have heard this right across the House—would have been major as 20 percent of New Zealand’s gas would have been in jeopardy. The supply would have stopped.This is an essential resource which many families and businesses rely on and I know that previous speakers from the other side of the House have said we are using that as an excuse in part for having to amend this Act. That may be so but at the end of the day it is not just to protect only those people who would have suffered drastically if we just completely shut it down immediately. It was that situation that we addressed but as I said previously there are a number of other reasons why we needed to amend this Act. If the permit had not been granted in time Shell Todd Oil Services would have had to cease operations immediately and then it would have been mayhem particularly for a number of New Zealand families and businesses. That is why part of this amendment is really really important.Shell Todd Oil Services has now been granted the consent. We all understand that. There are weeks before that expiry—only weeks—but there is an appeals process and we understand that as well. But I think looking at the bill and the appeals process it cannot hold up the actual pathway travel of the permit itself. I think that is also a really important part of this legislation.This bill does not just ensure the continuity of gas supply while any appeals regarding Shell Todd Oil Services or the other three consents are heard. It also ensures that there is a sensible transitional process in place for the remaining three other operators. We have really heard only about Shell Todd Oil Services. The other companies are Australian Worldwide Exploration OMV New Zealand and Origin Energy Resources. They will still be required to lodge their applications for consent at least 9 months before the current permits expire provided that the Environmental Protection Authority accepts an application as complete. In addition if any appeals are lodged the current permits will continue to apply until they have been heard and the final decisions made.As the final speaker I want to as everyone else has done acknowledge the submitters. There was a good cross-section of submitters and I suppose it is all about quality as opposed to quantity. There were very few but they covered major stakeholders within the industry major stakeholders who were tangata whenua and mana whenua and they are really active groups that share the same whakaaro the same things that we on this side of the House really do believe are very very important to the sustainability of our environment. I acknowledge the other members on the Local Government and Environment Committee and of course our very able chair Scott Simpson.Finally we are here today because the Government has introduced a bill that was long overdue. That is why we are here. We have a proper regulatory regime for our oceans and for the first time in our history environmental risks in the exclusive economic zone must be assessed and managed. This was a great step forward I believe and one that makes me proud to be a National Party MP and a blue-green. Our natural environment is our greatest asset. National’s successful economic and environmental policies must go hand in hand. This is another milestone in that journey.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 2Māori Party 2.Bill read a third time.Harmful Digital Communications BillIn CommitteePart 1 Approved Agency and enforcementThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a debate on clauses 3 to 22A and the schedule.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):One of the things I am quite certain that the whole Committee will agree on in this bill although I am sure there will be points of disagreement is that we wish to protect particularly our young people from harm in what is becoming an increasingly complex and fast-moving digital world. A number of aspects of this bill do directly address the impacts of cyber-bullying on young people and it is that one point the principle behind this bill and the very reason for this bill that I am sure we will all find agreement on. I doubt that there will be—and I would expect that there will not be—a dissenting voice amongst all the parents aunties uncles and grandparents gathered in this Parliament and all around New Zealand who take an interest in these things including our teachers and school principals and anybody who has stewardship for a time over children.It is interesting that this bill comes as a result of work by the Law Commission back in 2012 which was asked by the then Minister of Justice to look into the quickly evolving world of cyber-bullying and the terrible impact it was having particularly on young people. If you reflect on the Law Commission’s work it started back in 2012 and here we are in the middle of 2015. I am quite sure the device I am using now is eons more capable of transmitting all sorts of things be they messages videos or pictures than even 3 or 4 years ago. Many many of these devices that we use mostly as a work tool are used also by many people in society mostly for exchange of good communication but not always.Also with your indulgence if I might just very briefly widen out the conversation a little to reflect on what is happening in terms of the cyberconversation about a political party not represented in this Parliament that started with a press release or a press conference and has exponentially exploded into cyberspace. It just goes to show how very quickly things can move these days and once something is committed to the internet via Twitter or Facebook or any form of communication it is there—it does not go away—and that is what a number of young people have discovered to their cost. If you look through Facebook and see some pictures perhaps of young people having fun at a party you would think: “Oh OK.” but it is not so good when you are going to apply for your first job after you have done your degree and your employer or their agent goes through and just has a look at you and your online profile. You might then start to think: “Perhaps there are some things I did—it’s fine I did them but they should not necessarily have ended up online.” That is the genesis of this bill.I was not part of the consideration of this bill by the then Justice and Electoral Committee but I have read carefully the recommended changes that were proposed by the previous select committee and I will start going through them—we have only 5-minute calls in this part of the debate. There are some clarifications and changes suggested by the select committee and also further changes suggested by the Minister which I am sure will also be talked about. There are some pretty basic tidy-ups that the committee did and I commend the previous committee for its diligence and the fact that its members obviously listened to submitters who came to the committee and pointed out perhaps some degree of looseness in some of the provisions.The first one I am going to mention is inserting the same definition of an internet protocol address provider into the bill as exists in the Copyright Act 1994. Of course this means that the definition of an internet protocol address provider will be explicitly included in the bill whereas before as the bill was introduced to the House that was not necessarily explicit. There will be a subclause inserted into the bill to allow the District Court to be able to make an order against an internet protocol address provider to release the identity of an anonymous person’s account to the court. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Well this bill went through the Justice and Electoral Committee very fast over a year ago and came back to the House for its second reading. It did not have its second reading until a couple of months ago and now we are into the Committee stage. There is no doubt—as the previous speaker Jacqui Dean who chairs the Justice and Electoral Committee has noted—that cyber-bullying is a significant issue. Members on this side of the Chamber completely agree with that and know that there are serious real life consequences for victims and that the proliferation of communications particularly hand-held devices that people have with them the whole time has allowed for much more instant communication and for the consequences of that to be very real. We also recognise that the current framework is inadequate so the need to have a new framework is important. The Law Commission went through quite an extensive piece of work around that.However in terms of the bill that is before us and the bill as it was through the various processes Labour has had significant concerns and we have not resiled from setting those concerns out there. We continue to have grave concerns about the bill in its present form. We acknowledge however the work that the Minister of Justice has done to attempt to redress some of those issues in the bill. Despite that we continue to have concerns and we will be outlining those over the course of this evening but on balance we consider the issues of cyber-bullying serious enough to warrant our support for the bill through the Committee stage.We do however consider that the bill will have real problems in its execution and its application. It is going to result in cases being referred to the court that will waste the court’s time. It will put pressure on the approved agency that is set out in the bill and there are no guarantees that the approved agency will be properly resourced or properly skilled to deal with the mediation and legal work required because this is new territory. One of Labour’s considerable problems with this bill is that it is back to front. It should have been the end of the process rather than the beginning. There should have been a comprehensive education programme in place that enabled the community and agencies to become much better equipped to deal with cyber-bullying before punitive new laws were introduced that were untested and created new offences that apply in only the cyber environment. Instead this is where we have ended up pretty much first and we have got no guarantees that there will be the resourcing put in place to ensure that the new regimes will be able to actually be effective.The bill as I said was rushed through the select committee unnecessarily. There was a very very important stakeholder group that never ever got consulted and that is the young people who are largely going to be affected and the people who represent them: people in schools and people who are parents. There should have been a much more extensive process throughout the community before this bill even came before a select committee and unfortunately that did not happen. So if this is going to come in—when and if it is enacted—it will come as quite a shock I think to large parts of the community in terms of the measures that are in place and the criminal offence that is in place and the penalties that are being imposed in that.Labour abstained from voting on the bill in the select committee and we voted against it in the second reading as I have said. We did express a number of concerns which I am just going to quickly set out here tonight in my opening contribution. We believe that the bill has the potential to criminalise children and it continues to have that potential to criminalise children for behaviour that is best dealt with through education and those interventions. Labour has an amendment in the House tonight to address the part of the bill that provides that anyone under 17 cannot be convicted under clauses 18 and 19 of the bill. Tonight I urge speakers in the House on this bill to read and consider that and to think about the consequences of the impact on young people of being put in a court situation and potentially convicted.We believe that the definition of “harm” is too broad and we are certainly not alone in that. The definition which is “serious emotional distress” has the inability to be tested in any way until the matter goes before a court and not just before a court but also before the approved agency that will be dealing with the bulk of cases in the civil regime. It will have to initially decide what the legal definitions are and ensure that there is a balancing act that takes into account free speech as well as emotional distress to the victim. It will need to determine that but will it be equipped to do so? That is a really important question. Will it be equipped to do so? We are yet to know what and who the approved agency will be. As it stands there will need to be legal training involved in making those sorts of judgments.The proposed civil enforcement regime in the new criminal offence displaces the longstanding balance in New Zealand law and it is being replaced with novel and untested standards. What this piece of legislation does is create a new criminal offence that occurs in only the cyber environment. It does not mirror an offence in the physical environment and therefore it is a completely new and untested means of addressing what is a significant problem. We have concerns about that. We in the Labour Party are certainly not the only ones who are concerned about this. I know that many in the legal community also have concerns about this. We believe that it is also out of line with what are the trends that are happening overseas which are more away from criminalisation and towards education and ways of dealing with things in the community that involve mediation and ensuring that the community is better informed and better equipped. We believe that there are questions about whether it will be able to prevent harm and that it will not provide a quick and efficient method of complaint and take down.One of the major provisions in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 91 is around the safe harbour provision. If there is something harmful that has been posted it allows for a 48-hour period in order for the person who posted the harmful item to be contacted. That is a long time—that is an awfully long time—to have something very harmful up. So the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper will enable online content hosts to use their own provisions. For example an internet service provider such as TradeMe or whatever that has existing terms and conditions that it would rather use such as taking the item down immediately—which I know organisations like Facebook Google and YouTube often do—is now allowed to use those provisions. This is a good thing but they will not be covered under the safe harbour provision of the Act if they do so. So essentially it is a bit round the wrong way and it means that harmful items are going to be out there in the public arena for quite a long period of time with no legal provision to take them down and the effect of that is untested.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice):I do want to take a call on Part 1 which is clearly the most significant part of the bill and talk a little bit about where we are and Supplementary Order Paper 91 which I am tabling today to pick up on some of the issues that have been raised since the bill was last before the House which I think did make some very valid points that we wanted to address. I want to thank members across the House who have worked constructively with me on some of the issues that they have seen with the bill because what I do accept is that this is a new regime. I make no apology for that because we are dealing with new and insidious threats that simply were not around in years gone by and that I think it is absolutely our responsibility to respond to and provide for so that people in New Zealand are properly protected.I think one of the matters that we are all really agreed on is that there is real significant harm that can be caused through digital means. It is a new threat pattern and a very real and very serious threat pattern that this House has to respond to. I was very much guided by the report of the Law Commission in 2012 on this area. For anyone who has not read that piece of work and who is following this debate with interest I really do encourage them to go back to the Law Commission’s report which noted that about 20 percent of New Zealanders up to the age of 30 are suffering from this. So it is not a small fringe group and I think we can probably safely say that that number is likely to grow as digital means of communication become even more prevalent than they are now.One of the things that I do want to take a little bit of issue with though in terms of how the debate is progressing so far is that the majority of this framework is about education and civil action. A very very small number of cases are ever likely to trigger the requirement for the ultimate criminal sanction that is in it—and I will come back to talk about that—but I am absolutely and strongly of the view that you do need to have the option of a criminal sanction for the most severe and the most vile and reprehensible and egregious types of conduct that we can see and that frankly we have seen already in New Zealand and around the world. But actually the largest part of this framework is around setting up an approved agency that will work on education with the community and stakeholder groups and that will focus on mediation and a mediated outcome is likely to be the most common response and resolution of issues raised.Where I agree with Clare Curran the member who has just resumed her seat is that it is critical that we make a very clever and careful choice as to what that agency is and that it is appropriately resourced and tasked with working in the community because it will have a role that is a very high-trust role and that will require the community to understand that when it is talking it is doing so from a sensible and balanced position of wanting to enhance and support digital communications but educating people around first the harm that can be caused and second the societally accepted limits of how that conversation and that communication can work. Actually you can cause real significant harm to people through what can be the actions of a few seconds. So education is the first and most important part of it.The second step in the framework is the mediation of complaints that arise. Anyone we talk to who has worked in this space is very clear that the vast majority of issues will be resolved through mediated outcomes with the help of the approved agency.The next level of severity then is if that does not work and only if a complaint has been made to the approved agency and the approved agency has had time to work through it and has tried to resolve the complaint in a mediated way there is the application to the court for civil orders. Civil orders are when in spite of the best efforts of the parties involved the content hosts and the approved agency a resolution cannot be reached. An approved agency cannot order anything and that is appropriate for an agency of that nature but the court will have the ability to use a civil order to seek the material’s removal where that is appropriate. And that is critical—that is why it has to go to the court because we are dealing with constraints on how people communicate. For all of the scare stories that go around about some trivial little thing that someone gets miffed at well the trivial little things that someone gets miffed at are not going to reach the standard of the sort of breach of the communication principle that is going to warrant the court making a civil order taking it down. So I think that has to be borne in mind.At the most serious level of the framework there is a criminal offence and as I have said I do not make any apology for the fact that it is there. I do not accept first of all that it is inconsistent with what is happening internationally. We know actually that Australia has had an equivalent offence for more than 10 years and that has been operating well for it and it does not need to replicate it because it already has it. We know that the UK for example has also just passed a new offence to deal with revenge porn. It had some offences already and its offences were not crafted broadly enough to deal with revenge porn so it has also just legislated to create a criminal offence dealing with those sorts of matters. So I certainly do not accept that it is moving in a direction that is inconsistent with international norms.The other point that I wanted to address is this fallacy that the bill will criminalise children. First of all children—being those under 14 in our law—are not criminally liable under this offence in any way shape or form. No child under 14 can be criminalised for this offence. Young people those between 14 and 16 are able to be prosecuted under this law if it meets those most serious tests but—and this is a very important but—any young person who is caught up through this would go through our Youth Court processes and that is a significant difference. It is not a case of going off to court in handcuffs and being arrested.Our Youth Court processes first of all actually have a very well-established and incredibly well-respected process for dealing with young people through family group conferences and restorative-type practices to ensure that they are not charged if that can be at all avoided. If a better resolution can be found that is always sought and if they do need to go through to a court hearing then the Youth Courts are very well-designed to ensure that they get that balance right between a young person having to take responsibility and accountability for their actions and having to make some sort of retribution or make an apology as is appropriate to the victim. The Youth Courts are very very well versed and I have total confidence in their being able to properly handle any young person who comes before them in that matter.Can I just talk briefly about some of the other issues in the Supplementary Order Paper that have been referenced by a couple of speakers. I want to acknowledge and thank Tracey Martin from New Zealand First who has worked very constructively with us around the penalties that relate to that offence provision to ensure that it is very clear that there is an infringement fine option available which was sort of there by operation of law but I think Ms Martin made a good point that it is much better to make it very clear and specific that as well as the imprisonment option a fine option is absolutely appropriate in many cases and we have now explicitly provided for that. I think we have got those levels about right so that where it is absolutely necessary that the level of the fine can be set at a high enough severity it is there but equally this provision allows the court full discretion to go with a lower level of fine when that is appropriate.The other change again is really a clarification but I think a very useful one around the safe harbour provisions. There was concern expressed from some quarters that in fact the safe harbour provision—which I want to acknowledge the select committee for because I know it worked very hard to make sure it had that balance right between giving the poster of the information enough time to say: “Well actually no there’s nothing wrong with that. I should be allowed to communicate in that way.” and equally not leaving it so long that revictimisation occurs. The select committee settled on 48 hours being the appropriate period of time and I certainly did not want to interfere with that because I think it went through a very good robust process. But we did want to make it absolutely explicit that there was nothing in that that in any way prevented any content host acting under their own terms and conditions or their own views of what was appropriate for them as a content host to either take the information down immediately—if that was what they would do today if someone complained—if they thought that was appropriate or equally not to take it down at all. So if someone complains on the very trivial basis of saying: “Well someone’s put up a photo of me and I’ve got my eyes shut and I don’t like it.”—who knows—and there is some triviality it is absolutely open to the content host to say: “Well look I’m not taking any action on that. That’s a nonsense.” as they would now.So I think it is important that the bill is absolutely clear that they have the option to act immediately and remove the post and that they have the option to take no action if that is appropriate. But if they want to follow the safe harbour provision in the bill then that is very clearly set out and as I have said I think that is a robust position in terms of where the select committee has got to.So in respect of the changes in the bill you will notice there are a number of really minor drafting changes that I do not think the Committee will concern itself with greatly. But I think the bill has been improved as a result of that interaction. Again can I thank not only the members of this House but members of the internet community who have certainly engaged with me and raised some issues that I thought were valid. We did not agree on every issue but certainly where they raised points around workability and clarity we were very anxious to get that right. I think the bill is better for it as a result and I am certainly looking forward to this bill passing and becoming law so that we can say to New Zealanders that they do have an avenue available to them for real effective remedy when they are unfairly attacked demonised and victimised on the internet in a way that causes serious harm. That is not currently the case. To suggest to a young person that they can go off and get an injunction or a defamation remedy is simply a nonsense. This is real practical assistance and I am looking forward to it passing.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister for the call. Can I also acknowledge that New Zealand First not only opposed the bill at its second reading but made an attempt to have the bill sent back to the Justice and Electoral Committee because we had such serious concerns around the criminality aspect of this bill. Can I make a statement now: New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through this Committee stage. We will be supporting the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 91. We believe the Minister has been constructive. She has addressed our concerns and we believe that the bill now does what its purpose was as is set out in it.We will not be supporting the amendment by Clare Curran nor will we be supporting Supplementary Order Paper No 93 by Mr Seymour. Part of the reason for New Zealand First taking the unusual step of attempting to have the bill sent back to the select committee was to discuss the very point that Mr Seymour has in his Supplementary Order Paper. So that we would suggest was his moment to support it and since then a constructive relationship has been created between the Minister and me and that issue has now been addressed so we are now comfortable.The purpose in Part 1 which speaks to the purpose—let us just go through it. It seeks to “mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications” and to provide victims of harmful digital communication with a quick and effective means of redress. It is about being quick and effective.A bullying report has just come out. With regard to cyber-bullying over 31 percent of school students who took part in this survey agreed that cyber-bullying was a problem at their school. Girls were more likely to say that cyber-bullying was a problem—34 percent of all girls who answered said so and 26 percent of boys. Cyber-bullying particularly is not just for our younger people but it is an area that all those of us who are parents hold a particular concern about. It is an invisible threat. It is very difficult for an individual on their own particularly a young person to find and deal with the invisible person attacking them. Therefore this House must create a system they can be confident they can go to in order to seek assistance to stop this attack. I believe and New Zealand First believes that the approved agency is an enlightened approach providing a trusted organisation—and the word “trust” is going to have to be earned but we have to start somewhere.The approved agency should provide that trusted organisation that a young person their family and their school can ring up instantly and say: “This has happened. How can we deal with it?”. The approved agency—and I went through this again since the second reading; I’ve sought more information from NetSafe and other organisations about how the approved agency would work and now feel very comfortable that the first port of call would be for the individual schools or families to contact the approved agency—will assess the threat to the individual. Every person who will ring it we must assume will ring because they believe that they are being threatened. We cannot start from an assumption that they are just malicious or vexatious. We must start from an assumption that they are actually truly seeking help because they need some.When we start from that point then they go to the approved agency. The approved agency will have a look at it. If necessary the approved agency can talk to the school the victim or the family and say: “Really? Have a look at this. Perhaps there are some things you could do.” Or it could then go through the mechanisms in the bill to the poster—I am not going to call them the perpetrator at the lowest level that we are talking about—and say: “Hey somebody’s actually got upset about this. You may or may not think it is upsetting to you but what are the chances of your taking it down?”. That is the absolutely lowest level that we are talking about. The majority of people whom we are talking about here will take it down because their intention was not to harm anybody. Probably 90 percent of what goes up there that hurts somebody—a young person particularly—is not meant to do that.Now we need to talk about the other people such as the older adult and the young schoolgirl here in New Zealand who had created a relationship through an online gaming situation. He had gained intimate photos of that young person and this older male then began to blackmail this young woman asking for more intimate information from her. He threatened her family; he threatened her school. He went in and hacked into her school and brought down her school site.Right now and with all due respect—I give absolute respect and I believe everybody in this Committee wants to deal with this issue—with regard to starting with education and waiting schools have been educating. We constantly educate around bullying and around how you should treat other people. The reality is that we have a bit of an epidemic in our school system at the moment with at least one-third of our students answering that they are being affected by cyber-bullying. How can we say that this is wrong and that people should not be doing it if there are no consequences when they do it? That is the purpose of the consequence.Certainly I was unhappy and uncomfortable with the concept of criminality for our young people. Quite clearly now as the Minister has said we have outlined a process by which there can be fines applied at the extreme end of this process and after the agency can do no more—after the individual has sought assistance and has not got the outcome they wanted. That stick is required. With every carrot there must be a stick. There must be a consequence for deliberately going out of one’s way to harm another person. There must be otherwise everything else is a farce.So we hope that this is the answer for our families. We hope that this is the answer for our students. It is new. We are going to have to watch it. The Minister is certainly going to have to make sure that the approved agency is appropriately resourced and has all the materials and the expert knowledge that it needs to be truly truly effective. But we have to do something. I take on board that this may have possibly gone through the select committee faster than some may have liked. I also take on board and mentioned previously that due to Roast Busters there was some emotive language and that there was certainly an emotive environment around this.We have seen some disgusting displays of behaviour using the invisibility of the internet. I also acknowledge that when I was at NetSafe some people had an opinion that we should let the internet have at it that the politicians should stand out of the way and that we should come and pick up the pieces afterwards. We would argue that we already have pieces. We already have a large group of young women against whom supposedly a crime has not been committed and who therefore cannot access any support services other than through special provision by the police because there was no legislation that covered them. We must pass legislation that those young women could have at least have gone to very quickly—instantly—and hopefully had something done about their situation in the first instance. But when we have the arrogance of some of the people committing these crimes against other citizens we must have some way that they will be punished. There is no alternative. Kia ora.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Can I thank other members of this Committee for their contribution today and I do accept that everyone is trying to do the right thing here. I have two areas that I would like to traverse if the Minister Amy Adams would be so good as to reply to them. The first is are we not at risk here of creating a defence for the intermediaries who currently face legal risk if they publish defamatory content online in respect of someone? Do they currently face a legal risk that this safe harbour provision removes?Let us say some of the people who make money out of the activities that are allied to the online forums that they are publishing—and an example I am told by Clare Curran is TradeMe. TradeMe has an online forum and the reason that it does that is it attracts people to its trading site. It is one of the services that it gives through the TradeMe site and it makes many millions of dollars every year through TradeMe. At the moment if it publishes or allows to be published on its site things that are horribly insulting of people and that may be untrue I think its concern is that it faces legal risk. Well actually that is not a bad incentive for it to keep its site clean and free of this sort of bullying.Are we in danger in terms of this safe harbour we are creating of actually removing the legal risk that encourages those intermediaries to be responsible at the moment? So that is my first question. If that is the case I think we should send this one back to the drawing board because I am not sure we should be letting off all of the people who are making money out of this. The people who sell advertising services or services through these websites are the people who actually have the most ability to control what is on their site. I cannot control it; other members of this Committee cannot control it so I wonder whether we are actually making an in-principle mistake in respect of that matter. That is the first issue that I would like the Minister to address because if that is the case then the safe harbour provision could be making things worse rather than better because it is avoiding legal risk that currently exists.I am not yet convinced that in the Western World we have actually got this quite right. You know we are moving into a new system in the world where the publishers of most content were reputable media that had editorial oversight and some standards from within. If we are moving away from that because of the changed revenue model for the media why should we be enabling people in this new environment to have less risk than the old publishers of content through newspapers did? Those old publishers of content have lost their revenue to these new intermediaries like Facebook Google and TradeMe. Why is it that the people who pick up the revenue from these new sources of advertising and new commercial models do not face some of the old legal risks that used to control content and the way in which these things were previously published through the media?The second point relates to the criminal provisions in clause 19 of the bill. Clause 19 is a lot lot wider than the instance that the Minister gave in respect of the United Kingdom when she said that revenge porn had been criminalised in the United Kingdom. I can understand why that would be the case but this goes a lot further than that. This applies to any digital communication that causes serious emotional harm. It does not apply to just video clips; it could be an insult that someone finds offensive and to them causes them harm. That seems to me to be a very broad criminal provision and I am again not convinced that we should be so quick to criminalise what could infringe free speech.You will have heard from my earlier contribution that I think there should be responsibility on the part of people who publish comments. If they say defamatory things—and the sorts of insulting things that we have heard of are generally defamatory—or if they publish things that are too personal like videos and things that were taken in a personal or private space then those things ought not to be allowed. We need to have certainly civil remedies in respect of that and in some instances at the most serious end of the spectrum as they are doing in the United Kingdom in respect of revenge porn I can understand why you might want to criminalise in respect of that narrow subset of insulting communications. But this goes a lot further.Clause 19(1)—the drafting of it—says that “A person commits an offence if—(a) the person posts a digital communication”—which can include an email so it could be just an email post on a website—“with the intention that it cause harm to a victim;”. Well most insulting things I think generally are intended to cause harm. “Harm” is defined as being serious emotional harm but you know that is pretty subjective.I would have thought that at the moment some of the things that are said in respect of politicians would be seen by politicians as causing them serious emotional harm. If there have been allegations made of corruption or inappropriate dealings or conflicts of interest that Ministers might have by putting their personal interests in conflict with their ministerial duties posting that communication would cause harm to an ordinary person in the position of the victim and the posting does cause harm. So you could have something that is well-intentioned on the part of someone who thought that they had uncovered something that is a terribly corrupt practice on the part of a politician for example. You could post that and you would think that in that situation you would have protections set out in the law that would apply to fair comment in respect of existing forms of communication.This highlights one of the concerns that was raised in the minority report by the Labour Party. Why it is that we are having a special form of legislation for only digital forms of communication rather than more generally? This highlights the point that we may not be protecting through this criminalisation provision rights of freedom of expression.Again I make the point that given that we can have decreasing reliance on the traditional forms of media because their revenue model has collapsed and we have got these new forms of media this is the flip side of what I said in my earlier comments in respect of some of the internet service provider liability. We actually might be going here and creating offences on the part of people who think that they are making fair comments in respect of things that are issues of proper public concern. My concern about that is highlighted by clause 19(2) which says: “In determining whether a post would cause harm the court may take into account [the following circumstances]”—it does not have to; it is just “may”. Then one of the things that it may take into account but does not have to is “whether the digital communication is true or false:”. So what we are saying there is that actually a digital communication might be true—it might be true—and if it causes serious emotional harm the court could still find that it is something that is in breach of this law. I think that looks like it is bad law.So the Labour Party will be supporting the amendment here of the ACT member David Seymour to delete clause 19 because that clause needs to be looked at properly. There is no reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We do not know whether this clause overrides the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It probably does. It is more specific legislation and it is later in time so it may well be that this overrides the provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I do not like that.So I would appreciate the Minister’s comments in respect of the first issue and I would also like her to explain why we cannot actually take a leaf out of the UK book and be very careful to limit the criminal penalties to specifics rather than generalities. We could limit it to private or indecent videos. You know I would have no problem with those being criminalised.I do accept that there are problems with cyber-bullying. I suspect this bill is not going to fix it because of course by the time you have gone through this safe harbour provision the offending thing if it is gossip around a school will have been on a hundred different Facebook pages and it will be out there. So this will be an ineffective piece of legislation but none the less we are inappropriately I suspect constraining rights of free speech in a way that we have not thought through properly.It is interesting that the Justice and Electoral Committee report does not actually deal with either any of these issues properly—neither of them. It just touches upon them very lightly and I do not think it shows an in-depth consideration of what I think are difficult and important issues.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a call on this—to the extent that my voice will allow me to. This bill has caused nervousness and some concern from day one effectively. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee did actually do quite a good job in remedying some of the concerns and the issues. Clearly they still remain. It is true that to some extent the bill does break new ground but it is ground that I think we need to break because there is a problem. This is a proposed solution. We can be almost confident it will be imperfect over time but I do think it is a sufficiently robust piece of legislation to advance through this process and ultimately to become an Act.I just recall that one of the first major conversations at the select committee was that the bill as it was first drafted was very much about bottom-of-the-cliff stuff. It appeared to focus very much on creating an agency creating penalties and indeed creating criminal offences around cyber-bullying and online content and the like. So one of the first conversations—indeed one of the first substantive amendments we made—was to the purpose of the bill where the words “deter” “prevent” “mitigate harm” were inserted. I do not now recall the original wording but clearly it is a major function of the bill to ensure that there is an educative process that is carried through. Part—in fact I would say a substantive part—of the success or otherwise of the legislation as it emerges will be a willingness to invest significant resources into the approved agency and indeed to support other organisations that might want to contribute to that educative function.We do want people to be aware first that the requirements of the bill are such that one is skating on very thin ice if people seek to go online and cause harm to others. But ultimately prevention is the best cure as we know—excuse the obvious and much-hackneyed phrase—and I think the insertion into the bill of a clear steer a direction that there should be educative preventive mechanisms supports that. I do think it will be a responsibility of this Government and of successive Governments to invest sufficiently into resourcing the capacity of the various agencies with an interest to make sure that does actually happen.There has been some obvious concern about clause 19—indeed a proposition that we should delete that. I just reference Supplementary Order Paper 93. We can agree with half of that actually—the second part of that Supplementary Order Paper. I think there is something to be said for that. A couple in a sort of rush of blood to the head or whatever else might decide to record some of their quiet moments together. When the relationship goes pear-shaped one or the other of them might choose to seek to embarrass that person. I think that part of the Supplementary Order Paper is certainly valid and that is something we could support. But the deletion of clause 19 to me would almost gut the bill. It would eliminate a core function of it. Mr Seymour is nodding his head. It is a shame we did not have this conversation at the select committee because I do not recall any proposition there that clause 19 should be omitted. For that reason we cannot support Mr Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper. If he were to bring another one that had just that second part we could probably see our way clear to support that.I think it is important and the point has been made of course that harm is proven only when you prove intent that it would cause harm to this ordinary reasonable person and that it has caused harm. By default a lot of language in legislation is subjective language. There is really no way to get around that. My former area of expertise the Resource Management Act talked about intrinsic value for example which was extremely interesting. It talked about outstanding features of landscape—entirely subjective commentary—and over time a body of case law has emerged to put some substance some flesh around that. So I do not think that we need to be too overly concerned about the fact that there are obviously subjective elements in this legislation. The alternative I think is to endeavour to nail things down so tightly to be so specific that really the exercise would become very fraught.I take Mr Parker’s point about “the court may take into account” as set out in clause 19(2). If a situation arises where somebody is facing charges I would be very surprised if these issues that may be considered were overlooked or if a court chose not to take cognisance particularly of the particular point he made of whether a statement is true or false. The fact that a statement is true does not prevent it from being harmful or malicious but clearly a false statement would be much more obviously so. The “age and characteristics of the victim:”—we have heard a number of examples and there was a proposition put on one of the current events television programmes at the weekend using politicians as an exemplar. In fact we are probably not particularly good examples of potential victims under this legislation. There is the expectation that we put ourselves forward and we are willing to accept a little bit more flak than the average person might. Not to say that we are above average—quite the opposite on occasion—but I do think that the notion of age and characteristics is a key qualifier to all this.The “extremity of the language”—clearly if people go online and threaten to kill to rape to do serious harm to a person there is existing legislation that can deal with that. At the very dare I say it low level of offending the sort of online bullying that might otherwise take place in a schoolyard—yes there are means to deal with that. The Police Association came through with what to me was quite a compelling submission. It highlighted the fact that there is a significant gap in the middle there. It is not high-order offending; it is not the everyday sort of low-level nuisance stuff. But there is a sufficient gap in there according to the Police Association to warrant a new piece of legislation. I think that is what this bill intends to be.We are pleased to see in the Minister’s substantive Supplementary Order Paper 91 that the issue of discretion if you like for content hosters is just for the avoidance of doubt. It is made clear that if a host gets a complaint and chooses to immediately take down that content because it contravenes its terms and conditions or just its own corporate measure of good taste or whatever it might be then it can do that. It would be a very perverse outcome of this bill if it actually delayed people who might otherwise have taken content down immediately. We know very well that the longer content sits online the more potential harm and the more potential damage it can do. As I say that is one change in the substantive Supplementary Order Paper that we do support and it is responding to submissions made both during the course of the select committee deliberations and from some contact from interested parties after the select committee hearing.I think I will leave it there for the moment and simply say that we will continue to support this bill. It is not perfect and we are certainly open to the ideas of trying to make it better. But for the moment we are supporting this legislation.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):Any member of a House of Representatives has to balance the competing prerogatives of the people they specifically represent their political party and its philosophy—Stuart Nash: The 1 percent you represent.DAVID SEYMOUR: —thank you—and their own conscience. This is the first time that I have voted against a bill introduced by the National Government. It is because the people I directly represent generally believe that it is better to have these people over here and those people over there and by and large I would agree with their analysis. I am after all from Epsom myself. However as somebody who benefits from a free society and a long evolved common law tradition I believe the right thing to do is to oppose the Harmful Digital Communications Bill and at the very least remove some of its most egregious features.In time I predict that this legislation will come to be seen as a useful case study in bad lawmaking. It is the classic case. First you have the dramatic events to which people feel the need to respond. We have actually heard it tonight. Perhaps unwittingly they did not mean to come out but it came out from some members. “We have to do something.” is the major premise; “This is something.” is the minor premise. The conclusion is that passing this law must be the right thing to do. You have the hand-wringing and then you have the legislation and finally you end up in a very different place from where you started. It might also be an insight into why our profession if it can be called that slipped in only just in front of journalists when the public was asked very recently to rank the professions in a survey of public trust. That is because we tend to overpromise. The promise implicit in this bill is that we in this House can set up an approved agency that will actually solve one of the biggest problems that we have. The rhetoric is that if you do not support the bill then you are in favour of the most awful things that occur.Well I see that Mr Bishop and I both quoted Milton Friedman in our maiden speeches saying that policy should be judged not by its intentions but by its outcomes. The outcomes of this legislation were it to be passed in its present form might be compared with the Star Chamber. History does not repeat but sometimes it rhymes. This is not the first time in our constitutional history that our society has attempted to solve a problem by giving easy and convenient access to justice without the safeguards and restraints that have evolved elsewhere in common law over a long period of time. Of course if you know your history you will know that what happened was that the Star Chamber became a bully pulpit which was used by the politicians of the day to cow their opponents in fear and submission. Although fortunately we are no longer in medieval England the same principal deficiencies exist in this piece of legislation.I would direct members to the communication principles which would be appropriate if we were about to embark on a school camp but not for running a country. They tell us that it is wrong to disclose sensitive personal facts about another individual for example. They say you should not be indecent or obscene and that you should not harass another individual. In their totality it requires only one of them to be breached for you to be reported. They mean that practically any digital communication could be subject to the full force of this approved authority.Of course the rhetoric from the proponents of the bill is always similar to the epithet “If you’ve got nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to fear”. They say: “Oh don’t you worry. If you’re being good then this will not apply to you.” Where you end up just like with the Star Chamber is with arbitrarily enforced bad law that can be used sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. It just depends who happens to be enforcing the law at any particular time. Of course you might say: “Well this is all worthwhile if only we believed that it was truly going to reduce harm and suffering.” If you believed that it was going to be effective then you might be willing to trade away some of the rights and freedoms that we have been lucky to inherit over a long period of time. But you only have to begin with a few of the simple practicalities.We have heard from members already about the difficulty of 48 hours being far too long on the internet. It reminds me of a quote from Top Gun: “BS 10 minutes! This thing will be over in 2 minutes.”Stuart Nash: Is that from your girlfriend?DAVID SEYMOUR: Keep it clean Mr Nash. The fact of the matter is the time frames and the evolution of viral trends on the internet about which we heard from the first member speaking are far quicker than intervention can take place. The pace of development of new websites and new fora is so rapid that it is unlikely that we will be able to enforce what Tracey Martin referred to as the invisible threats from the internet.Take for example the website Ask.fm where many young people voluntarily put themselves out almost to be harassed some would say. I have asked some young people: “Why on earth do you do this?” and they said: “Well actually we want to go there. We want to address concerns. We want to argue.” And of course many of the most tormentuous questions they face come from invisible questioners—people who as a practical matter cannot be identified. So there you have a whole range of activity that this bill would have no effect on mitigating whatsoever and yet none the less it is a very real concern to young people. Interestingly enough—and this is another deficiency of this policy project we are going on—Ask.fm has since introduced quite stringent safety and monitoring regulations voluntarily because ultimately it is not in its best interests to have people coming to its website and having bad experiences. So again we have underestimated the speed with which hosts will actually seek to improve the experiences that people have on their websites.But then you come to the question of criminalisation. It is said that we have to be in favour of this bill because we have to do something for the children. Well the fact of the matter is that criminal sanctions are effective only if you are seriously prepared to use them against the poster as we have heard or the perpetrator. Nobody in this House I believe is seriously willing to criminalise children but that would be the proposition if criminalisation was supposed to be an effective sanction against bullying of children.So I oppose Supplementary Order Paper 91 in part for procedural reasons. It is in some ways an improvement although as Mr Parker pointed out it is also a step backward for every step forward. I oppose this Supplementary Order Paper for procedural reasons because as members will know I have put up another Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 93 which removes the criminalisation element. You can still have your approved agency and you can still have your resolution but it removes the criminalisation and applies the criminal law to specific testable discoverable offences. If you take an intimate visual recording with or without the consent of the person in the recording and if you perpetrate this and then propagate it around the internet without their consent—perhaps without their knowledge—that is a crime. I do not think anybody in this Committee would say that that should not be a crime.If we wish to address a certain mischief let us address that mischief. If we are prepared to do that you never know we might find ourselves making better law. Indeed we might even improve the impression of our own profession that the public has if rather than overpromising in knee-jerk reactions to particularly high-profile scandals we actually set about to make proportional responses to problems that really exist out there in our community and that the Government and its agencies have an opportunity to actually fix while respecting our common law traditions.ALFRED NGARO (National):It is an honour to take a call on the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Speaking after the honourable member David Seymour I have to say that though we are in a coalition or partnership every partnership sometimes has its rocky roads and this may just be one of those. In hearing that speech it had the smell of paper flowers from the policy garden of the ACT Party. But in the streets the reality of what happens out there in our communities—I would like to remind the member that actually this bill has been a thorough process for quite some time. It has been well researched in regard to the intent and to the need.I think that the Law Commission was really clear that one in 10 New Zealanders is impacted by cyber-bullying and harmful digital communications. This legislation is nothing new—I know that—but it improves the intent of what we are trying to do. Through the submissions it was really clear that the purpose of the bill to deter prevent and mitigate was taken on board. Therefore Supplementary Order Paper 91 by the Minister Amy Adams clearly indicates that we have heard we have listened and we have ensured that we have amended the law so it does deter prevent and mitigate.The other part that I think is really important in the bill is that it also provides victims with a quick and efficient means of redress which was not in the legislation previously. So though the member talked about bad law I think that this is actually good law. It is a good start. It is actually making the ends that we think are important. So while we talk about the policy and we can dream about what the intent could be we—David Seymour: Principles and things like that yes. Yeah.ALFRED NGARO: Absolutely but principles have practice to them and with this legislation we think that that is absolutely important. Here are some of the areas of practice that I think are important. The member David Parker talked about the safe harbour clause that is here: clause 20. I think that what is important in the safe harbour clause—and we heard about striking a balance between this and in a sense providing provisions for freedom of speech. We think that that is important. The clause is allowing the opportunity for those who are hosts to remove the content and to inform those who actually have had content that is offensive. We have made sure that the balance is there by inserting a new clause to require the online content host to notify the author as soon as possible and within 48 hours of receiving a notice of complaint. We have inserted a new clause to give the author 48 hours to respond to the online content host with a counter-notice as well. We did hear submissions Mr Seymour when they came through and we talked about the importance of having the provision that is there as well. If the author agreed or did not respond the content would have to be removed or public access to it would be disabled as well.The other thing that is important is the civil enforcement regime. A new civil enforcement regime was one of the Law Commission’s key recommendations in its report. We think that that is important. National agrees that when it comes to digital communications we need to have better legal options for addressing complaints and taking actions. Court cases can take some time and often the damage has already been done. We know that speed to redress those issues becomes critically important as well. Previously people have been hesitant to lay a formal complaint with the police but with this ability we will able to investigate and prosecute such cases as well. Victims who are most important in this case in this bill may not have the money or the desire to make a civil law claim such as suing someone for defamation. This legislation provides the ability to better provide for them as well.The approved agency is also I think a provision that is quite critically important. The approved agency will receive complaints regarding harmful digital communications and the agency can then decide whether there are grounds to proceed with an investigation. For example it would not investigate a trivial frivolous or vexatious complaint—and we know that that would take up time—but it would advise people on steps they can take to resolve a problem. We think that it is really important to get that information out there so that again victims have the ability to be able to respond appropriately. Where the approved agency investigates substantial claims it will attempt to reach settlements between the complainant and the person responsible as well. The agency will liaise with web hosts internet service providers and other internet intermediaries to request them to take down harmful communications because many corporations operate outside of New Zealand. It will be important for the agency to establish good relationships and protocols to work with these companies as well.We believe that at the moment the provisions that are in this bill are a step in the right direction. I know that Mr Seymour may not think so. The bill does address the intent and the harm that has been caused both in the safe harbour clause that is there and also by having an approved agency address this harm. Thank you.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):I—David Seymour: You’ve got 2 minutes.STUART NASH: 2 minutes. I find myself in a rare moment of actually agreeing with something the ACT leader Mr Seymour mentioned.Chris Bishop: Oh be honest. You agree more than that.STUART NASH: Oh sorry Mr Bishop I thought you were going to say something sensible for a minute there. What I want to talk about is these communication principles in clause 6(1). I must admit that when I look through legislation subjective terminology tends to concern me because when you have subjective terminology in legislation it means that it is often open to the law—well obviously open to the law courts—to determine what certain words mean but it is also open to the people enforcing the law. Usually in this case it is police officers who will be the first port of call when they have an incident or a complaint about certain communications. What I would like to do is just work through some of these communication principles and just point out how subjective these actually are to the point where I suspect that the police are going to look at this and say: “Goodness me we have some real problems here.” I will also bring in an example I had very recently.Let us start at principle 1: “A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about another individual.” What actually constitutes sensitive personal facts? Is it that someone is single or is it that they are married or that they have diabetes? Or is it that they take offence?Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members the Committee is resumed. Before the dinner break the Committee was considering the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. The question was that Part 1 stand part. Stuart Nash had the call and he has 3 minutes and 27 seconds remaining if he wishes.STUART NASH: Yes please Mr Chair I do wish.David Shearer: Mercifully short!STUART NASH: Thank you very much Mr Shearer. What I was talking about is that it really worries me when I see subjective wording in legislation. This bill has a whole lot of subjective wording that I fear will put those who are in charge of enforcing it at the first stage in a real bind. Whom I am talking about here are the police I suppose. If someone goes to the police and says: “Under these communication principles I find someone has disclosed sensitive information about me.” what is the definition of sensitive information? This is in principle 1 and we could go through all of these depending on how much time I have got. Principle 1—this is in clause 6—states that “A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about another individual.” What is a sensitive personal fact? What denotes “sensitive”? Is it the fact that they are single or they are married or they have diabetes? I am not too sure what constitutes “sensitive”. I suppose what is sensitive to me might not be sensitive to Mr Shearer. Who knows?Principle 2 states that “A digital communication should not be threatening intimidating or menacing.” They are three extremely subjective terms: threatening intimidating or menacing.Rino Tirikatene: Menacing.STUART NASH: If Rino Tirikatene stands up because he is about 6 foot 6 some people may find him threatening or menacing; others may just find him very friendly. But what is the definition of that and how is this going to be policed and enforced?Principle 3 states that “A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person …”. Again we have “offensive” “grossly offensive” and “a reasonable person”. You know there was a time in the United States in the late 19th century when they used to put curtains on pianos in case people got offended when they saw the legs of pianos.Peeni Henare: Oh!STUART NASH: I know. That is true—it is true. What constitutes “grossly offensive” changes with the times. [Interruption] No no we are down here Mr Chair. I am very much talking about the bill.Principle 4 states: “A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.” Again “indecent or obscene” are subjective terms. You know what are the police going to do when they get a call saying: “Someone has sent me an indecent email.”?Let me give you an example. I had a constituent in my office who brought in a message that someone had written on her 14-year-old daughter’s Facebook page. I think by any stretch of the imagination it was indecent and it was obscene and I actually found it grossly offensive. This was an older man trying to groom—from all accounts if you read the email—a 14-year-old girl. Well that mother had gone to the police and the police had said: “We can’t do anything. We’re just going to give her a warning.” Again if you had gone to another police station then the police might have said: “Well we’ve got to talk to this guy. We’ve got to bring him in.” but these terms are so subjective that it really is up to how they are defined by the person who is dealing with the first call.Principle 5 states that “A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.” What does that mean—“should not be used to harass an individual”? Goodness me! As Mr Seymour said and I agree with him this is the sort of thing you would say to a year 7 class on the way to camp.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. I want to take a second short call just to clear up a few things particularly with regard to Mr Nash’s contribution because I think it was valuable as I think many people might assume that that is where this bill is going. I want to put it into the first person. I want to put it into a real-life situation and state why New Zealand First will continue to support this bill.Mr Nash has pointed out that there are concerns about the subjectivity of the application of this law. I think Mr Nash and his colleagues should be able to rest assured with regard to the approved agency. That is one of the reasons why the approved agency is there. Let us take as an example that recently there was Sikh student on a bus who had a photograph taken of him that was then posted up on Facebook. It was said by the person who posted it up that he was sex offender. That was what was posted up with his photograph. This person did not know this student in any way shape or form.The next thing that happened was that people started to post comments and actually some of those comments were threats against this young man. This young man went to the police and asked for them to do something about these digital threats that were being posted with regard to him—first of all the digital defamation that was taking place and secondly the digital threats.Under the current law one could use the Harassment Act. He certainly was being harassed. The problem was that the Harassment Act assumes right now that there is a relationship between the person being harassed and the person doing the harassing so unfortunately that does not fit with the Harassment Act right now.The second thing is the misuse of a telephone device which is in section 112 of the Telecommunications Act. He could have taken a case against the poster but again the poster could have said that it was a genuine mistake and it comes down to a nuisance. Just because the photo was taken on a phone does not mean it was therefore posted by a phone. It was posted by a phone on to a computer and then everything else was done on a computer so that did not fit within the Act.He was threatened with grievous bodily harm by other people who posted on there and that certainly fits the crime under section 306 of the Crimes Act. However existing law again suggests that there has to be a relationship between the person who is threatening and the person who is being threatened so that does not work. The Crimes Act section 306 does not work. So in other words apart from a police officer going on to Facebook and private messaging the person in the first instance and saying: “Excuse us but this person has come to see us and says that this is a lie. Could you please take it down?” there was nothing in existing law that could allow that student to seek some sort of recourse.That is exactly what the point of this bill is. Under this bill and under these clauses this student could have gone to the approved agency straight away. The moment he knew that that post was up there he could have gone to the approved agency and the Harmful Digital Communications Bill would have come into play.The original post that accused him of being a sex offender definitely fits the civil test under this bill. It breaches the sixth communications principle: “A digital communication should not make a false allegation.” It is serious. There is a test in clause 11 which says it has to be “serious repeated or threatened” and harmful—“the breach has caused or is likely to cause harm to an individual.”So once the agency makes the assessment that they have met that criteria it goes to the person who actually posted the original posting up on Facebook and can actually then take a case against all those who then threatened him and it can ask them to remove it. It can go to the host so it can go to Facebook itself and under this legislation ask it to remove it.At the end of the day if nobody takes it down it can then take a case to the courts and it can say: “Under the Harmful Digital Communications Bill this is a threat to this person. There is no relationship between this person and the people threatening him. However it truly is a threat and this person’s safety is at risk.” That is the purpose of the bill.The purpose of the bill is that there is a hole in our law because of new technology. We shared these concerns to start with but New Zealand First has had conversations to clarify that there is no other method currently for the Sikh student who was abused and threatened over Facebook to seek any sort of remedy from the State so we continue to support having a remedy for these students. Kia ora.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Can I try to pick up where Tracey Martin left off because I think she used a very good example of postings that are made online that I do not think anyone in this House would like to see. The devil in the detail in this bill—for us on this side of the Chamber although we are going to be supportive of this bill at this stage—is that it does not quite meet up with the responsiveness that we would like to see in the bill.Yes Ms Martin the complainant in this case could go to the approved agency and make a complaint and if the approved agency thought that complaint was valid it then has a process where that complaint is sent off to the author or the person who posted it and there is a 48-hour potential window for the author to respond. If the author then responds at the very last minute they then have 48 hours to put a substantive response together. So we have a situation where it would be 4 days potentially before that post came down. That on our side of the equation is not responsive enough in a digital world where things go up damn fast. At the moment we do not see quick responses to posts that no one wants to see there.So to have a post up there for potentially 4 days as this legislation allows under the safe harbour measures is not fast enough we think. It is something that we have raised at various stages including during the select committee process I must add to make this legislation as good as it can be as responsive as it can be and therefore as effective as it can be.As people in this Committee know 4 days was a long time before the internet was around so to have a 4-day window for these damaging posts—they are obviously causing harm because the legislation says that that needs to be triggered before the complaint can be considered—is a hell of a long time. It is a very long time under this legislation and we would like to see—and maybe the Minister in the chair Jo Goodhew or the Minister responsible for the bill may be able to answer this—why the Government did not consider something that could be eligible for almost instant take-down as soon as the approved agency meets those tests that Ms Martin spoke of before to make sure that less harm is done or that the least amount of harm is done to someone who makes a complaint. It is harmful if it is up for an hour and it gets increasingly worse if it is up for 4 days. In the digital world the author can put it up and take it down but if someone takes a screenshot which is easy to do that can be spread on and on and on.I understand that this is a difficult thing to try to tackle but if we are not being as responsive as we possibly can through the approved agency in this bill then although we do reluctantly support this legislation we believe that that is one of the areas where strong opposition should be put up to make sure this piece of legislation can be much much better. And we do think this legislation could be much much better. It is interesting to look at the process and at the way this has been presented to this Parliament. I have got Supplementary Order Paper 91 in my hands. It is roughly 22 pages and most of the changes are to Part 1. The bill is 22 pages and I think that tells an interesting story about this process not really being the ideal process to make sure we are getting the legislation right.The Government should have engaged more with parties right around this House. It had the opportunity—and Clare Curran has made this point—to engage more with communities especially young people to make sure that we get the legislation right. We would argue that although something needs to be done in this area the legislation is not as precise as it could have been.I do want to make the point that there is Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of the leader of the ACT Party David Seymour to delete clause 19 in Part 1. He thinks—and David Parker made the point—that clause 19 is a bit too vague a bit too broad and could catch as illegal behaviour what some people think would be reasonable behaviour. The Supplementary Order Paper put before the Committee by Mr Seymour is much more precise and it will catch some behaviour that we all would think abhorrent. It is not behaviour that is out of the realm of thinking. I can think of a couple of instances in the last couple of weeks where this has been relevant. I would like to thank David Seymour for putting that forward because we think this is the kind of measure that could have happened if the process had been much better.There are some pieces of the legislation that we do think are reasonable. I think that being able to use internet service providers to identify people who are anonymous—I think that is in clause 17; I am trying to get a nod from Clare Curran—sounds about right. A lot of the harmful comments that are being are made by people who use pseudonyms. They are not man or woman enough to use their own names.Peeni Henare: Keyboard warriors.KRIS FAAFOI: Keyboard warriors as my colleague Peeni Henare says. We are going to be able to use this piece of legislation to say to internet service providers: “Let’s figure out who this anonymous person is.” so that they can actually front up and hold them accountable under this process. I think that is a good thing. One of the things that frustrates me about social media—Facebook more often than Twitter—is that you get these people who do not use their real names and under these pseudonyms they are as tough as hell and they get away with murder. I think one of the things in this piece of legislation is that we can go and figure out who these people are.I want to finish by saying that we believe this is a necessary area of law that needs to be addressed but we are quite upset that the Government has chosen to use the process that it has taken. The process could have been much better. The Government has taken the chance to take a crack at Opposition parties through this process. It has not worked cooperatively and collaboratively and I think we as a Parliament and as a country suffer because the legislation before us is not as good as it can be. In this age of social media and connectivity we owe it to people to make sure we get it right and on this occasion although we support the bill we do not think it is as good as it could have been.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clearly one of our key spokespeople on this bill still had issues to raise. Also I am the Labour spokesperson on justice and I have not taken a call on Part 1 at this stage.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This debate has been going for an hour and a half and everyone who wanted a call prior to the dinner break has had a call. The Labour Party has had seven calls; the National Party has had four; ACT two; New Zealand First three; and the Green Party two. I intend to put the question. The Committee can decide whether the debate continues or whether we move on.Motion agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 120New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now come to David Seymour’s amendment as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 93. This is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran be agreed to:Insert after clause 19 the following new clause:19AYoung persons under 17No person may be convicted of an offence under section 18 or 19 by reason of any act done or omitted by him or her when under the age of 17 years.The fact that by virtue of this section any person has not been or is not liable to be convicted of an offence does not affect the question whether any other person who is alleged to be a party to that offence is guilty of that offence.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.Noes 77New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1 United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to other Acts concerning use of digital communicationsCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Part 2 of this bill is essentially updating other pieces of legislation. It concerns amendments to other Acts concerning the use of digital communications. They include the Crimes Act the Harassment Act the Human Rights Act and the Privacy Act.The first point that I would like to make is to thank the Minister of Justice who gave us 10 minutes of her time earlier during the debate on Part 1 to actually get up and give an explanation as to why she had introduced such a large set of amendments. The amendments she has introduced in Part 2 are essentially just additions—mainly technical points around those four Acts that I just mentioned. One of the points I would like to make is that one of those Acts the Privacy Act—what would be really good is if the Minister followed this piece of legislation before the Committee with the introduction of the substantive changes to the Privacy Act itself that have been promised to this House for well over a year following a Law Commission report 4 years ago which would make real changes to balance up the privacy provisions for New Zealanders that have been lacking which the Law Commission recommended that we act quickly on.Instead what we have got here is I think we would say a worthy part of the bill and I do not think there was ever a great deal of dissension at the select committee on the need for these four pieces of legislation to be updated because they needed to be brought into the digital world to include provisions around electronic communication and essentially to be modernised. The argument that Labour used at the Justice and Electoral Committee—and it has been supported out there in the community particularly by the legal community—is that the updating of these four pieces of legislation could have been sufficient to address this issue rather than introducing a new criminal provision as we have discussed in Part 1.Updating the Crimes Act updating the Harassment Act updating the Human Rights Act and updating the Privacy Act would involve dealing with existing legislation that has been well tested and well utilised. Yes they need to be modernised but they reflect what happens in the physical world and the updating of them enables them to be also relevant in the cyber-world and the digital environment as is rightly so. But what is added to this piece of legislation is a new criminal provision that is active in only the cyber-world. You could call it groundbreaking or precedent setting and what it means is that acts of causing serious emotional distress that occur in the digital environment can be prosecuted in only the cyber-environment under that provision. They cannot be prosecuted in the physical environment so even if there is an act of serious emotional distress that includes a physical act then it is not relevant according to that particular provision.We feel very strongly that the updating of these four pieces of legislation is necessary because this is an important part of the move towards trying to be more effective in the cyber-environment. But alongside this goes an educative role particularly of the New Zealand Police which is the agency that does the prosecuting as to how effectively to use them. It is our concern that this is going to be missing in the equation. It has already been mentioned in previous speeches that the police currently have the discretion about whether they will prosecute. There have been numerous cases that have been before the public’s attention about where there has been cyber-bullying or cyber-harm undertaken and where there were already provisions that could have been utilised but were not because there had not been the education of our police force around how to do that. I think there have been a number of occasions when that has happened in recent months and certainly in the last couple of years.Our fear is that because of this new criminal provision in the cyber-environment this bill will create pressure on the police to prosecute children in a court environment when the police may not have had the training or the systems to decide whether or not that is appropriate. That is a real concern and I think that one of the tests for this bill is just how well the educative function goes with it as to what is appropriate to take into the court environment and what is appropriate to take through the approved agency environment.There are many different kinds of cyber-harm that can be caused and when you are using legislation that already is proven and where there is a lot of case law in place such as the Harassment Act and such as the Crimes Act then our contention is that we should be moving more in that direction rather than using a new provision that has been set up just for the cyber-environment and that has such a broad definition of harm attached to it and where there are so many questions that remain around it as to whether it will be effective.Labour has produced a typescript amendment in this part under the Harassment Act which I do not have in front of me which is I think at section 17 of the existing Harassment Act which is essentially to ensure that where there is material in the electronic communications that are being used and may be construed as being harassment where they do not break the law that measure cannot therefore be used. The amendment is basically taking a measure that exists in the Harassment Act now and ensuring that that is updated to include the cyber-environment as well. So we consider that that is a practical measure. We hope that there will be support across the Committee for that.As we have said in previous speeches on this bill Labour is reluctantly supporting this bill through the Committee stage because we know that we need to take measures in the cyber-environment. We believe that the approved agency route is a sensible route to go down although we have concerns around the resourcing of that and whether it will be appropriately resourced. We have got serious concerns about other parts of the bill but we do think that the updating in Part 2 of the bill of these four pieces of legislation is sensible and is probably overdue.However our concerns are such that we do believe that there needs to be a review of this legislation after a period of time to ensure that it is actually effective and that our fears have not come to bear. So Labour is putting on the record today that we will be undertaking a review of this legislation and that will be our position.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I want to thank my colleague Clare Curran for setting out so clearly at each stage of this bill Labour’s position on this piece of legislation. There are more frequently than I would like occasions in the House where we are presented with what I would term to be bad law addressing critical issues. By “critical issues” I mean issues that become highly politicised because there is a real drive from the community for politicians to respond to issues where harm can be done. This is an example of an area like that. Harm can be and has been done in this space. There is a need to respond but our concern is that this response is not the right one yet anyone who stands and opposes the bill then becomes wedged in as not being concerned about the issue. That is almost the worst of all scenarios. I would wager that we will be back here debating something in this space again. There will be some misinterpretation of the law some 14-year-old sentenced to a term of imprisonment—something that will lead us to reconsider this piece of legislation. You can put that on iPredict now.When it comes to principles of justice in coming to Part 2—because we are in this part debating some significant pieces of legislation that already exist primarily around the Harassment Act and there are amendments to the Crimes Act 1961—they are essentially amendments to existing pieces of law. I think it is important when considering amendments to such significant and well-established pieces of law that we consider a couple of really important justice principles: are we making consistent legislation and are we making clear legislation? My concern is that with the regime that this bill sets up by amending existing parts of the law alongside setting up a new criminal regime things will actually become confused and we may even have a two-tier system.For example it is my understanding that the new penalties that were debated in Part 1—the 2-year maximum prison sentence and the fine of up to $50000–have the ability to apply to anyone aged 14 and above. That is my understanding of how the law will be potentially applied. And if that is not the case then I would have thought the Minister would not have a problem with Labour’s amendment confirming that actually it should sit at the age of criminal responsibility which in New Zealand is 17. Given that that was voted down let us assume therefore that that regime can apply to a child as young as 14. Let us assume that. Can we therefore assume that there is an assumption around the existing legislation that this bill subsequently amends—the Crimes Act the Summary Offences Act and the Harassment Act—that the same will apply? Is that the assumption? If so some clarity on that would be incredibly useful.The reason Labour is focused on the age of criminal responsibility in how this bill will apply is that that is where the evidence base suggests that actually applying criminal regimes that sit around convictions and sentencing is not a helpful way to deal with children and young people. In fact I probably do not need to present evidence. That seems on the face of it to be a natural assumption. If a child a 14-year-old—and I call them a child because they are—posts something on Facebook that could be deemed under this law to be in contravention of what this law sets out do we seriously think a prison sentence is the best way to deal with that? I mean really? Yet that is what we are setting out in this legislation. Why is it that even this Government has focused on using diversion law community-based sentencing law and restorative justice? It has done it quietly but it is doing it. It is doing it because it works. It is a better way to address criminal offending in this space than what this bill is presenting.This bill is presenting a political solution not a practical solution. It is also probably going down the track of producing an easier one. For instance making an amendment to the Harassment Act as Part 2 does which in clause 26 then amends section 3 of the Harassment Act: “For the purposes of this Act a person also harasses another person if—(a) he or she engages in a pattern of behaviour that is directed against that other person; and (b) that pattern of behaviour includes doing any specified act to the other person that is one continuing act carried out over any period.” By definition that is harassment. By definition that is harassment and that is the reason why the regulatory impact statement specifically says that it was probably unnecessary to make an amendment to those Acts in order for cyber-bullying as it has been termed here to be covered. So it is pretty much a superficial amendment that again speaks to the notion of this being a political response rather than a practical response.But it does go on. There is something in the amendment to the Harassment Act that is specific to the issue of cyber-bullying as it were. New clause 3(4) says: “For the purposes of subsection (3) ‘continuing act’ includes a specified act done on any one occasion that continues to have effect over a protracted period (for example where offensive material about a person is placed in any electronic media and remains there for a protracted period).” That is a specific example there—specific to electronic mechanisms for harassment—and again it is probably already covered by the legislation. It has been written there in black and white to make it really specific but I would have thought that that was unnecessary. However by putting in that level of specificity has it now meant that we have created a lower threshold for electronic means of harassment than for any other form? I do not think that is the kind of consequence that we wanted from a bill like this but it may well be what we have inadvertently done.So again if the mechanisms already existed why would we have focused on that track? Well because the alternative to Part 2 is actually probably not legislative at all—make an assumption that actually we are covered get the legal advice that we are covered with the existing mechanisms set out under the Crimes Act and then move on to what would actually make a difference. For instance was the Children’s Commissioner engaged at any point in this legislation to talk to young people and children about what would make a difference in their space and in their world on this issue? I bet if you went to a group of children and said: “Would creating new offences under the Harassment Act and creating a maximum 2-year penalty or $50000 fine stop cyber-bullying in your world do you think?” I would wager they would probably say: “Absolutely not.” And I would wager that if you actually asked them what would make a difference they would focus on the harm done in peer groups because that is where the harm is primarily done.If you are focusing on peer groups and harm within peer groups—[Interruption] thank you Minister Goodhew for rolling your eyes while you are in the chair; I look forward to your wholehearted contribution to this debate which so far has been somewhat limited—then you probably would have gone to the Ministry of Education and asked what it does in this space already and what it does with bullying within the school environment. We are essentially mirroring that at an electronic level and trying to tackle that same issue but in a different medium. I am sure that schools probably would have come back to the Ministry of Education with some ideas that were very much based on principles about restorative justice within that peer group and environment. Instead we do what Parliament always does. We respond to pressure by slapping in a law and assuming that everything will be fixed because of it. We dust off our hands and we walk away. That is a cop-out on this issue. It is bigger than amendments to the Harassment Act. It is bigger than amendments to the Crimes Act. I know—Hon Paula Bennett: Government can solve everything!JACINDA ARDERN: I know that Paula Bennett knows that. No the Government cannot solve everything and yet it is pretending it can with this piece of legislation. It is pretending it can with law alone and we know—Hon Paula Bennett: What a load of rubbish.JACINDA ARDERN: —it is more complicated than that. I would like it be on record that the Minister just said that that contribution was a load of rubbish. I have no doubt that even when this law has passed we will still be debating this issue. We will still be debating this issue once this law has passed.So I want to just recap. I would really like to see the Minister respond to some of the questions around the age of responsibility. I would not mind hearing her comment on if this is the right thing to do why the UK looked at this issue and not do it. Why did the UK when it looked at this issue—because we have seen some of the dreadful cases in the UK—avoid criminalisation? Instead it went down the path of greater education and using existing law with serious threats by adults that needed to be dealt with. It is the same with Australia. This bill focuses on what to do when harm has already happened instead of trying to prevent harm particularly amongst young people and children which would have been a much better approach.JONO NAYLOR (National):Well it certainly would be great if we did not need legislation like this but we are passing this legislation because it is very much needed within our society. For those people who would think that we do not need legislation like this I would say that they need to get out of the little bubble that perhaps they might live in and get into the real world because this is absolutely needed. So what we are going to do is talk about Part 2 of this bill because it is incredibly important. Essentially what is happening in Part 2 of this legislation is modernisation and getting these various Acts up to date to ensure that they cover what is required in a modern society.When I was at high school if you wanted to—not that I wanted to. But if somebody chose to harass somebody by taking an inappropriate photograph of them they probably would have needed to remember to take their camera with them then go down to the shop and get the photo developed and then actually print it off and send it around to get multiple copies and photocopies. It would have probably taken at least 5 days to get a turn-round on it. Things were not so flash in the 1980s; it took a little bit of time for things to happen. So we do need to modernise these Acts to ensure that we are covering what is going on because the effects of cyber-bullying in particular are absolutely just devastating particularly for young people within our society.If you look at some of the research that has been done on this there was a report done by Victoria University which I am sure has been talked about as we have gone through this bill. Professor Vanessa Green who was the head of Victoria University’s school of education psychology and pedagogy along with a team of postgraduate students did some study and there was an interesting quote from her. I will read it out for you because I think it is pertinent to these particular parts in Part 2. She said: “The internet has made bullying a more complex issue than it was 20 years ago and as a result it requires a more sophisticated response. The old methods may not be as effective as they were. We need to be thinking in a more creative way about how to address bullying.” So that is why we do need to ensure that for example in these Acts—particularly say in the Harassment Act 1997—the insertion of the words “electronic communication” is in these because in 1997 which to most of us seems not that long ago clearly no one thought of using electronic communication as a form of harassment. So we need to insert those words there. We need to insert in the Human Rights Act from 1993 after the words “radio or television” the words “or other electronic communication” because this is so much a part of our society now.I just heard the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern getting perhaps a little bit distracted but nevertheless she talked about the fact that actually this is not the way for us to handle it but that in fact the way to deal with this kind of bullying is to get better education to do mediation and to get groups to do that. Actually that will be quite effective. In my time as a school guidance councillor that was incredibly effective in terms of getting peer groups in working with them and looking at those particular issues. But I think what we need to make sure that we understand is that this Act does not preclude those kinds of interventions from occurring. Simply because we are making it against the law to bully people online does not mean that we are saying that other forms of intervention are not possible.In looking at the functions and powers of the approved agency it has powers to investigate complaints. It has under clause 8(1)(c) the ability “to use advice negotiation mediation and persuasion (as appropriate) to resolve complaints:”. So that is contained within the law. It will be a part of the law that that agency will be empowered to use all of those interventions that are available in the tool box but what we are making sure that we are doing is not necessarily elevating everything—which is the only option at the moment—to a full-blown sort of legal process through the District Court or otherwise. I think that it is important that we continue to move forward on this. It is important as I say—coming back to Part 2—that these particular Acts the Privacy Act—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Unless you get the call you cannot continue talking.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):Mr Chairperson—Hon Ruth Dyson: This will be a relief after that.DAVID SEYMOUR: I did not expect to hear that. It has taken quite a long time but after almost two decades it is nice to see a thawing in my trial separation with my Labour Party ancestors. On this issue we find common cause because as I said earlier it is a case study in bad lawmaking. All of the elements are there: you have a high-profile case that leads to a reaction where any lawmaking appears to be a solution; you have a solution that will erode our liberties and yet not seriously mitigate the harm; and at the end of the day the politicians end up looking like they have done their job—they have done something—but the welfare of citizens has not been improved.As a little bit of insight into why this may be: I am a recovering electrical engineer and one of the things that our profession has done is produce Gordon Moore. Well we did produce Gordon Moore and he produced Moore’s law. Moore’s law will tell you that approximately every 2 years the total power available in terms of computer processing speed doubles and that has meant a couple of things. It has given us some of the impetus for this bill. It has meant that hate speech can spread farther and faster than at any previous time in history and that certainly scares people. But it also means that the remedies for hate speech and bullying are more sophisticated than they have ever been before and we see those remedies coming from those very hosts of online intercourse—the Facebooks the Ask.fms or whatever they may be—just as quickly as the problems emerge. So this is fundamentally a technological change but the technological change has provided not only the problem but also the remedy.It has also opened up a larger and larger gap between an exponentially faster internet with a larger and larger velocity of transaction and a Government apparatus that as Kris Faafoi pointed out leaves you with 4 days before there can be any response. We had a speaker earlier—in fact the first speaker in this Committee stage—who alluded obliquely to a political party that is not in this House but that has been involved in some scandal recently and it is interesting that she raised that question because first of all the individual involved is among the most litigious in New Zealand politics today. He is someone who would actually use and abuse this law—much as the Star Chamber was used and abused—to silence his opponents. But also that entire scandal if there is any mercy in the world will by tomorrow have been fit into a 96-hour period during which for the whole time the approved agency would not have been able to make a useful response. That is funnily enough the result of Moore’s law: there are physical underpinnings to these occurrences.I have gone on before about why criminalisation cannot be supported.Tracey Martin: It doesn’t apply. It doesn’t apply Mr Seymour.DAVID SEYMOUR: I have to say that I am listening to some interference from over there that reminds me of a blogpost that I saw recently on a popular blog asking the question: “Is Tracey Martin the full quid?”. That is the kind of posting that might well be silenced by this bill. But I return to the subject.I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill that would make a very simple change that would deal with one of the most egregious and demonstrable offences which has been made possible by modern technology and that is a new offence that I think we could all live with because it will not spread beyond scope. It is easy to prove. It is easy to disprove. It is easy for the law to discover whether the offence has happened and is deserving of punishment. And that offence is simply when a person has made an intimate digital recording with or without the consent of the recordee and has then propagated it across the internet—propagated it rapidly as you would expect in an age of increasing computer power—that is an offence. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would disagree that that should be an offence. The Supplementary Order Paper that I have put forward asks that that be put in its proper place in the Crimes Act—not by creating new offences.That is why this legislation and the episode that led to it is a perfect example of bad lawmaking. You had a high-profile incident. The agencies that were supposed to deal with it were incompetent and did not deal with it. The laws that existed and that were supposed to be enforced were not enforced and today we find ourselves rather than addressing that problem creating a new agency to be approved and new laws in order for the same problem to be targeted. If you were a Martian who had recently landed on Earth—not thinking of anybody in particular—then of course one would think that that is completely nuts.So I appeal to the Committee its conscience and its sanity and to those who want our profession to be well respected to say that we should not—as Jacinda Ardern put quite eloquently I thought—try to pass a law and be seen to do something and then to wring our hands and wash them clean. Actually we should put the legislation and the public policy measures that are required in the place they really deserve to be. That place is the Crimes Act. That is creating a real crime responding to the real technological change that we face and responding to something that is egregious that is easy to demonstrate and that has been made possible by technological change. We should put that in the Crimes Act—that is to say that if you make an intimate digital recording of a person and propagate it across the internet or digitally without their consent you have committed a crime.If that Supplementary Order Paper were to be supported tonight that would be this House’s insurance against the possibility that this broader piece of bad lawmaking will not succeed. Sanity would prevail the integrity of the political profession would prevail and this House would vote down what will otherwise become—and I guarantee this—a textbook example of bad lawmaking with all the elements of bad lawmaking that we have become so used to seeing come out of this House. So I end my appeal. I think it has become clear to all those in this Committee capable of comprehending simple ideas that this Supplementary Order Paper is the right thing to do that it would improve the quality of lawmaking and that ultimately it would improve the welfare of all New Zealanders through better public policy. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):I cannot believe that I am standing here tonight saying that I have actually agreed with two speeches by the ACT member David Seymour but I have so—[Interruption] Ha ha! Here we go—strange times! Nevertheless although there is agreement on broad principles around what is good law and what is not good law on the balance of things we are supporting this bill at the Committee stage. But we are as you have heard tonight very concerned about certain things.I am going to just briefly touch on what I described earlier as the missing voices in the debate around this legislation and they are the voices of young people and the people who advocate for young people. The message that is starting to build and come from them is that cyber-bullying will not be beaten by punishment alone. I want to refer to a group called Sticks’n’Stones which is a student-led digital citizenship project that is based in Central Otago which is probably quite chilly at the moment I would imagine. It was minus 4 degrees at Dunedin Airport this morning just for everyone’s information and I imagine it is much chillier there. These people are quite heated around this issue and quite exercised around it because they are teenagers and they are teenagers who have firsthand experience that words can hurt and be hard to escape. They have a message and that message is that penalties like fines or even jail seem more like a scare tactic than a solution and although they might stop people from cyber-bullying out of fear in the short term they are highly unlikely to change the mindset of bullies.I think that this really just reinforces what my colleague Jacinda Ardern said before. It is in the peer group that the work needs to be done. It is not just the peer groups of teenagers—although that is pretty important because teenagers go on to become adults with learnt behaviour—but the peer groups where people are active in online communities. My colleague David Parker earlier in this debate referred to the forums on TradeMe which is one of the areas where there is a lot of cyber-abuse. I know that TradeMe is very concerned and keen to have the safe harbour provisions in this legislation implemented so it feels it is protected from defamation cases and from liability. In respect of the peer-group behaviour and the role of the internet service provider the fact is that everyone along the line has to take some responsibility and legislation alone—particularly bad law and there are parts of the law that we do consider to be bad and badly written—is not actually going to address the problem.We have touched on the criminal provisions on a number of occasions tonight. We have touched on the safe harbour provisions and the fact that the perhaps unintended consequence of this legislation is actually that it will legally prolong the issues of cyber-offensive and bullying tactics intimate photos abuse etc. as these will be able to be legally kept online for longer periods of time before they can actually be addressed—48 hours plus 48 hours is a long time for information to go viral and to have huge ongoing effects on victims and yet that is what this law does. Those things are again things that are going to bring this legislation back to the House.The other matter that has not been mentioned tonight is the lack of a defence of public interest and the impact that this law may have on our media. This is actually a critical issue and one that again is going to have ongoing ramifications. Despite the work of the Law Commission that was done and despite the fact that there were a lot of submissions to the select committee on this matter the Minister of Justice refused to include an exemption for media in this piece of legislation which means that therefore there is no specific public interest defence that can be used in a mediation or a District Court process which is what the Law Commission recommended.I think that again one of the other glaring omissions in this law is what the impact is going to be on free speech. I think that the ACT member over there would no doubt again agree with the position being taken tonight that in the haste to try to put in place measures—which I know were described somewhere else in the Committee tonight as potentially knee-jerk—to try to deal with this issue there could be consequences for one of our core parts of democracy which is free speech and for media satire irony and cartoons. How long is it going to be before we have a media organisation ending up in the District Court defending its right to publish a religious cartoon that has offended a group of people? This is New Zealand and this is 2015 but if this is the direction we are going in then it feels like we are going backwards in terms of our democracy and our free speech.That is not meant to be the intention of this piece of legislation according to the Minister. She said very publicly in an interview on The Nation at the weekend that it would not be the outcome but she could not point to where in the legislation there is a defence because there is no defence. There is no public interest defence. There is no ability to defend on the basis of free speech.I want to just reference an example that was provided by Tech Liberty NZ which was one of the submitters on the bill. It posits the example of a photographer who captures a politician taking a bribe and posts the photo on the internet. By exposing the corruption he knows he will cause the politician serious distress. It may not necessarily even be a politician; it could be a businessman or it could be whoever but that person will no doubt suffer distress by having that photo published. In such circumstances the law regards the photographer as intending that outcome. Surely his is an act we ought to encourage not punish yet under this bill it would be a crime to which the law affords no defence. That is deeply troubling and should not be the impact of this legislation but unfortunately we are going to see more cases like it we believe and issues coming forward that will seriously test whether this legislation works or not.We know that cyber-bullying is an important issue. I think that everybody in this Committee knows the impact of it particularly on young people and of the publication of intimate material and deeply damaging material. We need to have measures to deal with it. Having an approved agency in place is a very important part of those measures but there are so many glaring gaps in this piece of legislation that we know that it is going to have to come back to this House to be fixed.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 120New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 33New Zealand Labour 32; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 88New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Environmental Reporting BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 17 June.Part 2 Environmental reporting (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members we are now in Committee on the Environmental Reporting Bill. When we were last discussing this bill Eugenie Sage had the call on Part 2 and she has 30 seconds left.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):I will take that. I was just discussing the changes to clauses 7 and 10 and the importance of providing some flexibility—David Seymour: 10 seconds.EUGENIE SAGE: —thank you Mr Seymour—so that there is an ability to address any impact that arises from the state of the environment report or changes to the state of the environment in addition to the matters listed in the bill. My Supplementary Order Paper 87 provides that flexibility by making sure that the list in the bill is not an exclusive list.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):It is my pleasure to take another call on Part 2 of this bill and I want to speak specifically on clause 16. I want to acknowledge some of the changes that were made to this clause at the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is the clause that deals with the disclosure of information and that was subject to a great deal of submissions. The legislation that we have before us reflects some of those submissions so they are very much in the bill that is in front of us. I want to talk about some of the changes that were made and about Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage that suggests a further amendment to this clause which Labour will be supporting.Clause 16 is the clause in this piece of legislation that gives the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician the power to withhold information or analysis that will be or has been used in an environmental report to be published. The stated intention of this clause is on the surface very good. The stated intention of the clause is to try to put into place some of the barriers to political interference that we have been advocating for in other parts of this legislation and that those are to be kept and withheld so that there cannot be that level of ministerial interference.We had a very good submission from Jan Wright the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on clause 16. She agreed that the stated intention of the clause was indeed admirable and something that we should support but that clause 16 could actually be used to go far beyond protecting against Government interference.First the clause as it was drafted is ambiguous and that is why the legislation that we see before us today has been changed and the select committee did recommend changes in the bill from the select committee back here to the House. We as a committee recommended that clause 16 be amended to clarify that the Government Statistician could withhold access only to untested data prepared for the purposes of this Act. So it did not mean that when information was going to be brought in from other sources—held by regional councils or other bodies but was going to be used under this Act—there could be barriers to it being used in other places.I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee in making this change because although we do not support this bill in its current form unless the Government has had a change of heart and is going to support the amendments to clause 18 I do think there has been an improvement to this piece of legislation by tidying up clause 16. It is making sure that we are not putting ring-fences around information needlessly and end up inadvertently—I believe is the case—ring-fencing off information that could be profitably used for other purposes. Indeed it is incredibly important for us to be able to use it because we are trying to create some kind of barrier to ministerial interference.As we have suggested in previous contributions we think that if that is the intention of the Government then there are indeed better ways in order for this legislation to be free from ministerial interference and we have talked about those in relation to another clause in Part 2 of this legislation in clause 18. We are supporting the amendments that are proposed there.There were some changes made to clause 16 at the select committee as I have talked about but we actually do support Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper on this where she wants to insert the word “exclusively”. This was something that we discussed at select committee. In fact it was something that I suggested because I think that using the word “exclusively” actually removes any kind of ambiguity around the fact that we need to section this off for information that is prepared only for the purposes of this Act and that we do not inadvertently catch important data that the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment have decided can be used for the purposes of reporting on the state of the New Zealand environment and brought in. We do not want to catch that.I do not believe that this is the purpose of this Act and I do not think that it was ever the purpose of the legislation to do that. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that and to see whether he will consider a very sensible change to clause 16 that will actually ensure that we do not inadvertently tie up information that does not need to be. I think that is something we heard very strongly in submissions and it is a sensible suggestion.I want to also speak briefly in support of my colleague Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper which he has put before the Committee for this reading. It asks that we not only consider New Zealand when we are considering the state of the New Zealand environment but that we actually consider the flow-on effect to our region and that we think about environmental actions in the context of our place in the world our place as a leader in the Pacific and the impacts that our environmental actions and our actions around climate change in particular are going to make on our Pacific neighbours.I think this is a fantastic Supplementary Order Paper and it is certainly one that Labour will be supporting. It is something that I think would strengthen this piece of legislation immensely. It would not only be about New Zealand if we were to pass clause 18 and have it free from ministerial interference—about New Zealand finally joining the rest of the OECD and having independent environmental reporting on our environment free from political interference—but it would also place New Zealand in its proper global context and that is in the Pacific.So this is an amendment that I would like this Committee to consider and I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that in the call that I am sure he is about to make when he addresses clause 16 and the very sensible suggestions in the changes to that clause. This Supplementary Order Paper is about us taking our proper role in the Pacific and having our reports reflecting the leadership role that we should be taking environmentally and in terms of climate change in the Pacific. Thank you.Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question therefore is that—Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman I know my voice is really really quiet.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh sorry. The Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am sorry. I was sitting behind you and you obviously did not hear me. I am disappointed actually rather than pleased to be able to contribute in this debate on Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill. The reason I am disappointed is that this was the opportunity for New Zealand to not just catch up but be ahead of the game. We could have again been a world leader in terms of environmental reporting. We have lagged a long way behind in this space and the original Minister for the Environment who drafted this bill the Hon Amy Adams took a lot of time to praise herself in introducing this legislation. The Hon Nick Smith is now responsible for it and it is my view that they deserve some credit for introducing the Environmental Reporting Bill—there was a gap in what we did as a nation—but to totally undermine the integrity of such a good move is foolish.Government members have had an opportunity throughout the hearings at the Local Government and Environment Committee. They know what the submissions said in regard to who sets the topics for environmental reporting and it is my view that they have displayed an arrogance and been completely out of touch with what people who are concerned about the environment in New Zealand and internationally would like to see in this legislation. I urge the Minister to consider the opportunity that he now has before him to accept amendments to this legislation so that the whole of Parliament can back him as a world leader and say: “We’ve listened and we’ve got it right.” Up until now he has not been able to do that and I think that is a real disappointment. It is an opportunity that I think we have lost.There is no integrity in a system that has the Minister for the Environment responsible for setting the topics that are then reported publicly. Holding the Government to account and being able to genuinely measure our progress on issues that are about as serious as you can you get should be something that is without challenge. The Minister should be able to stand up and say: “This is what we have achieved.” This is what the Minister would be able to say but now every time the Minister gets up to crow about any progress in environmental reporting the obvious criticism which he could avoid but is choosing not to will be: “Well of course you’ve made progress in that regard in that domain; that is why you chose that topic to have reported against.” Why would any sensible Minister leave himself open to that criticism when the rest of Parliament is saying: “Change it and you will have total support of the Parliament for this legislation.”? So I do not really understand why a Minister would just act in such an arrogant way and demonstrate how out of touch he is with what people wanted. It is not a scandal; it is just a gross disappointment.I just want to move on to noting Supplementary Order Paper 92 which my colleague Su’a William Sio has put forward. Again I think this gives the Parliament of New Zealand the opportunity to really put its mark on its support for and its concern about what is happening in the broader Pacific. The amendments that Su’a William Sio is wanting to move relate to “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts” not just on New Zealand’s state of the environment which is the primary purpose of this bill but on “the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.” I think they are very good amendments. They amend clauses 7 and 10. Again I would say to the Minister let us understand that environmental concerns should be above party politics. We should have more genuine debate and discussion on issues that threaten the livelihood and well-being of people around the world. If there is any space in this Parliament for working together I would have thought it was in this space.I also want to commend and support Green Party member Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper 87. Again it amends clause 7. It looks like quite a simple amendment but I think it adds a depth to the original intent. It certainly does not change it but it gives more relevance and depth to those provisions in terms of the domain reporting. The amendments that Eugenie Sage is proposing to clause 10 add the words “and analyse” after “describe”. Again it does not change the intention but I think it shows an understanding and a reflection of what was heard during the select committee process. This amendment reflects the positive contribution that submitters made to that process and some members’ understanding of it. I think the Minister probably would be inclined to support that sort of amendment. It does not detract it does not change the focus and it certainly does not get him into any challenge with regard to domain-setting but it adds a depth to it that I think is very useful.As I said at the outset this bill really could have been the opportunity for New Zealand to gain its rightful place as a world leader on the international scene in terms of environmental issues. We certainly have been there in the past. In recent times we have slid behind and I think that is to our shame. It is to the regret of most citizens of New Zealand. It is though an opportunity that has been missed first of all by the Hon Amy Adams and now by the Hon Nick Smith. I urge them and their Cabinet colleagues to reflect on the simple amendments that have been proposed to the primary disagreement in this legislation which is around the integrity of the topics that are reported against. Who sets the topics and how can the public of New Zealand have faith that these are genuine reports about the state of our environment? If the Minister were able to agree to those proposals it would be a very good day for democracy and for the New Zealand Parliament. It would be a very good day for environmental reporting. Actually the Minister would then be able to take all the credit and crow about it.As I said in my previous call it seems very puzzling to me that the Minister who on the scale of things I have to say is committed to progressing environmental issues—why would the Minister leave himself so vulnerable to such obvious criticism when by agreeing to amendments to this legislation at this Committee stage he could remove all that opposition? He would become a bit of a star in the environmental reporting space in New Zealand. We might not praise him too loudly but he would deserve praise if he put back into the system some integrity in the reporting and at the moment that is missing. So there are amendments that provide that opportunity. There are amendments that I have referred to already that add depth rather than change the meaning of some of the specific clauses particularly clauses 7 and 10 and there is a new Supplementary Order Paper from Su’a William Sio that has been tabled which I think really puts another level of potential leadership in the New Zealand Parliament’s space. That is to look at not just the obligations that we should have as New Zealanders in the environmental reporting on how our environment is but also the impacts on our Pacific neighbours.So I would really like to be saying that Labour supports this bill. It was a space that needed to be filled—I support environmental reporting. We are not able to support the bill because the Ministers have taken out the independence and integrity that is required for us to have confidence that this will not be manipulated for political gains. I am not accusing the Minister in the chair of doing that. It could be by any Minister who has this portfolio. A simple amendment could remove that criticism. It could give this reporting the integrity that it needs and give the citizens of New Zealand confidence that we are prepared to challenge ourselves.We are prepared as a Parliament to look at all the issues that we should be monitoring in environmental reporting not just the ones that work for the benefit of the Minister. So it is an opportunity that should have been taken up. It is legislation that in theory should be supported I think by all parties in this Parliament. But it is an opportunity that has been lost because I think the Ministers have had an arrogant attitude. They have been out of touch with where the public of New Zealand is going. I urge them to reconsider and hopefully support the amendments to give the bill the integrity it needs.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):This bill and this part are an important part of this Government’s agenda for improving New Zealand’s environmental architecture around the Environmental Protection Authority which we created when we first came into Government and now with the Environmental Reporting Bill. I do note that we are the only OECD country to not have a formal system of environmental reporting and I think there is broad consensus across the Parliament that that is an anomaly that we must address. The Government has agreed to quite extensive amendments through the select committee process to improve this bill but in those speeches I have heard from Ruth Dyson and from Megan Woods I am reminded of a column I read a couple of days ago about the difficulty for the Opposition—that it has become the “no party” that it is always seeking to find some excuse—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They were very broad speeches.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think if the member was listening to the Speaker at 2 o’clock today he would have learnt a couple of things. One of them is that the member does not interject when the Chair is on his feet as he just did and also that the question of relevance is a question for the Chair. The member has had a minute and he will remember that he has had predecessors in the chair who have been replied to. But as many members in the Chamber are aware this debate is one that after a period of time on each part gets tighter. I think it is now time for the member to start addressing this part and how it fits with what has been accepted at the second reading.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members of the Opposition have gunned in on clause 18 of the bill and they are effectively saying that is why they are opposing the bill and will not be supporting it. What clause 18 does is it gives the Government the requirement to pass regulations around the topics that are covered by environmental reporting. It requires that there is a formal process of consultation with the public with the Government Statistician with the commissioner with local authorities and with iwi. I would also point out that there is a further check. When the environmental reporting is produced the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment also gets to report and to comment on the report.In terms of where I think members of the Opposition are wildly exaggerating clause 18 I want to draw to their attention their claim that that brings into question the whole integrity of this Environmental Reporting Bill. I want to make the comparison with section 15 of the Statistics Act which was passed by a Labour Government. It says: “at the direction of the Minister the Statistician is required to collect or cease collection of statistics of any kind [at] the direction of the Minister.” As a consequence are members opposite saying that the statistics that are produced by that department have absolutely no integrity? Here is a provision in the law passed by them that has a far more powerful veto than clause 18 and I have not heard a whimper; I have not heard a question. I think that shows just how partisan their response is to clause 18.I was also interested to compare clause 18 of this part with what is in the Australian state of the environment reporting. I have not heard any member from either side of the Chamber say that the Australian state of the environment reporting is a nonsense yet it is done by prescription by regulations set down by the Minister. There is no requirement even in the Australian legislation for any consultation prior to such regulations being gazetted nor is there any requirement in Australia for the commissioner for the environment to provide an audit on those topics that are provided.So the comparison with our own Statistics Act and the comparison with other OECD countries’ systems for state of the environment reporting shows that what the Government is doing in clause 18 as amended by the select committee is absolutely proper and responsive. It means that the Minister of the day will be accountable for those regulations that there is an open transparent process around how those topics are selected and in my view—Denis O’Rourke: No there’s not.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member says there is not. Well I would refer the member specifically to clause 18 where they have to be published where there has to be consultation with a whole range of players in terms of the Government Statistician the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the public iwi authorities and local authorities. That is why the Government says that clause 18 is robust and sound and should be supported.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):I wish to move Supplementary Order Paper 92 in my name. Before I get on to that I simply want to say to the Minister for the Environment in response to the Minister’s comments with the greatest respect one of the big issues that was raised by submitters on Part 2 of this bill was the need for independence. Many of the submitters who presented themselves before the select committee did not feel that clause 18 as it stands—and the other relevant clauses—provides that independence for reporting back to the House.But in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 92 in my name clause 7 makes reference to the contents of synthesis reports that must be prepared and tabled. In subclause (2) of clause 7 it goes further to talk about the how the synthesis reports must describe “(a) changes to the state of New Zealand’s environment over time including if information in the report is able to be compared with that in a previous synthesis report changes to the state of the environment since that previous report was published: (b) how the state of New Zealand’s environment measures against national or international standards.” My Supplementary Order Paper then asks that this Committee support the insertion of: “(c) how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.”Further I ask the Committee to also consider in clause 10 “Content of domain reports”. Again in clause 10(2) it says: “In addition to the matters set out in subsection (1) [above] each domain report must describe—(a) changes to the state of the domain over time including if information in the report is able to be compared with that in a previous domain report changes to the state of the domain since that previous report was published: (b) how the state of the domain measures against national or international standards.” My Supplementary Order Paper then asks that we insert a new paragraph (c) in clause 10(2) that says: “how the state of New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities impacts on the Pacific region’s climate and ecosystems and its people.”A couple of weeks ago I was privileged to attend the Fiji parliamentarians’ workshop on key issues for the region. One of those key issues was the environmental impact of climate change. It was interesting in the discussion that the Pacific Islands are well aware of what is happening to the region to the ocean. The earth is warming the climate has changed and that is having an impact on rising sea water levels. They acknowledge that the acidic nature of the ocean is growing which in turn has an impact on fresh water and on agricultural production. They asked me whether New Zealand does care about what happens to them in the Pacific region. I said: “Well sometimes we do and sometimes we do not.” It was a general statement because often in New Zealand we forget that the climate change and our activities whether they be economic or environmental have an impact on what happens to the Pacific Island region.In fact it is the belief of the Pacific Island countries that the harm that they are experiencing—with rising sea water levels etc. and the frequency of the tropical cyclones and the impact that those cyclones cause—is not caused necessarily by the activities of Pacific Island nations themselves but is more so caused by industrial nations. When the Pacific Island nations talk about industrial nations they look to New Zealand their neighbour they look to Australia their closest neighbour and then to other countries in the vicinity of the Asia-Pacific region.I think this legislation is an opportunity for us because when it comes to addressing climate change it is a leadership issue. It requires individuals to stand up and be counted. It requires Governments to stand up and be counted. The Pacific Island nations have for many many years attempted to voice this at the highest levels at the international forums. Whether they be the United Nations General Assembly or whether they be with international organisations such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or with Parliamentarians for Global Action they take every opportunity to try to raise this. Sadly the industrial nations do not necessarily support that voice. They might shake hands and pat people on the back but they do not take a strong view in support of this. I think this legislation is an opportunity for us.It is a simple matter: we are asking that our officials report to the Government of the day in terms of how our internal actions whether they be economic activities or whether they be environmental activities—how does that impact on the region? How does that impact on our Pacific Island neighbours? I think it is a good starting point because with that information the Government of the day—whether it be National or whether it be Labour in 2017; whatever—can use that information to develop strategies to develop policy ideas to even target aid projects in the region projects that will help it to address and mitigate some of the impact of climate change. I am not saying that what we will do is simply find the answers to all the issues that the Pacific Islands are experiencing. What I am saying as a close neighbour in recognition of our constitutional relationship with many of the Pacific Islands and in recognition of this special relationship that we have with the Pacific is that I think that we have an opportunity a leadership opportunity to know the state of our internal affairs and how they impact on our neighbours.I was talking to a member of the New Zealand First Party earlier Denis O’Rourke and what is interesting is that he just came back from an international conference where the same issue was raised. We would say that countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati are going underwater. There are huge questions that we have got to start asking ourselves as to where these people go in the event that they do get swallowed up. So issues like who then owns that piece of sea water issues like how do we protect the ocean and the many benefits that it contributes to people—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I do have a dilemma here. The member is straying outside the debate. I was just about to stand up when I had some advice from my right that I should do so and I did not want to be seen to be being advised by members on my right. But Mr Scott was correct and the member is straying—it is just that he was disorderly in indicating it.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: The point I am making is that I am asking the Government to support this Supplementary Order Paper to amend clause 7 and clause 10. It is nothing; it is simply asking the officials to report on our state of affairs—our internal activities whether they be economic or environmental—what kind of impact that does have on the climate on the Pacific region on its climate on the ocean on its ecosystem and on the people themselves because at some time in the future we have got to prepare for that impact.I want to read out a statement that Peter Dunne wrote in his policy of last year. He said: “…the benefits of responsible and practical action now will be realised in the long-term health and prosperity of New Zealand’s environment and its people.” and I would say not only New Zealand’s environment and its people but also the environment of the Pacific region. I was told that the environment is a defining issue. If we believe that and we accept that that is genuine I would ask this Minister for the Environment to respond to say whether he thinks this is a good idea. And if he thinks this is a good idea then I challenge him to introduce it in the bill in this reading here.Further I would say again as in the very beginning with the greatest respect to the Minister the reason why the Labour Party will not support this bill in its entirety is there are many significant individuals who pay attention to our climate and who have an interest in the Government doing the right thing who do not feel confident enough that the bill as it stands ensures that we have independence in how it is to be reported or in the Minister not being able to have an influence on what gets reported. More so they do not have the confidence that what we are getting in terms of the reports will be of best practice. I think if we are wanting to establish and reaffirm our integrity as a nation that is interested in this affair—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No the member has had two calls in a row.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):I am going to take a very brief call on this Environmental Reporting Bill in this Committee stage debate just to respond to some things that other members have brought up but also to make a couple of new points of my own. I would like to congratulate the Minister for the Environment on bringing in a very important bill. As I think has been pointed out in this debate we were left in an anomalous position within the OECD of not having such a framework in place so it is a credit to this Minister Nick Smith and also to the Government that this situation has been remedied.We have heard suggestions that there may be a lack perhaps of neutrality in the setting of the topics of inquiry for these reports. I have to rebut some of those suggestions and in fact the very suggestion that it should be officials who are committing to the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayers’ money in commissioning these reports which I think would be an unfortunate precedent to set. If we look at other comparable legislation including that governing public scrutiny of our funds in New Zealand around audit I think it is best that we have elected representatives of the people making those decisions on where we are investing the large amounts of money that it takes to undertake one of these complex synthesis reports. But I would point out that the legislation makes very clear the areas that are to be investigated. These are laid out very clearly in clause 9 in Part 2 of the bill. These are the domains of air atmosphere and climate fresh water land and marine. These reports will be conducted independently by the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician two very hard-working public officials. I would also like to pay credit to the other public officials who have given much of their time and worked very very hard on making sure that this legislation is well drafted and effective.The content of the reports within each of these domains is also governed by this piece of legislation. It will include a commentary on the state of New Zealand’s environment as a whole but also specifically the aspects of biodiversity and ecosystems the pressures that may be causing or have the potential to cause changes to the state of our environment in New Zealand and the impacts that the state of the environment and changes to the state of the environment may be having on our ecological integrity public health in our country the economy Te Ao Māori—and I hope my respected colleague Nuk Korako might comment further on that particular area of content—and also the cultural and recreational values that we derive from our environment.So to me it is very clear that within the bill there is extensive guidance as to the sorts of things that we want reported on and within those reports the key critical areas that are significant to us as a country. I think there is plenty in there that directs the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician in the right direction when it comes to conducting their investigations but it is right and proper that an elected representative—a Minister of the Crown—actually sets the specific topics that are pertinent relative and topical to the day.Secondly just responding to the comments from the previous speaker Su’a William Sio and his amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 I may well have an answer for his question around what the impacts might be on climate change for the Pacific region by activities conducted in New Zealand and that is very very small obviously. Given we produce less than 1 percent of greenhouse gases within our country and the Pacific region is less than 20 percent of the global region we can surmise that that is a very small impact. I think it is far more important that we concentrate on reporting within our own jurisdiction and on making sure that we preserve our natural environment here for the enjoyment of New Zealanders. That focus should be retained in the bill and for that reason I personally do not support Su’a William Sio’s Supplementary Order Paper 92.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):I want to deal with some of the issues that the Minister for the Environment raised around clause 18. When you look at the Australian state of the environment legislation of course it has got a very different model. It protects the independence of the reporting because there is an independent panel of experts who do the reporting. [Interruption] I have just been looking at the legislation Minister Nick Smith so I am surprised you are shaking your head. Those people might be appointed by the Minister but they are independent so here in this system we are having Government agencies do the reporting. Therefore in our view there needs to be independence in the way the topics are set which is why Supplementary Order Paper 87 provides for those topics to be set by the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment.Mr Paul Foster-Bell raised the issue of expenditure. We will shortly be doing—well we are in the select committee—the review of estimates. That whole process is where we review expenditure not trying to do it in a back-door way through the state of the environment reports.There was major concern from a number of submitters about the lack of public confidence and trust in state of the environment reports if Ministers were setting topics so this Supplementary Order Paper responds to the concerns of submitters. I think Minister given your support for collaborative processes for the Land and Water Forum and given the comments made by the Hon Ruth Dyson this Parliament could support this bill if a more collaborative process was shown and if you took on board the amendments that are being suggested which are not changing the overall thrust of the bill and are not undermining the need for state of the environment reporting but are intended to make sure that it is much more robust and that the public have trust and confidence in it.Why we need that is because of previous examples of political interference both with the state of the environment report itself in 2007 and examples of the Minister intervening to ensure that things like submissions on the Ruataniwha irrigation project by the Department of Conservation did not proceed. We have at the moment huge destruction of wetlands in Northland from swamp kauri mining. The Minister for Primary Industries thinks that is fine. It may well be that the Minister for the Environment does not want wetland loss and destruction reported on so that is not a topic that is reported on. So if this Supplementary Order Paper were to go ahead it would make sure there is more independence.The Minister has referred to the Statistics Act. That Act was passed in 1975. We had a different public sector then. It was much more independent and robust and much less prone to influence by the Minister or Ministers. In that legislation Statistics New Zealand sets the topics; the Minister simply approves the surveys. He or she does not actually decide the topics that are to be reported on. In dealing with clause 18 going on to new clause 19 this is a new clause in the Supplementary Order Paper again to strengthen the bill by having the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment actually review and report on the Act’s operation not just provide a commentary on the state of the environment reports.Another amendment that the Green Party is seeking is in an amendment on the Table of the House. It follows on and complements I think the very useful amendment that Su‘a William Sio is proposing and which the Green Party will be supporting in terms of looking at the impact on the Pacific region’s climate ecosystems and people. The Green Party also wants greater work done through the state of the environment reporting on greenhouse gas emissions. This amendment requires the Environmental Protection Authority to produce and publish a report at least 6 months after the Act comes into force that lists the hundred largest emitters of greenhouse gas. The Environmental Protection Authority already collects this information on emitters but it does not release it publicly and we think it would help New Zealand do its fair share in reducing emissions and helping to stabilise the climate preventing runaway climate change if we knew the source of emissions for our major emitters and what organisations are responsible for those. It would help inform the development of Government policy and it would help inform the New Zealand public.The Minister has pointed to Australia. Well there is a similar requirement to the one in this amendment in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in Australia. We are going to Paris later this year yet this Government is failing to actually have a decent target for reducing emissions. If we have reporting in this bill on the major emitters we will have a better understanding of the source of those emissions.I am just moving now to some of the other changes that Supplementary Order Paper 87 provides. One of them is to ensure that where there are any gaps or limitations in the data that is the subject of reports that is identified in both the synthesis and the domain reports so that the public can understand those gaps and so that we have a continuous feedback loop that leads to improvement in future reports because where gaps are identified then agencies can take it upon themselves to fill those gaps in terms of future monitoring and reporting.Again that responds to some of the concerns of submitters about the very narrow range of matters that are to be reported on in clause 18 and the thresholds there which are quite high because if a pressure topic or impact topic is to be reported on it has got to affect significant areas or significant resources or numbers of people. There may well be new pests in the marine sphere or on land that are affecting only a small number of species at the moment and having limited impact but it may be of value in the reporting to ensure that their impacts are described so that there can be a prompt response. If you have an assurance that gaps in the reporting are to be addressed then those sorts of issues can be dealt with.At the moment we continue to oppose this bill. We would encourage the Minister to respond to the Supplementary Order Paper and to recognise that it is much better to have legislation that has the support of the whole Parliament and to recognise that that can be achieved by responding in a positive manner to the constructive amendments that both the Labour Party and the Green Party have put forward in a genuine attempt to improve the bill and to make sure that it is robust that it provides for independent state of the environment reporting and that there are improvements to reports year on year because gaps are noted and identified.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):I just want to make a quick intervention to put the record straight. The member who has just spoken Eugenie Sage said that the appointment of an independent committee in Australia was in the Australian legislation. That is not true. I have the legislation before me. It makes very plain that the report is produced by the Minister in Australia. The Minister prescribes the regulations. It is true that as a matter of practice in Australia the Minister for the Environment has appointed a committee to be responsible for it. I can just hear the cries of “Foul!” from the Green Party and the Labour Party if this report was to be produced by a committee appointed by me. This report is going to be produced by the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment. The member is simply factually incorrect in what she says of the Australian legislation and I refer her to section 516 of their Act.The second point the Green member made was this: the Greens want to include in this legislation the climate change data. Well actually this Parliament has passed specific climate change legislation that requires reporting to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We are a Government that is not about repeating bureaucracy. We are not about repeating costs and where there is solid reporting data that is required in one Act to repeat it in another Act is exactly what our Government is opposed to.But let us just test Eugenie Sage’s proposition that we need to publish the exact names of those people who are the biggest greenhouse gas emitters. Well let us start by asking what the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in New Zealand are. Actually they are dairy farmers. Farmers make up with the combination of methane and greenhouse gases about 43 percent of New Zealand’s emissions. But because it is spread over 30000 farmers you are not going to list “Ma and Pa Bloggs: farmers in my electorate” as the big emitters—it is a nonsense. What is the second-biggest sector of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions? The transport sector. Does that mean I am going to have to list the big car that I understand our colleague from New Zealand First drives around? Is he going to be caught on the transport emissions? From what I have read in the newspaper he has got a real big grunty car. I think it does 16 litres to 100 kilometres or something of that sort. But let us just test—Denis O’Rourke: That’s not true.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I apologise to the member.But regardless it is a nonsense when the transport sector and the agricultural sector are made up of thousands—tens of thousands—of individuals to somehow pretend actually because you have got one factory or one emitter that they are a substantive part of the problem when they are not. That is just simply typical of an anti-business view from the Greens rather than actually recognising that all of the science around climate change shows that it is areas like transport which affects all New Zealanders; it is sectors like the energy sector; and it is areas like agriculture that make up the bulk of the emissions and for that reason specifically listing the hundred top emitters does not make sense.When you have the Climate Change Response Act which has a very high level of integrity about the reporting that is required to be audited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change we are not as a Government of a mind to repeat the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of simply regurgitating the same information with amendments to this bill.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I am not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee so in preparing for this Committee stage I was new to the legislation. In looking at Part 2 it did seem clear to me as someone who is looking at this with fresh eyes that there is quite a significant internal inconsistency if you read through from clause to clause.I would like to start off with clause 15 which is titled “Reports to be fair and accurate”. I can certainly understand why this clause is included. It is important that the reports that are compiled by the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician are indeed fair and provide a fair representation of the topics that they have been asked to consider and of course that they are accurate in their use of the data.But I do wonder exactly—and perhaps the Minister for the Environment may be able to give us some clarity on this—what “fair” means exactly because sometimes especially in environmental issues when you are dealing with the question of what is fair reporting there is an expectation that all points of view will be expressed even if some of those points of view are in the extreme minority. I think particularly in respect of the climate change debate—and I think of an outfit in the United States that promotes itself as being fair and balanced—that that will amplify the minority view on climate change: that it is either not occurring or it is not human-induced even though the overwhelming body of evidence says that climate change is both happening and is induced by human activity.So I would wonder whether in requiring reports to be fair consideration has been given as to what is a fair representation of the variety of views and the variety of evidence that will be provided to the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician in pulling together those reports and what requirements will be placed on them to provide a balanced representation of those different points of view. Will they be able to say: “Look the overwhelming bulk of evidence says this one thing and that’s where we’re going to focus our report.” or will they be required to bring in information that is perhaps expressed by a minority view and include that in their report? That is a genuine question. I can absolutely understand why that word “fair” is in there but there can be perhaps some unintended consequences of having it there.Obviously clauses 14 and 15 combined are designed to ensure that the reporting is independent and that it is accurate and that it does provide a fair picture of the environment from the point of view of the topics that have been chosen. This is I think where we begin to get the internal inconsistency in these clauses in Part 2 because clause 14 does require the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to act independently of any Minister of the Crown. That is what we would expect. If we are going to expect the public to rely on these reports to give a fair and accurate representation of environmental issues then the public will absolutely expect these reports to be free from political interference. That is clearly what the point of clause 14 is—to ensure that this reporting is done in a manner that is free from political interference. That is all well and good until we look at section 18 and its impact on section 12 section 13 and others.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Clauses I think the member means.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Clauses—certainly.Clause 12 says that the process for producing an environmental report involves two steps. The topics to be reported on are prescribed by regulations made under clause 18 and of course we have had some discussion about the impact of clause 18 which is that the very topics that are chosen are chosen by the Minister. So immediately clauses 14 and 15 are undermined by that requirement in clause 12 for the topics to be prescribed under the regulations as it says here in clause 18. So that drive for political independence and for it to be a fair and accurate representation is immediately undermined by the fact that the whole report when it is initiated is initiated by the Minister and the fact that the topics that the report will address are chosen by the Minister.Paul Foster-Bell said it is important that the decision to undertake a report be made by elected representatives. He suggested that there would be a considerable amount of expenditure involved in compiling these reports and that it would be inappropriate for unelected officials to initiate a process that requires significant public expenditure. But in fact what initiates the reports is this legislation. It says in this legislation that those reports must be produced every 3 years. So the decision to spend public funds on providing the reports is actually made by us the members of Parliament who are voting on this legislation. So that meets Mr Foster-Bell’s test of whether or not that expenditure should be initiated by elected members of Parliament. I see the Minister shaking his head and I would be interested to hear his view on why my interpretation of that is incorrect.I say to Mr Foster-Bell that although I understand the view he has expressed I think it is satisfactorily dealt with by the fact that the initiation of the report itself comes out of this legislation passed by Parliament. The question is what issues and topics those reports should address. Indeed they should be the important issues of the day. They should be the issues that the data tells us are the issues of the day. They should to a certain extent be the issues that the public tell us are the issues of the day that should be important for the Government’s long-term planning around the state of the environment. But the problem with introducing ministerial responsibility for choosing those topics is that there may be a reason why a particular Government led by any party may wish to focus more attention on some topics and may wish in fact to focus attention away from certain topics. That undermines the faith that the public can have in the quality of these reports and the usefulness of these reports for long-term planning not only by the Government but by other agencies as well.I note that a lot of these issues were raised by a variety of submitters some of whom are Officers of Parliament who have absolutely every reason to encourage us to pass legislation that is robust and will result in reports that are robust and that the public can have a lot of faith in.Although clause 12 clause 13 clause 14 and clause 15 all drive this idea that there should be independence accuracy and freedom from ministerial influence that is all pulled down by clause 18 and the fact that it is the Minister by Order in Council who gets to choose the topics. I see that as a massive internal inconsistency within this legislation and that is the principal reason why the members who represented us at the select committee and heard all those submissions came to the view that Labour is not able to support Part 2 of this legislation. Much as we support the idea of environmental reporting and had high hopes for this legislation it is with great sadness that because of some of those inconsistencies we are not able to continue to support this bill.NUK KORAKO (National):Kia ora. E te Kaiwhakahaere e mihi atu ki a koe anō. I just would like to take this short call on the Environmental Reporting Bill particularly looking at the fact that was highlighted by the Minister for the Environment and it has been highlighted also throughout our select committee process that this bill is not just about our environment; it is also about the state of our environment. And I think that is a really important and pertinent point.Moving to Part 2 of the Environmental Reporting Bill it was a great pleasure to be able to be part of the Local Government and Environment Committee to discuss debate and find consensus on this bill particularly around two things: the Treaty of Waitangi clause around instead of—it just sort of mentioned the principles—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! When I stand up the member sits down. It is really important when he is speaking to Part 2 of the bill that he does not speak to the bits that are in Part 1 and he has just started doing that.NUK KORAKO: Moving on from that part on the Treaty through to Te Ao Māori I want to speak about some of the amendments before I get there though. Probably the first one was the amending of clauses 7 and 10 to replace “economic benefits” with “economy” so that both positive and negative economic impacts would be included in the domain and synthesis reports as well. But moving to the next part of it which concerns the first domain report the amendment would remove a specific date for the release of the first synthesis report from clause 8 and then instead change clause 11 to require that the first domain report be published within 18 months of the bill’s commencement.The next part of it that I want to talk about is clause 18 and then also specifically about subclause (3). Basically that amendment concerns the expansion of entities. When we look at it that subclause (3) talks about expanding the number of entities to be consulted before recommending regulations. What that subclause has done is added the general public local authorities and iwi as well. I think that is an important consideration here because the fact is that this is where we start talking in Part 2 about Te Ao Māori which is very much if you translate that around the Māori world view—just to highlight that fact that Māori can bring a unique perspective on environment. Te Ao Māori the Māori world view has an important contribution to make to our environmental management just thinking along the lines of he tikanga tuku iho nā ngā matua tīpuna kua wehe atu ki te pō [it is a custom handed down by the ancestral forefathers who have departed to the void.] That means that those tikanga those ways particularly when we talk about the environment have been handed down from one generation to the next.That Te Ao Māori interpretation also to me in this bill is reflected in that Māori have the opportunity to be able to have their input particularly when we look at the framework when we look at the part where we have where the pressures are what is the state of them and then what is the impact. When we look at the impact of that particularly around when Māori look at their supply of mahinga kai and all of those traditional things that actually revolves around water. So that to me is a very very significant part of the bill—that Te Ao Māori can actually be included in this. Just the analogy when we talk about Papatūānuku the earth mother and particularly the analogy of that when we look at relating it to the body of a human being particularly around when we look at the rivers the major waterways being the arteries and then all of those tributaries coming off them which are the veins—the fact is that we need to monitor it. That monitoring is really part of what we are trying to do here.The next part that I want to talk about is that insert. The previous speaker on the other side of the Chamber Iain Lees-Galloway was talking very much about political accountability. If we look at this part of it we have added subclause (1A) in clause 6 and subclause (2) in clause 9 which would require Ministers to present reports jointly to the House. Political accountability there I believe is very much encouraged. The next part of it is around the funding initiatives as part of the bill. Looking at that increasing funding for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that is to encourage and assist the reporting function so the commissioner is encouraged but not required to report on an environmental report. So clause 16 is also amended to clarify that the Government Statistician could potentially withhold access to untested and unpublished data prepared for the purpose of this legislation to maintain the independence and the integrity of the report. That was really important too because it was something that was highlighted on the other side of the Chamber around the integrity of the reporting itself.Finally just to cover off is that in the bill itself—and particularly in Part 2—by mandating credible environmental information an accurate picture of the environment is created so debate can focus more on the environmental issues themselves rather than on whether the reporting is accurate comparable or representative which is what has previously occurred. Without genuinely independent regular reporting on the state of the environment we risk again falling into bad habits of the past and simply responding to the next crisis that comes along. That is what has been happening in some ways to date. National is taking proactive steps through this bill to ensure that this does not occur or does not continue to occur. The scope of the reports mandated by the bill will be comprehensive going beyond the programme of environmental indicator updates that the Ministry for the Environment has produced in recent years. The other parts to that are that the reports will cover both the state of the environment and the pressures driving environmental trends and their impacts through easy-to-understand information. Importantly it will show us where we need to make the improvements.The final part—and it was highlighted by the Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith previously—is that New Zealand is one of the very few countries particularly within the OECD without a legislative basis for national environmental reporting. This new environmental reporting system will for the first time give us the robust basis on which to track how we are performing compared with our trading partners facilitating international benchmarking and comparability. Where possible the system will align with international reporting. That is really just a short overview particularly around what this bill is about some of the important parts of it—particularly in Part 2—and then what is actually trying to be achieved through this legislation. Kia ora.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just checking whether anyone else was seeking the call and if there was not—there was.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):The Green member Eugenie Sage has put in a range of amendments that the Labour Party supports. Eugenie Sage also said that those amendments were in response to submissions made by the public. I simply make reference to one group that made a submission on a range of clauses—clauses 7 12 13 and 16—and that is a group called the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa New Zealand. This is a group that has existed since 1972. It is an umbrella body for environmental organisations the length and breadth of New Zealand.I know that the Minister has responded and rejected the point made by Eugenie Sage which was that there is a need for independence and I will tell you why. If you look at clause 7(2) with regard to choosing the national and international standards to measure against the Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa made this point: who gets to choose these international standards? By all the evidence based on this bill it will be the Minister or it will be the Secretary for the Environment who will make this decision. This organisation feels—and I believe the mood that it was in—that whenever the Minister or the head of the department is involved it is a political environment and invariably it is susceptible to the political pressures that could be put upon it.Clauses 12 and 18 talk about choosing the topics to be reported. Again this organisation submitted that it felt there was no independence and in order for this reporting to be independent and to have some integrity so that the public can believe the information that is contained in these reports it requires an independent assessment. One of the things these scientists submitted was that scientists have other scientists who critique their work so independence is necessary. What they are saying is that the way the bill is drafted as it stands there is too much room for political independence so that there is no oversight as to what topics will be reported upon and the contents of those reports. I think the Committee fails to recognise that these are simply reports; these are reports that get tabled.The real crux of the matter comes whether the Government of the day acts on the contents of that particular report. But presently as it stands it is simply a report. So those in the environmental community do not feel that the way that the bill sits at the moment provides sufficient confidence to them in order for the public to have confidence that this is genuine real substantial information and that the follow-up work by the Government of the day is to act upon that information. If the information is not provided then the Government can rightly say: “Well why should we act on it if that information is not provided?”.So in terms of the submissions made by the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Eugenie Sage I absolutely agree and we support it on this side of the Chamber because the big question that remains to be answered is how do we guarantee that the information reported on can be independent accurate and trusted by the New Zealand public? When the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand or ECO made its submission it felt that there were just too many loopholes in the legislation as it sits for the relevant Minister to provide political pressure even political pressure not to report or not to provide the information that may assist the Government of the day in making decisions. It then followed that those decisions will be aimed at protecting our environment.Even the Ombudsman’s office in a letter agrees that there is a need to preserve the independence of the reporting process from Ministers. That was the submission made. In relation to clause 12 clause 18 and clause 7(2) I want to restate that point: that for that reason this side of the Chamber would not be prepared to support this because without the freedom and without the independent nature of that reporting the Government of the day can choose for itself what gets reported and the context of that report.I want to just come back to a comment that Mr Paul Foster-Bell made earlier. He said he believed that the activities of New Zealand and the way that those activities might contribute to the climate impacts in the Pacific region will be minuscule I think—Paul Foster-Bell: Negligible.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Negligible OK. Let me just say that in a report by the World Bank which is called Turn Down the Heat—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to sit down. I draw his attention to the fact that he is now wandering way out into the substance of climate change further than the member did and much less about measuring in New Zealand which is the substance of this bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek the leave of the Committee given the length of time we have had on this Committee stage and our nearly approaching the vote for at the conclusion of the member’s speech all of the votes to be taken on the Committee stage so that the votes can logically follow on from—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to point out to the member the obvious problem with that which is that the member’s speech will not conclude tonight unless he sits down of course.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I merely wanted to come back to my amendment which is still in Part 2 which is adding on that particular clause and that is the point that I want to say—that—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that the time has come for me to report progress and for that reason I have to interrupt the member. I will therefore report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Harmful Digital Communications Bill with amendment progress on the Environmental Reporting Bill and no progress on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.