edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simpson Scott; Mallard TrevorHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the hour or the time available to me I listened carefully to the Minister's contribution and I want to thank him for expanding a little bit on some of the climate change issues that the Environment Committee had to confront in the course of its deliberations on the bill. It was a matter that came as something of a surprise because as the Minister said at the bill's first reading and introduction the matters that the committee ended up considering weren't sort of within the purview of the committee's scope but the passing of the zero carbon Act has changed all that. So when we went through it as a committee we discovered of course—well as many of us already knew—that by way of a much earlier amendment to the Resource Management Act back in 2004 councils when issuing consents under the Act were specifically excluded for instance from considering climate change issues or climate change matters in their deliberations on the issuing of consents and that now seems to be something of an old-fashioned view. But notwithstanding that the situation arose where without really much in the way of opportunity for members of the public or interested groups stakeholders or people who are concerned on these sorts of matters—they didn't really have an opportunity to get a heads-up about what the Government's intention was in terms of solving this conundrum that came before the committee. So yes there were a large number of people who chose to raise the matter in terms of their submissions and the Minister referred to that in his speech just a moment or two ago. But we don't think on this side of the House that that's been a very good process in terms of public scrutiny in terms of public debate and in terms of an opportunity for people who do have an interest to participate in the process fully openly and transparently and in our minority view we have made it clear that we think that this is a bill that is a further tinkering to the Resource Management Act. This will be I think the 19th significant amendment to that piece of legislation that now runs to something close to 800 pages and it's an Act now that is largely incomprehensible to laypeople. It's expensive it's slow it's time-consuming and amongst many New Zealanders it's a source of ridicule and derision. I don't think that that's appropriate—Hon Damien O'Connor: You had nine years to do something; you did nothing. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and the Minister of Agriculture says we had nine years. Every attempt—every single attempt—that the National Party made during nine years that member and his party opposed. That member and his party opposed every single opportunity to improve the Resource Management Act over those years. So that member who's suddenly woken up—SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. The Government has indicated that it's not going to continue with the urgency and the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 12 a.m. (Friday)
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): I support the establishment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill — Second Reading
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): As has been said there has been an outbreak of consensus for the establishment of this mental health commission and for the merits that have been attributed by many colleagues. I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It's an absolute pleasure to rise in support of this bill which will establish an independent Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission for our country. I commend this bill to the House.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker I want to begin my contribution by thanking the chair and the members of the Health Committee for their contributions to this particular debate and also to the Minister of Justice for his contribution already to this debate too—a very thoughtful contribution; I couldn't have put it better myself.I do want to acknowledge all of those who submitted in the process through to select committee. This bill and this commission will be better for the input of the public for the people that have brought their wisdom and experience to the table in the setting up of this commission. I also want at the outset to acknowledge those who are members of the interim Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission particularly the chair Hayden Wano and all of that team for their contributions so far. They have the task of holding the Government to account on its work so far in introducing a mental health package responding to He Ara Oranga. They also have the responsibility of setting up a draft framework to be considered by the permanent commission when it is established to understand indeed how they might go about their task of evaluating whether the Government is doing what it needs to do to support the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Of course this Government has committed very deeply to taking mental health seriously. And of course with the unprecedented $1.9 billion that went into mental health across a range of services across Government in the 2019 Budget we've seen a shift in thinking in the possibilities for agencies and for those who are working with those who have challenges on mental health. We also have the rolling out of the access and choice initiative: half a billion dollars focused on the provision of free mental health care in our communities. Since first proposed the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that we are giving effect to through this bill has shifted to being an independent Crown entity the most independent of possibilities for this commission. We think that's appropriate because we want this commission to hold this and future Governments to account for ensuring that we have mental health and wellbeing well supported in our communities. The Minister of Justice has said many of the things that I would like to have said in my contribution but I do want to in closing thank New Zealand First as our coalition partner for their work in helping to establish this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. I want to thank our confidence and supply partner the Green Party. These parties have contributed so much as we've worked together as a Government to establish a Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission for the whole of New Zealand's wellbeing. I commend this bill to the House.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Just to contribute briefly the Greens' support of this Food (Extension of Dietary Supplements and Regulations) Amendment Bill" as I believe it actually is referred to as in my notes which is when we were negotiating this with the Minister but it is now in fact called the Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill.This is for all intents and purposes a relatively technical piece of legislation in that it extends the regulatory scheme which is currently due to expire in 2021 until 2026. We look forward to seeing the scrutiny that the select committee applies to this and I would join with my colleagues in congratulating Barbara Kuriger for her ascent to the chairpersonship there and look forward to seeing what comes out of that select committee to tighten it up improve it and very much tautoko the sentiments of my colleague Mark Patterson and the focus on this sector which is so critical to resetting and rebuilding our economy.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee."
Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill — First Reading
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker—unexpectedly soon. I'd just like to add New Zealand First's support to this Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill. It is important to the industry that they do have the certainty of these regulations being rolled over. As we heard from the Minister for Food Safety it is a $2.3 billion industry that has grown by 64 percent in the last six years—$2.3 billion is extraordinary. When we talk a lot in this House about value over volume this is an absolute exemplar of that where we're taking food products essentially and selling them at many times their raw value in a dietary supplement form.I would like to pick up on the point made by Barbara Kuriger and I too congratulate on her on her ascension to the food safety spokesperson role in the Opposition—it's a little hard for us to keep up with what's going on over there but it's great to see you in that role Barbara—Hon Maggie Barry: We'll send you a flow chart.MARK PATTERSON: —we might need it; it might change next week though—and also as Kiritapu Allan pointed out the chair of the Primary Production Committee. You've got a lot of experience in that field and I'm sure you'll do well. It'll be a less exciting ride I think than we had under David Bennett but that might be a good thing.While it's appropriate to have fit for purpose oversight in this field I just would like to pick up on the point that Barbara Kuriger did make. New Zealand First actually had a bill drawn from the ballot on this issue. This area does need to be tidied up. It's fair to say we're a little disappointed that we're here rolling these regulations over and that it could in fact extend out another five years. I know that's the absolute maximum as the Minister has pointed out. As it goes through the select committee and we do hear from the submitters I'm sure we will get that feedback and I know in New Zealand First we'll be pushing as hard as we can to expedite this work. I know that it hasn't come to the top of the heap and I know that it hasn't been the highest priority particularly in the last few months but nevertheless when you've got a $2.3 billion industry it is vitally important that the regulations are fit for purpose. So we will be pushing as hard as we can in that direction.So without further ado we commend this bill to the House.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): First of all can I congratulate the member that just spoke the member Barbara Kuriger for her promotion as the spokesperson of food safety and indeed for her role and her elevation to the chair of the Primary Production Committee. We're really looking forward to working with you to the end of this term.I must say though I do slightly disagree with my friend's contribution in the House. Food safety is always a critical concern and of critical importance for every member in this House. We know how important this sector is to New Zealand as we move to re-establish and re-kickstart our economy. Dietary supplements and these particular products right now—the legislation that they sit under is going to expire. It is very important that we continue to move from a health and safety perspective to ensure that we have the appropriate oversight and regulations and for that purpose we look forward to turning our minds in some detail to this bill when it comes to our select committee. So without further ado I commend this bill to the House.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Mr Speaker. As the new spokesperson for food safety for the National caucus I would like to congratulate the Minister in a time of COVID-19 for giving at least one industry certainty—at least 5½ years' certainty—when actually most businesses are not sure what's happening tomorrow or next week.Look while all of the things for the reasons the Minister outlined in this bill around safety of these products are extremely important I find it bizarre to stand here at 10.32 on a Thursday night debating a bill that's taking regulations that are 35 years old that expire in March 2021 and allowing an extra five years to update those regulations. So while I agree that the topic of this bill is important to me it's a point of certainty but at this time I'm not quite sure if there's nothing else going on in food safety that's far more important than this because there's no urgency about this bill at all.What we would like to do in terms of when this goes to select committee—it is important to ensure that the businesses are satisfied with an extension and feel that progress is actually being made on the development of a new dietary supplement regime. The Minister just mentioned the fact that while there are five years he doesn't expect that it will take five years. I would hope not because it's 5½ years away. So I'm looking forward to taking the feedback from the submitters on this piece of legislation.The Ministry for Primary Industries report states that industry consultation on this bill is not necessary as consultation is already under way for the new regime. However an extension is pointless if the industry feels the regime is not developing at an acceptable pace. So in closing on this bill—because I think that under urgency it's not really a priority to spend more time on it—it is really important to get it to select committee to talk to the industry to understand what their views are on it. So thank you Mr Speaker.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I don't want to take long but I do want to just point out that the relationship between the courts and the legislature is not some relationship which is writ in stone. It's not some holy and immutable law. It's a matter for negotiation in any modern and progressive democracy. And that's what this bill is about. It's about turning our minds to the very difficult question about the advice given to us by the courts that we are infringing on important rights and turning our minds to whether something should be done about it. Now I know there's going to be discussion about where this bill should go for further consideration but it's absolutely imperative that this be considered by the best minds we have—the most expert minds on these difficult questions of the comity between Parliament and the courts and the privileges that this House holds and how it should exercise them. It's a great piece of legislation. It's a progressive piece of legislation. As always I think New Zealand's at the forefront of how constitutions deal with very difficult problems. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I've been sitting here in the House this evening and I've listened to some really interesting contributions from both sides of the House to this bill. Ministers on this side of the House have laid out how this bill will actually help us in this Parliament to make legislation better. It doesn't enable the courts to strike down legislation as the previous speaker has suggested. Instead it allows us to do what we've all come here to do: to make good legislation that actually improves the lives of people and upholds their rights as well. Because of that I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'd just like to take a very brief call to say that I'm very happy to stand in support of this incredibly important bill. Thank you.
SpeechHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Madam Speaker thank you. Can I just thank Tim Macindoe for his contribution. This is a House of Representatives and I am not a constitutional lawyer; I am a stay-at-home mother and a debt collector by trade. So this is not an area of specialty for me but I don't feel any less than my colleagues who are lawyers. Sometimes I think we have too many lawyers here to be perfectly frank because this is a House of Representatives and all of New Zealand should be able to see themselves in one of us here. Tim Macindoe's contribution I found particularly educational and I happen to agree with him. I think you can tell the importance of the topic when the debate is so—Hon Tim Macindoe: Respectful?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —respectful. It's those moments when this House you know really rises to what it needs to be for the people of New Zealand. So I think the contributions have been really really interesting but I really particularly enjoyed or was involved by Tim Macindoe contribution.New Zealand First will be supporting this bill—and I'm going to say at first reading". I'm going to say "at first reading" because of Mr Macindoe's contribution and I will take it back to my caucus and I will actually have a conversation with my caucus as we go forward. I personally will also watch really carefully the process of this change to our country's sort of constitutional framework as it goes through—just as a New Zealander to be perfectly frank.There are pros and cons in everything. Mr Macindoe said "Parliament is sovereign" and that is true—Parliament is sovereign. We make the laws but then I can also appreciate that there will be a number of New Zealanders who think "Well there have been other Parliaments who have made laws that have subjugated their people and therefore there needs to be another body that is independent that is able to wave the flag internationally and say 'This is not right this breaches the rights of your own citizens and they don't have three years or however long to live under those things.' "So you know I can see the pros and cons but I'm personally not qualified to stand and make a contribution similar to the interactions between Mr Woodhouse Mr Little and Mr Parker. So therefore I will have to rely—like many of us do—on the submissions of other New Zealanders who are qualified who will and should come forward to the Privileges Committee at this stage and who will give us their view on what does this mean for us as a nation and do they support the view of Mr Parker and Mr Little that this is a really good change and it has no major risk but it adds to our country's democracy or do they share the concerns of Mr Macindoe that this may be a step too far?So New Zealand First supports the bill at first reading. We will watch with interest."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I move that the amendment in my name be further amended from the replaced words from 28 July" to "21 July".DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you're seeking leave?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh I'm seeking leave for that. Do I seek leave? I can seek leave if that's the case.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the easiest way would be to seek leave to amend your amendment that's on the floor of the House.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you Madam Speaker. I seek leave to amend the motion in my name to read now "I move That the words '22 June' be replaced with '21 July'."DEPUTY SPEAKER: So leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the motion in the name of the Hon Ron Mark be agreed to: That the words "22 June" be replaced with "21 July".Amendment agreed to.Motion as amended agreed to."
Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
SpeechHon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): I move That the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 22 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).I am seeking a shortened select committee process because it has now been almost two years since the Paterson report was tabled in this House and because it is important that we improve the situation for veterans without further delay. There are aspects of this bill which have been strongly canvassed through Professor Paterson and the veterans have indicated strongly that they have made all the submissions and are just simply wanting the bill amended. The measures contained in this bill will address priorities identified by those veterans in their feedback to Professor Paterson as I said when he reviewed the current legislation. They will provide immediate improvements to fairness and equity for these men and women and their families. I acknowledge and thank the Opposition and the whole of the House for the unified way in which members have spoken in support of this bill. I know that the committee will give it good consideration. The veterans of New Zealand have been waiting a long time for the improvements Professor Paterson called for—for it to be brought into effect They do not deserve to wait longer than is necessary.This bill needs to be passed before the House rises at the end of this parliamentary term. Of course I have had discussions with the Hon Michael Woodhouse and I do understand and acknowledge the perspective that he's about to voice. I would also acknowledge and state that should there be any issue that is of concern to myself that I don't believe we could address swiftly identified by the committee the committee has the normal avenues of making whatever representation it feels appropriate to the Business Committee at that time. But I do emphasise veterans have been waiting patiently for a long time now and they do want to see this bill passed.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This bill in support of veterans is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll take a very brief call today to speak on the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to acknowledge the service that has occurred for generations in this country and I've had the pleasure and the privilege of attending Passchendaele as a member of Parliament and speaking the ode under the Menin Gate. I have also had the honour and privilege to attend Anzac Cove Gallipoli Peninsula for Anzac Day last year. Those experiences change a person. It was an honour and a privilege and what I would say tonight is that it is going to be an honour and a privilege as a member of the select committee to craft this bill on behalf of the veterans and get them the best piece of legislation that they can. With that I'll take my seat.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I just wanted to take a brief call to commend this bill to the House. It is a good bill. It is a bill that is long overdue in my opinion and I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that the Minister the Hon Ron Mark has placed in this. His commitment to veterans in this country should be acknowledged and with that note I commend it to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to begin my short contribution by saying that it's an absolute privilege to be a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. While I've had immense respect for veterans and those who serve across our Defence Force I must say that this role and the opportunities that the Minister Ron Mark has provided really to MPs to be able to go out and learn a bit more about the risks that face our veterans—all who serve across our Defence Force—and the sacrifices that they make has been a huge learning experience for me. Last year I got to travel from Wellington to Auckland on HMNZS Wellington and spoke to those who've been serving on behalf of New Zealand and protecting us and that's given me a much better understanding of what they face.So it's such a privilege really to be able to make a short call to support the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) because this bill will provide our veterans with the support that they need both in terms of the broader health space but also in terms of accessing support for mental health. Also a number of our veterans are over 70 years in age and therefore are particularly vulnerable given the COVID-19 pandemic that we're facing at the moment and many have complex medical needs as well. So the changes that are being proposed through this bill will have an immediate impact on improving the wellbeing of our veterans.And so I just want to thank again the Minister and all those who have worked—Professor Ron Paterson as well because I know that the recommendations that came out of that report many of them are in this bill really as well. So can I just thank everyone who's been involved with this bill to date and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Building (Building Products and Methods Modular Components and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's certainly a pleasure to be talking on this bill by the hard-working building and construction Minister Jenny Salesa. Can I say when I heard the comment that nothing's happened for 2½ years this is a Government that inherited an absolutely disgraceful mess in the construction sector—do I need to add in housing and a whole lot of other sectors? This Minister has sorted it out. She's brought a dream piece of legislation into this House.Because that's how it's been described by DIY enthusiasts who have said Good stuff" to the coalition Government for scrapping those building rules and things for low-risk building projects. There have been no complaints. The 470 submissions that were brought forward were all positive and even the Construction Industry Council said it had the right balance between risk and allowing people to get on with it—that's a phrase that I hear from that side of the House. That's what we're doing on this side of the House.This is a fantastic piece of work with more to come. Can I say to the previous speaker: do some research into the history because it's not looking good. But on this side it's looking pretty good to me. I commend this bill to the House."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. I did chuckle to myself when I heard the Opposition members talking about their cooking because they've been pretty busy cooking up all sorts of things in the past week or two. But I do look forward to the select committee process and I'm sure there will be some good improvements to this bill but the fact of the matter is that as Mr Young will know from his Victoria University course information is the first step towards good economic transactions. Lowering the costs of people getting that information means that better decisions would be made both in the immediate term and in the long term. So it's good to see the House coming together to put this to select committee to make it a workable excellent piece of legislation to contribute to the gas industry. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.
Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Speaker. Like the previous member I like cheap things as well—it doesn't go to the bill so much. But I am pleased to see that there does seem to be pretty broad support across the House for this piece of legislation. We've heard a bit of noise from the Opposition which is to be expected but they've confirmed a reasonably sensible position in favour of this bill.I thought Mr Hudson made the point well when he said that in general terms in a market it's good for information to be made available to the players in that market. It improves people's ability to make decisions. It reduces the opportunity for people to take advantage of having information that others don't have in a market place and that is fundamentally what this piece of legislation does and it's why parties certainly on this side of the House support the bill.As members on the other side say this isn't the only issue in the gas sector but if and when the House—in about 20 minutes or so—does agree to pass this piece of legislation it will be a useful addition to the regulatory landscape in the gas sector. For that reason I commend it to the House.
SpeechGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. We support greater disclosure in the gas regime. Obviously there's a contradiction because the Electricity Industry Participation Code requires electricity providers to have a disclosure regime but not for gas despite the fact as we've heard from many National members that we currently are quite dependent on gas for our electricity system. When it falls over it can skyrocket prices for consumers.So while the Green Party supports greater disclosure requirements to make sure we're having a fair go and greater transparency in the interim we don't see it playing a major role into our future. In fact we're incredibly proud that the Green Party helped achieve the end of offshore oil and gas exploration. We're investing in clean energy with the Green Investment Fund. We're actually removing the fossil fuel subsidies the tens of millions of dollars the previous Government was quite happy to give some of the wealthiest companies in the world and we've set a goal of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035. This is our future. It's cheaper. It's where international capital investment is going. It's where international trends are.But my final point and the most important point is it is consistent with the brutal physics of climate change. We have to keep fossil fuels like gas in the ground if we want to give our kids and our grandchildren a safe and stable climate and that's why this Government is acting with a just transition but in the interim making sure it's a fair transparent regime.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to support this Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill and note its intent to strengthen the regulatory powers available within the Gas Act and encourage greater disclosure and transparency. One of the things that the Opposition of course have been trying to perpetuate is that this Government is not interested in the issues around small business and I would have thought that one of the greater parts of this bill and the disclosure is the lead time that it will give businesses downstream from the gas suppliers—much more time to plan ahead to those adjustments to their enterprises.So this is a very good step. It's certainly something that's come out of a real life experience with the Pohokura outage and the subsequent circumstances that were around that. And I note that the Opposition are already trying to conflate this bill with some wider issues around oil and gas exploration and somehow the myth that it is banned; it is not banned at all. There is no increase to the block offers or the areas that are being put up for tender. But there's still 100000 square kilometres out there that is able to be explored. And I know as Mr Woodhouse would know—he'd probably be able to see it from his living-room—the recent OMV out in the Great South Basin exploring for gas. There is absolutely nothing stopping those companies as they are and there is an exploratory programme under way from many of our main exploration companies. So that is a myth that is not of course playing out in real life.Jonathan Young: They went out and found nothing. You should know that.MARK PATTERSON: They didn't find anything but they were out there exploring. There was absolutely nothing to stop them exploring and they will continue on. And I think actually it's the market at the moment—the supply and demand situation where the gas prices are low—that is the only thing that will be driving the minds of those exploratory companies as they assess the return on investment and the risk and reward.The other thing that I think is notable within this is the penalties up from $20000 to $200000 at a maximum. I think for those big companies $20000 would not be a material sum. So I think that's a sensible measure that's been proposed. So New Zealand First will support this through to the select committee. It seems a sensible bill and we'll look forward to the select committee doing its work. Thank you.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution to the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. When the Hon Dr Megan Woods made her contribution on this bill she pointed to the prolonged outages as referred to by Jonathan Young at Pohokura gasfield plus the added complication of the constrained hydro generation and the impact that that had on the market at the time. Now this bill proposes to widen the regulation-making powers to enable gas governance arrangements to be made to provide a broad regime for the disclosure of information about matters that may have significant downstream impact or contribute to critical gas shortages. I'm looking forward to the examination of this bill at the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee of which I am a member. It's sensible and it allows for certainty and security of supply and I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechGAS (INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 26 May.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members we've now come to the interrupted debate on the first reading of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. Jonathan Young has the call and he has eight minutes 29 seconds remaining if he so wishes.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look we're in unprecedented times. We have a very much changed foreign investment risk environment. It's a privilege to own or control our sensitive New Zealand assets. Let's protect our family silver. I commend this bill.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I just wanted to dismiss one myth that seems to be around this bill just around this notification requirement. There seems to be some sense that it's a full-blown application process. It's not. It's simply a process where if an overseas person in the current circumstances is acquiring a New Zealand asset they need to let the Overseas Investment Office know. Now if in 10 days that is seen as being something substantial there may be further procedures. But it's very low threshold very low compliance a very sensible step that the Minister for Trade and Export Growth has taken in these circumstances. So that clarification is the only contribution that I wanted to make. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to rise and take a short call on the third reading of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. I guess a lot of the detail's been quite well traversed by this point. I think the key thing for me in this is that it's creating temporary emergency power for the Government to screen transactions which are not normally screened and transactions of companies worth less than $100 million and not involving sensitive land or fishing quota which would normally be excluded from oversight but will now have proper scrutiny and oversight. The reason for that and why this is being driven at the moment is that as we are in difficult times there is a possibility or likelihood that economic hardship will lead to the sale of some pretty precious resources. While they may not meet that threshold we want to—and I think it's appropriate for the Government to ensure that there is proper oversight to make sure that there aren't basically fire sale prices and that we don't lose precious resources to going overseas without getting the return and that others don't take advantage of these difficult times economically.It also implements some measures that were originally proposed for the earlier Overseas Investment Amendment Bill 2020 in phase two to complement the economic recovery post-COVID. This includes exempting some low-risk transactions and bank loans from the requirements of the Overseas Investment Office. So that's increasing scrutiny where we're making sure that there's not that fire yard sale and us losing resources but also enabling slightly easier input of capital to help businesses here when they may need it. And it reduces new regulation-making powers to manage any risks associated with rapid development drafting and implementation of emergency proposals. So I think further than that the detail's been well canvassed in earlier speeches so I will wind that up and again I am commending it to the House.
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. I'd like to begin my contribution by thanking the Minister the Hon David Parker for bringing this bill to the House. For me this bill is like a korowai of protection that we're throwing across the shoulders of Aotearoa during this particularly uncertain period of time in our lives in our history.The Minister in his speech just recently mentioned the recent sale of Stuff for just $1 and the potential there for based on that sale—fortunately it did go to a New Zealander—the sale of important assets like Stuff to go at fire sale prices. So with that in mind and the fact that we have thrown this korowai of protection via this piece of legislation across the shoulders of Aotearoa this bill actually aims to protect our national interests the long-term interests of New Zealand. It will increase the oversight into the foreign investment in Aotearoa because much has changed in our COVID world. Power though will be temporary and it will only remain in place while we traverse the unknown terrain during this critical time. So New Zealand First will support this legislation. Kia ora.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look we've just come through an incredible crisis of epic proportions and we need to make sure that our legislation is in line that we're making sure that we're looking after New Zealanders' long-term interests as we traverse this very uncertain terrain. But one thing that we do know is we want to make sure that we keep control of New Zealand that we allow foreign investment but actually we do it in a measured way So that's what this bill does. It contains measures which need to be put in place to obviously urgently mitigate the economic effects of COVID-19. As we restore as we recover as we rebuild the economy it's imperative that we protect those long-term interests of New Zealanders and it's what they expect us to do. This bill's purpose is to ensure that the risks posed by foreign investment can be managed effectively while reducing the regulatory burden of the screening process to support the role of productive foreign investment into our recovery. In particular we absolutely need to minimise the possibility that the cornerstone businesses in our productive economy aren't sold in a way contrary to our national interests while the pandemic is causing the value of many of our businesses to fall. The bill supports New Zealand's interests at a critical time by increasing our oversight of foreign investments cutting the red tape needed to ensure that the Act supports rather than hinders our recovery. New Zealand continues to be open for business. Productive foreign investment has and will continue to be central to our economic wellbeing both in this time of recovery and beyond. This bill boosts our ability to attract that investment while ensuring that we have the tools that we need to navigate our way out of this uncertainty consistently with New Zealand's national interests. And for that reason I commend the bill to the House.
Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Just before I address that question I just want to correct an answer that I gave which was incorrect as to the detail at the end of the last bit where I explained in respect of the national interest test that for fishing quota at the end of all this there's a $100 million threshold. I'm advised by officials that that's not correct and that the national interest test can if it's elevated by the relevant decision-making Minister on grounds of national interest be considered by the Minister of Finance at lower thresholds in respect of fisheries assets. So I'm sorry about my unintentional misleading of the member in respect of that.In respect of the issue as to when the 14 days runs from I suppose it depends when this House passes the legislation. But after the House passes the legislation it's generally a quick process of a day or so before Royal assent is granted and the 14-day period would run thereafter.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
McKelvie IanClauses 1 and 2IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I just have a very quick question actually. It won't take a minute. Given that the bill I think comes into being 14 days after whatever it does—passes through the House—my question was: when is that given that we're in urgency and it's Friday night? How many days is 14 days and when does that happen? That's my simple question.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I refer to Andrew Bayly's question about the disclosure of information. I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its work on that point and for the Privacy Commissioner's input into it also and agree that the wording as came back from select committee which deletes the words or desirable" as being too loose a discretion for the passing on of information. The Government agrees with that change and we will be voting for it. So we thank you for that improvement to the bill.I didn't really come down to the Chamber for the benefit of Mr McKelvie expecting to discuss fish and chips but it seems that both of those have come up in the debate. I'm not sure how the great Irish potato famine is of great relevance to this bill but in respect of his questions as to fisheries the effect of these changes is to align the provisions in the Fisheries Act with the overseas investment legislation.If we ignore the short-term change to thresholds in going forward the investor test and the benefit test is varied by the amendments but that will still be the fundamental test that is normally applied in respect of fishing quota transactions but where there is a fishing transaction that is a large one that is over $100 million in addition to the investor and benefit test there will be the national interest discretion should it be elevated to the senior Minister in respect of the national interest test process. If that was to happen then there is a broader discretion that goes beyond the investor test and the benefit test that the relevant Minister can exercise in the national interest. Again that as I've previously explained is taken from the Australian legislation where they have in respect of large transactions a broad national interest discretion that is cast widely but exercised rarely.Part 2 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 507 in the name of the Hon David Parker to the Schedule be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule as amended agreed to."
Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
McKelvie IanPart 2 Amendments to other ActsIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I just want to take a brief call on this because it gets indirectly back to a topic we were talking about a little earlier. This part of the bill amends a number of other Acts including the Fisheries Act and it does it to enable the Fisheries Act and the way it manages quota to be included in this bill and so quota then becomes part of this bill.But it relates interestingly to the issue again that Andrew Bayly raised about potatoes because one of the really interesting things for New Zealand I think in the course of this bill is that countries around the world will be now more than ever looking at food security and the fact that they need to secure food for themselves. A number of our very close trading partners are far from self-sufficient in food so you'd imagine that—quite apart from the Fisheries Act and the fact that the fishing quota's included in it—all sorts of food industries might well be of interest to the international market as a result of what's going on in the world at the moment. I imagine also though that probably those industries aren't discounted to the extent that some of the other businesses and enterprises that we're particularly concerned about in this bill may be. But none the less it's an important issue for us and I think I'm just really using Part 2 to raise that issue because it keeps it separate from all the other issues that we dealt with in Part 1 and I think it's a perfectly relevant issue to raise here.So fishing quota of course is hugely important to New Zealand as well and some of those companies that own that fishing quota—quite apart from the Māori fishing quota—are very large companies and will undoubtedly have international shareholding in them. So that's another interesting issue that this bill raises. I think earlier in the debate we had some talk about Silver Fern Farms which of course has been the subject of quite a lot of discussion in this House and also is a major New Zealand food company which has large overseas shareholding. So really the only point I want to raise in Part 2 was just the issue around the food security the fact that the Fisheries Act is being amended to accommodate the fishing quota and ensure that the fishing quota is included as part of this bill. But that's my lot Mr Chair.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): In respect of the simplicity of the form I envisage it will ask something like total assets liabilities number of employees nature of business. And if we need any more information than that then we can put it through a longer process but that will allow a relatively easy process. Of course in the case of the Stuff group that would have showed large assets large liabilities low net assets a large number of employees and I would have thought that most members would have thought that in respect of that they could envisage purchasers of that asset that they didn't think were in the national interest of New Zealand. I think that is a good example of why at this particular point in our history we might need this power.