edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Penk ChrisPRIVACY BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand that agreement has been reached to take this as one part. Part 1 to 9 Schedules 1 to 10 Clauses 1 and 2CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair.Kieran McAnulty: They don't even care.CHRIS PENK: Oh I care deeply Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. I care more than the Minister of Justice clearly because I'm here and presenting on behalf of the National Party. We support the Privacy Bill we continue to support the Privacy Bill we have since it was largely—or at least commenced in the conception and drafting thereof under a previous Government. We think that it is a matter of some importance to the nation and it's appropriate that the Parliament take it seriously. Privacy is a human right and should be recognised as such at least in the form of a good bit of legislation such as we have before us today. I think it's worth noting that the Privacy Bill doesn't cover every scenario in terms of protecting privacy in this country but it is good as far as it goes and should be judged on those merits for the purpose of the committee stage. Obviously we'll confine ourselves to making comments about that which is in the bill and not that which is not in the bill. I look forward to something of a discussion with the Minister or a Minister in terms of a couple of questions that we have in the way that we conduct these committee stage exchanges. I will pose a number of questions but happy obviously to engage throughout and on a couple of areas that seem to me reasonably key. I did have the benefit of being a member of the select committee for some of the process of its consideration and the deliberation albeit not all of it. So on some occasions I'll be asking questions that I'm reasonably confident I know the answer to but think it's worth putting on record so that the Minister has an opportunity to provide some clarity and some guidance and also of course an element of testing albeit from a point of view that is somewhat—not in an unduly or unhelpfully partisan manner for a subject area that as I began my contribution I think is well agreed in principle. So my first question to the Minister would be around the fact that we have a new piece of legislation that like its predecessor is based on a number of information privacy principles. There are 12 of them and I wonder if the Minister would care to provide a comment. I'm just looking in his direction. I don't want to catch him out so to speak. But I'm curious to know if the Minister has any thought about whether there should be any further information in terms of privacy principles or if he's happy that we essentially relegislate under the current framework of the existing principles but merely update the detail under each of those. So that would be my first question if the Minister is in a position to answer failing which I'll continue on another. In fact I see he is.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Just to close I do want to thank that side of the committee for its support of this commission that has been worked on by New Zealand First Labour and the Greens. We believe that this is a huge step forward in having an independent commission able to hold this Government and future Governments to account in a thoroughly independent way. I commend this bill to the House.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): To conclude in my final call for tonight on this committee of the whole House for the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill National will be supporting this bill. But for the reasons we have outlined in this debate we do want to put it on Hansard that we do have concerns that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission may not have the authority to deal with the demands that New Zealanders and mental health services are facing today especially in the context of COVID-19 where the Epidemic Response Committee has heard of forecasting by Sir Peter Gluckman of potentially tens of thousands of New Zealanders who will lose their job and lose their incomes and develop real serious mental distress. No one in this House wants to see the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission go back to the future. We have been here before. Many in the mental health sector felt the previous commission had lost its way and we do implore the Government that giving this commission the ability to focus on some of those key points mentioned in my Supplementary Order Paper today will give the commission more authority and ability to work across many Government departments—Corrections Education Justice Health and others—to actually develop a mental health strategy which is whole-of-Government and will make a real difference in New Zealanders' lives. Thank you Madam Chair.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Promoting collaboration across entities that are involved in or contribute to mental health and wellbeing may involve encouraging good practice sharing information and working with stakeholders to identify unmet needs and gaps. It will also include sharing evidence and ensuring that the evidence base is strong. I think that's likely to be a clear part of the commission's role. Again I don't think that that needs explicit stating and in particular I don't think that a particular approach needs to be recommended. The commission should have regard to the evidence. They should seek to learn the evidence as it's emerging and involve themselves in that.I think also the other point to make in response to the member's wider point is that the Health Committee's recommendation—accepted by the Government—that the bill is clear that when it's carrying out its functions the commission must consider the available evidence is specified in clause 11(3)(a) of the bill—so you know to take it right back to the point of where this is already cited. So I think the bill as drafted addresses the issue adequately without getting us into a position where it's recommending one particular approach that is fashionable right now be adopted.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Just following up on that I think the Minister misunderstood his own legislation because it says very much under clause 8(2) the Minister must have regard to the need for members to collectively (a) have knowledge understanding and experience of—" and then it goes on to have a range of approaches: public health population health improving health outcomes. All that this side of the House is saying is that out of the range of those health approaches why would you not have "social investment approach" because as we know with social investment it is taking the longer-term view—and the Minister himself talked about the challenge between treating mental illness and also taking a preventative approach. We all know the social investment approach is grounded in looking at long-term welfare liability committing resource upfront—that might be doubly expensive—but to be actually intervening early and making a difference.I think you could apply the same with mental health especially when we know that for people with lifelong mental health illness 50 percent of them first present before the age of 14; 75 percent of them first present before the age of 24. Yet the average age of their first presentation is late-20s early-30s. So we know there's about a 10-year gap where we don't capture people and actually taking an approach that would actually be also data driven would be ensuring that all our services are feeding in the data at an anonymous level so that we can build that evidence base. And where we would disagree with the Minister around the term "evidence" is that evidence only points to where the evidence is at the moment and that comes back to my original point—that we should actually be growing the evidence base. That's why in my Supplementary Order Paper it talks about the mental health commission in clause 11(1)(d) "to promote alignment and collaboration in research undertaken in respect of the effectiveness of approaches to mental health and wellbeing including identifying gaps in the evidence base and promoting research to address those gaps".So I would like to hear from the Minister: yes he does have evidence mentioned in this legislation but where does it refer to the responsibilities of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to actually focus on research and direct research to inform that evidence base? Or this mental health commission in fact will have no oversight or interest in research."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): My view is that there's no particular need to specify the commission have a particular approach or promote a particular approach such as the social investment approach. In fact the commission itself through assessment of the evidence which is the point we've just covered—the available research currently—may decide that a different approach is better for advancing the wellbeing.So this is somewhat contradictory in terms of what the member's put forward: at the one point suggesting that you've got to have an eye for the available evidence and research and then suggesting a particular approach that might come from that research. I would say that the commission ultimately would be best placed to consider whether a social investment approach or another approach is the appropriate way to perform its functions.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): While we're on the subject of what the bill does and does not say I want to draw attention to the amendment to clause 11(3) in Mr Doocey's Supplementary Order Paper 509 which talks about promoting a social investment approach in carrying out the functions of the Act. I recall from the report—and I can just about give the member the page number; it's 201—in its summary of the core functions of the mental health commission that it is specifically identified in the recommendations that the commission Develop an investment and quality assurance strategy for mental health promotion and prevention". Yet the functions and powers of the commission as listed in clause 11 do not include that. I think that's a really really important additional function that the commission should have in law because what an investment approach does is it takes the question of where the investment in our mental health resources is best put and at the moment frankly I think the DHB system is one that works against where the best investment should be going which is into that low to moderate mental health need which the report specifically identified. Whereas I think there are plenty of examples including in the Minister's own home city where the DHB has probably diverted—well not probably: it has diverted resources into that secondary care sector at the expense of the very much needed primary and community NGO-type mental health for low to moderate conditions where that was the better investment.Actually I think the amendment to clause 11(3) by the addition of (3A) is absolutely vital in making it clear not only to the commission but to the DHBs themselves that that is where—rather I wouldn't jump to the conclusion—the research that Mr Doocey talks about but also a specific focus on where the best investments should be put absolutely should be in the black-letter law so that there be no doubt that the commission can direct can require rather than being the Monday morning quarterback that I talk about. For that reason I think that clause in particular is very much needed in the bill."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The commission is required to have sight of evidence. It is a broad term; that includes research and also includes other components such as data and evaluation. The commission's regard to consider the available evidence clearly encompasses research. So my assessment of it is that changing the legislation is not necessary to give effect to the point being raised by the member.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Madam Chair thank you very much. So it's fair to say the Minister has been very clear tonight that he does not want the word targets" explicitly mentioned in the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill and one can only well assume why that might be. That might be also to do with when the Opposition does ask how the Government is tracking on increasing the access target from 7 percent to 20 percent and doesn't get an answer.The next part I want to move on to on my Supplementary Order Paper is looking at the focus of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission on research. This side of the House under functions of commissions believes that the commission should have the authority to direct research into mental health. What is interesting is after Budget 2020 the organisation New Zealanders for Health Research put out a press release and they did some analysis: under Budget 2019 there was only $131 million put into health research. That is 0.81 percent of the healthcare spend. In Budget 2020 that had fallen by $13.7 million to $117.5 million—down to 0.71 percent. They are advocating that on an international benchmark New Zealand should be investing into health research at 2.4 percent of our health spend. You could even go further and potentially look at some ring-fencing and say that out of that total health research spend a percentage of that should be for mental health. One of the reasons I think this is important is because as we know in mental health we still don't know a lot. In fact I've heard academics say we are 50 years behind where physical health is in the sense of research and if you look at the amount of research and development in the last 50 years for physical health it shows how much we have to make up.So my question to the Minister is: why is there no mention of research and what importance does he put for the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission on focusing on the need for research in mental health?"
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that Matt Doocey's amendments to clauses 8 and 11 set out on Supplementary Order Paper—Matt Doocey: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —509 be agreed to.Matt Doocey: I'm sorry I'm a bit confused. Are we carrying on with our calls?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well I didn't hear anyone take a call so I started putting the vote. [Interruption] Sorry you didn't seek a call so I didn't—Matt Doocey: Yeah I was a bit perplexed. I didn't realise that we were—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don't call people who don't seek a call as a general rule.Matt Doocey: I didn't realise we were near the end of the debate. I thought we would be at the start of it and I thought there'd be some leniency for the Minister sitting down and the Opposition members collecting their thoughts.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Doocey do you have a point of order?Matt Doocey: No. I'm seeking a call Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I had already started taking the vote. You could urge for my reconsideration.Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Speaker's ruling 63/3 says the member may seek a call before the Chair takes the vote.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'd already started it—I'd already started taking the vote.Matt Doocey: That's right. But Speaker's ruling 63/3 says that the Chair would need to finish the vote and the member can seek a call before it's finished.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just ask the member to resume his seat. Mr Doocey if you want to be called you have to stand and seek a call. So if Mr Doocey wants to try that now—Mr Doocey.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I have covered this point previously but I'll cover it again. As part of its assessment of effectiveness efficiency and adequacy of approaches to mental health and wellbeing under clause 11(1)(c) the commission will absolutely be able to consider or recommend targets if that is what the commission thinks the Government should be doing.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I thank the Minister for that answer. Then if he agrees that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission should be able to set targets where in the legislation does it give the authority to set targets?
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Well I mean the member asks good questions here. The point I would make is that the commission's job will be to hold Governments to account for their delivery of mental health services for the improvement in mental wellbeing across society and so on whatever that looks like. So if the Government as some Governments have chosen to do sets narrow—I would argue pointless and/or misleading—targets for themselves that they think they can achieve politically but actually make no meaningful difference to people's wellbeing the commission can choose to observe them or ignore them or it can set out real measures of progress consult experts consult the consumers in the sector who use the service and make its own judgment about whether a Government is making progress or not. So I don't see that the authority should sit with the Government about what the right targets to measure are or aren't. I think that should sit with an independent commission that can choose to consult with those who are actually using the services consult with experts look at the international evidence and form a view on whether Governments are doing the right thing by their people in terms of mental health or not regardless of whether the Government of the day chooses some convenient political targets that it might meet.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Well just to carry on where the Minister left off I think the Opposition and the Minister going back and forth in fact experientially highlights the argument we're making because if there is no clarity on who sets the targets then can the commission and the Government just have that circular discussion that gets nowhere? Then we end up with the problem we had with the last commission where people felt it had lost its way because it had no authority to make a difference. So if the Minister is saying Well we don't need targets in this legislation because the Government can set targets." what happens then when the Government chooses not to set targets? Then how can the commission hold the Government to account? The whole point here is by setting a target you become accountable and then the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will have authority.On this side of the House we're concerned that we will have a commission set up and then no one will listen to it. So how is this commission if it's not having targets going to have teeth to make a difference because there wouldn't be one member in this House who hasn't been moved by the stories they've heard of their constituents impacted by mental health themselves their family and their work colleagues. We've all heard the call in the 52nd Parliament that we need to get on and work together to make a difference. Now the Opposition agrees with that but if the Minister could just clarify then: whose role is it to make targets: the Government or the commission? How do we end up not getting in this circular discussion that we are tonight where both the Government and the commission can't hold each other to account?"
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): At the risk of getting into the debate about what targets should be and so on as the member has I would say that the interim mental health commission is precisely tasked with ensuring that the Government is doing the things it said it would do in terms of rolling out a programme of increased access.But the Government has chosen to put a record amount into mental health $1.9 billion. Included in that $1.9 billion is half a billion dollars that is focused on widening accessibility to mental health. It is the very job of the interim mental health commission and in a similar way I'd imagine a permanent mental health commission to hold the Government of the day to account for the tasks it set itself for delivery of those particular goals.What those goals might be is indeed a matter for debate. I don't agree with the way the member has characterised my previous views or positions. I don't want to get too far in to that. But I fundamentally think the important thing here is that the commission has the independence to if it chooses set some goals or things it's going to hold the Government to account on or to hold the Government to account on in an independent way the tasks it set itself. It's up to the commission and the bill is entirely permissive in that regard. We seem to be having the same conversation backwards and forwards so I'll leave it there.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well that would be absolutely fine except the Minister of Health has done an 180 degree turn-around in respect of the setting of targets particularly in mental health. As shadow Minister in 2017 he called on the Government and the Minister of Health to set a suicide reduction target and proposed a 20 percent reduction in suicidality in New Zealand. Indeed he forced Dr Coleman basically to match him. It was like a mental health telethon on the campaign trail. The moment the Minister gets to office: oh no that's a bit hard. The narrative was one death is one too many and that I agree with; I'm not doubting that. But we need to set off on a journey of reduction in self-harm and suicidality in this country that will not be achieved if we aren't very clear about that as the goal. Now broadly we all agree that that's the case but in order to be able to say Well let's take the first steps in that." we set the target we understand the plan and we understand where the risk is. Whether it's in rural communities—we just had a sharp spike in poor mental health outcomes and suicidality—whether it's our youth whether it's Māori and Pasifika who all have higher rates of suicidality than the general population then that highlights those things for the commission to be able to say "OK sector. This is where you should be looking. Good looks like a reduction in these areas and specific actions being taken to improve the mental wellbeing of the people in those most vulnerable groups." The Minister can sure say "Well that can happen at any time." The fact is he leads. He leads the discourse and the thinking around this and he pivoted on that. The moment he had the opportunity to set a target he equivocated. He stepped back from that. Actually I think that strengthens the case for the commission to be able to be more of a watchdog than a poodle and say "You know what: this Government and its agencies should be heading in this direction." That's why putting it into the law is going to be so important."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): To respond to the points raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse the challenge of course with having targets is that in this particular context He Ara Oranga was much more focused on prevention and promotion of wellbeing. It may be that a commission would consider an approach around access targets or other targets too focused on a treatment or illness approach rather than a wellbeing or prevention approach. I think it should be free as an organisation as an independent entity to choose how it sets up its measures of success across the system. So that's what permitted. As I've mentioned before there's nothing to stop it setting up targets if it thinks that's the right thing to do to hold a Government of the day to account. Indeed I think it would be anticipated that if the Government of the day set itself targets the commission would be there to judge the success of the Government of the day in achieving those particular targets it had set itself. That would be a reasonable role to assume the commission might fulfil as an independent monitor.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Just picking up on that last point that the Minister of Health said there was a slightly circular argument about that because it's not the commission's responsibility to adhere to the targets but the health sector's. I heard the Minister say that it would be problematic in some way to bind the commission to either do or not do something. Well I think that's flawed logic. If as he says the commission is free to set targets then why not build that in as part of the functions under clause 11? I very strongly support Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 509 in Mr Doocey's name and indeed I've got a bill in the members' bill ballot to do more or less the sorts of things that this proposes right across the health sector. And indeed it's modelled on the very language that the Prime Minister herself used in the bill that was passed with child poverty reduction targets.I think we've seen ample evidence in the health sector in the last 2½ years about why the absence of clear expectations for service delivery leads to drift. The Minister in his opening remarks talked about some kind of change of heart that the National Party might have had in respect to the Mental Health Commission. I don't think that's what's happened because I will have no time and no truck with a commission that acts in most respects more like a Monday morning quarterback sitting on the sidelines of the mental health sector making comments about what's going on without any real ability to influence the direction that the sector is going in. I think we're already seeing the same sort of drift with the lack of delivery from the mental health report the Paterson report that was I think so important in actually setting a broad direction.Lots of hope and money but no actual detailed plan for the how and the who and the where and the when is exactly the sort of thing that Mr Doocey's SOP will actually require and encourage the commission to do. So I want the Minister to think very carefully particularly about the changes in SOP 509 to clause 11 because we can say anything we like about what the intent of the commission is; it's the black letter law that will guide their behaviour and I think we have a unique opportunity right now to say this is important to us. Bringing clarity to what is expected in the sector and setting clear targets and specific actions to deliver improvements of mental health is going to be a fundamental ingredient in the success of this commission.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As part of its assessment of effectiveness efficiency and adequacy of approaches to mental health and wellbeing under clause 11(1)(c) the commission will absolutely be able to consider all recommended targets if it thinks that is what the commission should be doing. If it believes that that is helpful to the Government's progress or to assessing the Government's progress it's free to do that. Nothing in the bill precludes the commission from recommending targets if it determines that that's an appropriate approach. The commission will be able to make informed judgments based on evidence; changing the legislation is not necessary to give effect to what the member is suggesting.I think we probably will agree that if that's something that proves to be useful we would encourage the commission to do that. But I think it's important that the commission has the flexibility to comment on what it thinks needs to be done that we preserve that independence and I don't want the commission locked into specific targets or specific assessments that it has to adhere to set by this Parliament. I think it's up to the commission to decide how it wants to approach this issue. It has been established as an independent entity as we have already canvassed.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I thank the Minister for that. Right there is some independence but independence will not necessarily bring the commission authority.I do want to draw the Minister's attention to my Supplementary Order Paper where this side of the House would like to see under clause 11 the inclusion of the line including recommending targets that provide clear and specific actions to be undertaken to improve people's mental health and wellbeing". On this side of the House we do think the mental health commission would benefit from the ability to recommend targets to set targets and to report to targets because of course the indicative target of the inquiry was to increase access for New Zealanders from 7 percent to 20 percent. I think it would be important that the mental health commission was able to recommend those targets to work across various Government departments to hold them to account and then to report back to the public that they have been able to increase access for those specifically at the mild to moderate end who the mental health inquiry quite rightly pointed out were not able to access mental health services. I would be interested to know from the Minister why there is no ability for the commission to be able to recommend targets and report on targets."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I thank the member Matt Doocey for his questions. He'll be aware that there's an interim mental health commission in place currently with board members that has been supported through the Ministry of Health. It is our intention to ensure that this commission is appropriately resourced because we all in this Parliament want to see it succeed. In fact there is one difference to the Mental Health Commission that the prior Government disestablished in that this one will actually be a more independent Crown entity and thus will have the ability to hold this and future Governments to account for their work in the mental health space.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that introduction. He is correct: the National Party is in support of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission although we do have some concerns on this side of the House. The Minister is correct: the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission came out of the recommendations of the Government's mental health inquiry He Ara Oranga. But equally a concern of this side of the House is that the mental health commission will not have the authority to drive real change.As the Minister has stated this is a bit Back to the Future. The previous Mental Health Commission was disestablished in 2012 and there'd be many in the mental health sector who agreed with that decision because it felt the Mental Health Commission of that day had lost its way. So fast-forward to today we have the Mental Health Foundation who came out after Budget 2020 and were worried after that Budget that there seemed to be no resourcing and implementation plan for the recommendations of He Ara Oranga and it was appearing to stall and drift. So my question to the Minister would be: how is he going to ensure this commission will have enough authority to drive those recommendations forward and ultimately drive mental health forward for New Zealanders who do want to see a real change?
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
SpeechHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Madam Chair thanks very much and I just thank the Minister for Climate Change for his previous answers. My question's reasonably specific and it's to do with the Tīwai aluminium smelter. Anyone who hasn't been there needs to go there for a visit. It's a wonderful place. My question's really around the industrial allocation phase-down mainly from 2030 and what the Minister plans to do in terms of carbon leakage. So industries here that are taxed to the hilt—where they see it's no longer feasible to continue that industry will basically just go offshore and someone offshore will produce it often the majority of times through a much higher emission rate. So my question's really around the industrial allocation phase-down and what he's going to do to stop that carbon leakage. Industries that produce for example the cleanest purest form of aluminium in the world—that comes from Tīwai. It supports around about 1000 direct jobs in Southland. It's been in place for a number of years. It's a wonderful organisation. So why would we want to risk that wonderful company going overseas—all those jobs down the drain? We already produce the cleanest best aluminium in the world. It often goes into items like this phone here and an Apple iPhone. Not many people know that. So my question's really around: what's he going to do stopping industries like that going offshore which will produce a lot more emissions in total?
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Just following on from that and I noted in your speech yesterday Minister Shaw you said the same thing about the commission having to consider. What tests or thresholds would that consideration entail? You know at what point would the commission consider that the potential implications of land use change are significant enough for it to act? Have you set any guidelines for them and how would you set those guidelines? And you know is it 10 percent of a region or is it going to be 10 percent of the income from a region? Can you give us some clarity around that because just saying Consider the implications." doesn't really give us much comfort? We need to know what the tests they will be applying would be and the threshold they would use.The other thing is it would be good to get some clarity around that independent audit process you're talking about with the primary sector deal. My understanding is that it goes to the commission and the commission then makes a recommendation to the Minister. So you seem to be implying that there is an independent audit process in there. Now whether that's because you consider the commission to be an independent body and their decision you're saying is an independent audit or what normally would be considered an independent audit would be a third-party organisation other than the commission or the Minister that would be then independently auditing what has happened—so I need clarity around that because I feel your definition of the commission's interpretation will be an independent audit. That's the way I'm taking it and I'm not sure if that's quite what people would consider an independent audit.The third thing is that you made a couple of comments just before the dinner break around farmers haven't been having to pay and having preferential treatment up to now. I just wanted you to give some clarity around the industrial allocations. My understanding was that the dairy industry didn't get any industrial allocation unlike other big industries in New Zealand—so like New Zealand Steel and all those who've had an industrial allocation for 10 or 15 years or whatever the time period has been whereas the dairy industry in its processing side has actually been paying during that period of time. So it's unfair now to say "Well hey they've had preferential treatment they haven't actually been involved." when in fact the only major manufacturing industry in New Zealand to have been paying for the last decade is the New Zealand dairy industry. That's my understanding of it. Now if they were getting those industrial allocations that's news to me but I'm pretty sure that they were excluded from that.So it'd be great to get the Minister to explain those three questions."
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I'll be repeating something I said at the first part of the committee stage but just to correct you what I'm saying is actually that if you allow the market to operate as it is supposed to do and the price does rise then it is counterintuitive that yes there will be some more afforestation but also it becomes more economic for polluting firms to change the technology than it does to do offset forestry right? So let's hypothetically say that the carbon price rose to $50 which is the complete upper limit that we're putting in and that if it went up to there what that is saying is that it would cost you $50 to plant forests but only $40 to change your technology if you're an industrial process heat user right? So it's $10 cheaper per tonne to swap out your technology than it is to plant forests. So then of course what happens is people change their technology demand for units then falls and so the price comes down a bit. So you get a sort of equilibrium. That is what I meant by that.But in response to the second part of his question you're asking about protections around I guess aggressive afforestation. This was a debate that was had last year when we passed the zero carbon bill when the Opposition got a provision included in the zero carbon bill that there is a mandatory consideration that the commission must include—and then the Government must also include in their response to the commission's advice about the effects of afforestation on rural communities and economies. It's one of several things that they have to consider and obviously they need to come to a balance of those considerations but that is written into the legislation and the zero carbon bill. Because it is an amendment to the primary Act and this is also an amendment to the primary Act that consideration applies to everything in this bill. There are also other protections but that is written in here.
SpeechHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you very much—I'll make it nice and succinct. I just want to ask the Minister—he made some comments in his previous speech around the removal of the cap and in terms of New Zealand Carbon Farming. So Minister my question is: you remove the cap the carbon price will rise this will result in more conversions of farms into forestry—there's obviously that incentive there. It will be more profitable land use because of the stilted price mechanism—when you've got all the analysis which indicates that because of that cap because of that price rising the fossil fuel emitters would rather offset their emissions rather than reduce them because of that. So Minister if you could please answer this. What protection have you got in place for those rural communities with the incentive of that increased carbon price? What protection have you got in place?
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call Hamish Walker could I just remind the committee of the new rules that we're trialling: the removal of the four five-minute-limit speeches in order to try and have more of a conversation with the Minister. So the five-minute speaking time is not a target. You're more than entitled to make your point or your question and resume your seat.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): No I wasn't quoting from a specific document. But I'd be happy to go hunting for any advice that we've received.
SpeechALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister mentioned a document that explained—and it seemed an official document—the couple of hundred million dollars that it was going to cost the Crown and be transferred to another party and I'd just like him if he could to table that document.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): If the Minister was quoting from an official document then he will table it. He may wish to voluntarily do that at some time. He's not required to—Hon James Shaw: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —unless he was quoting from it.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. Before I get to my questions I'd just like to thank the Minister for the way he's methodically stepped us all through this bill. This is an incredibly complex piece of legislation and is incredibly wide ranging with wide implications for how our economy and our society will be shaped over the next 30 years. So I think we all appreciate that and I think also outside of this committee stage I'm sure not only for those of us on this side but I'm sure you've been available to the other side as well.Just a comment for a start around the He Waka Eke Noa initiative. I think that is a brilliant initiative. It does give farmers a chance to design a scheme that is suitable because it is a different—we're talking about a flow gas and also of course a pastoral sector and horticultural sector that's incredibly important to our economy. That we have got a bit of time to design a system that's fit for purpose is I think appreciated by the industry.My particular question is around there has been some commentary around the—I guess you could say they're the carbon farmers or those looking for permanent forest sinks and when we're talking about forestry we're talking about plantation forestry most of the time in our own minds when we're discussing this but there is also a place for permanent carbon sinks particularly in the more erosion-prone land. I think we've seen a good example up Gisborne way on the East Coast two or three years ago where we had a significant environmental impact from perhaps forestry in areas that may not have been suited to it. So I think part of the mix will be in some areas some permanent forest sinks. And it may open us up to some diversification of income around say mānuka honey and the like so it's a different way to skin the cat I guess. But those investors that are looking to get into that space have expressed some concern that there's a wee bit of lack of flexibility where they've maybe taken out existing plantation forestry that they're looking to maybe not incur the liability there if they can plant somewhere else and I'd be just interested in the Minister's thinking around that. Is there merit in that suggestion and getting a bit more of his thinking. Thank you.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I am directing my questions now to the Minister for Climate Change. I wasn't intending to take a call in this debate but with the contribution of the Hon David Bennett—and I would argue my mistake in heckling him. I do feel as though I've poked the bear and we may now be extending this debate well beyond the dinner break. But I just wanted to ask the Minister about some of the thematics that have arisen particularly from the Opposition's contributions in this committee of the whole House debate tonight some of which I've just jotted down. The first is really that I intend to unpack what appears to be surfacing which is this false binary of a choice between jobs or the environment. On that point I really want him to drill down in particular into this abstract notion of the economy as is often bandied about particularly with regard to GDP which I note the Minister for Climate Change actually spoke about prior to becoming the Minister. I remember back in the mists of time—I think it was an op-ed authored for Stuff potentially—about the fact that GDP as a measure is such a flawed measure of the success the welfare and the distribution inside of our society. The reason for that is the gross domestic product is literally just a measure of the amount of transactions that we are having inside of our economy. It is not a measure of the quality of the contribution to for example the health of our environment nor the distribution of them. The point therein is that our GDP can continue to go up as it was so artificially inflated under that former National Government as per really poor policy decisions that degrade our environment. GDP goes up when there is an oil spill. GDP goes up when there is a car crash. GDP goes up when somebody gets cancer. GDP goes up when there is a natural disaster. That is because there have to be economic transactions in order to undo that social ill and the point here—the question that I am putting to the Minister for Climate Change—fundamentally comes back to this false binary being presented by the Opposition tonight on the environment and the economy.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like to thank the Minister for Climate Change. I think he's been very helpful this afternoon in the way that he's responded to questions. If he can carry on that approach—because as a respected Minister I think he's actually doing a very good job in the House this afternoon. So if we could carry on that approach it would be good. I've just got a few questions that have arisen from his answers and the first question is just what we just talked about before about the increase in the petrol price. The Minister said well basically there's been a 48c reduction. Consumers might have a 9c increase or 3c increase but in general they're not going to be too poorly off because they've had a massive reduction. I just want the Minister to answer what it actually means for the average household on their income side though. The reason you've had a 48c reduction in petrol prices is because the world economy stopped. The world economy stopped because of the crisis. So world prices of oil basically went to zero—negative actually. That is not going to last as the Hon Scott Simpson said—but the impact on households will last because we are going into a recession if not a depression and in that period of time the most vulnerable households will lose income. It's all right talking about the expense side and saying Well they were paying less in fuel." but they are now facing a situation where they don't have a job. They're now facing a situation if they did have a job where it's on reduced hours. And they're now facing a situation if they did have a two-income family where they've probably only got a one-income family if that. So it's all right to say well "Hey you're not going to lose too much on the expense side." but the reason petrol prices are low is because these people aren't going to have work. They're not going to have the income. That's our point. At the very time the most vulnerable people out there will be hurt through a crisis like this—the rich will always find a way of getting around it but the most vulnerable people will hurt the most out of this crisis. When that price of fuel goes up they can't avoid it. They just can't avoid those fuel costs. It might be less than what they paid for before but they're earning a lot less than what they were earning before. So I want the Minister to look at it. He talked about economics and things like that. Well the first economic question I've got to him is: how does he explain the rationality for having a cost increase on the most vulnerable people when they're going to have an even bigger reduction in their revenue in the next few months to couple of years? And how can he in good conscience do that to the people that are most vulnerable out there?"
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): The Climate Change Commission has the ability to review progress and to suggest any changes to the programme. But again I think given where we are in terms of the pandemic today by the time we get to 2024 it won't be a problem. Certainly no one in the sector has suggested to me that there should be at this point any decisions made about deferring or changing the time line for that roll-out based on what's happening today.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you to the Minister for Climate Change for providing that explanation. It didn't directly address the question I posed which was: given that farming operations have been impacted by COVID-19 and farming operations don't just suddenly recover all by themselves—because they have to make planting decisions for the spring and they have to make sure they have enough feed; they have to have feed on the lambing paddock. All of those considerations have got to be in the minds of farmers. I want to thank the Minister for the explanation of the work that is being done but what allowance will there be in this law if farmers and farming groups cannot comply with their obligations by 21 January 2024? How is the Minister going to deal with the what if"? What if the farming community farming sector cannot comply?"