edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. As has been traversed already this evening the National Party will be continuing to support this bill. As we have outlined in prior contributions this bill does deal with two key aspects which in our view are pragmatic adjustments in regards to issues that do exist and the resolution of them particularly around the industrial allocations. It will strengthen the emissions trading scheme and provide greater certainty in regards to the market and the way in which we deal with those components.The certainty is important in regards to the signals that this sends to the broader market—I think as the Minister of Climate Change has outlined in areas such as this in an area of public policy that is so critical to our country and our economy the ability that we can in effect work together around ensuring that these changes are consistent and put in place I think stands us in good stead as we head towards dealing with what will be a very difficult and challenging objective around reducing the emissions but one in which National are absolutely committed that we need to and will work towards meeting net zero by 2050.We've talked at length around the industrial allocations portion which I think is probably the most applicable component. We have acknowledged those people. And I also want to join with the Minister in acknowledging the chair of the Environment Committee Hon Eugenie Sage who obviously will be retiring at this point. But I do just wonder if you want to indulge a little bit—I just want to recognise that member's contribution. The way in which this bill was navigated—it is a complex bill and it was done so very professionally. I have had the ability albeit a small amount of time to work with that member and have always valued their council in regards to a number of elements and bills in this House. So I wish her very well.In regards to that I don't think there's anything further that we are really wanting to place on the record. We acknowledge that there are going to be a number of other needs particularly in the coming years where modifications and further check-ins are required. This is an area that is evolving and it is important that we continue to ensure that we are up to date. The reality of where we are seeing developments in more of the global space around new options that are coming on the table is both exciting but also they are ones which will need to be worked through appropriately to ensure that the specific needs of our country and our economy and the needs which make us so unique and special are taken into account as part of that process. But we will do so in a manner in which is collaborative and in a manner in which as always will enable us to achieve our net zero targets by 2050. We commend this bill to the House.
Andersen Ginny; O'Connor GregAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 8 to MinisterHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question to No. 8 today.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought is there any objection? There is no objection.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In the response to a supplementary question I stated that 48 vehicles were seized in Ōpōtiki and the Manawatū under new legislation. I should have said that the 48 vehicles were searched.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): This is an amendment to an existing regime which is that since 2008 businesses that are moderately emissions-intensive will receive an allocation equivalent to 60 percent of their emissions—they get that for free from the Government in order to be able to compete with imports from countries which face different or no carbon prices—and that businesses that are highly emissions-intensive will receive 90 percent of their emissions obligations free from the Government in order to remain competitive.Now carbon prices vary wildly around the world including among our major trading partners and they change over time. So for example the European Union—with whom we have just signed a free-trade deal which includes a chapter on climate change and sustainability requiring both parties to uphold their agreements—has a carbon price that's close to NZ$200 a tonne which given that ours is $60 means that they are paying considerably more than we are producing here. At the same time there are other countries with whom we trade where the carbon price is closer to NZ$20 a tonne which is about a third of what we pay. And in some countries that we trade with there is no carbon price at all. So what that means is if there is no global carbon price. The only way to be able to do that on a product-by-product basis would be to apply an average—and we do sit at about the average in terms of our carbon prices at the moment. That is the entire point of the industrial allocation system.Now I will admit it is ugly policy. I mean remember that industrial allocation is subsidising pollution—right?—which seems to run in direct contrast to the entire point of the emissions trading scheme and it does. The reason that we have industrial allocation is because there is no global carbon price and because we don't have carbon border adjustments—or at least we don't yet. It is conceivable that there will be a point in the future where we are able to have a system of carbon border adjustments which is able to moderate for the variabilities in price between imports from countries that have got different carbon prices to our own but we are not at that point yet. So in the meantime we use industrial allocation to moderate that effect.
Boyack Rachel; Salesa JennyRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 409 be agreed to. All those in favour will say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. A party vote has been called for—Chris Penk: I don't think you did the closure motion. You didn't put the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ah that's true. Chris Penk: Sorry to be—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is true. So it does give someone else an opportunity for one last call.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. That is fundamental to this bill. Minister this bill covers emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. The question I asked officials is: do the mechanisms under this bill allow us to fairly compare the carbon price a New Zealand manufacturer would pay to that of their competitor in another country so that an evaluation can be made? Are New Zealand businesses paying a fair carbon price or not?
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I do appreciate your guidance. I guess from the perspective of somebody who's new to climate economics—even though I'm an engineer—I can only imagine the people listening at home are trying to determine what the implications of this are; they might find it rather impenetrable. So it has been helpful to get the Minister's explanations. Minister there's a test that I asked officials whether this bill met—in the Environment Committee—and I wasn't satisfied they were able to give the ACT Party confidence. It is: if a business is manufacturing something in New Zealand—whether they're manufacturing concrete products which results in carbon emissions or whether they're manufacturing wood pulp or turning all of that recycled glass that's collected around New Zealand back into new glass to be made into glass bottles hopefully filling them up with some tasty beverage some refreshing beverage or whether they're making methanol or urea fertiliser—how do we know whether a New Zealand business is paying the same for their carbon emissions in New Zealand under this bill as a competitor in say one of New Zealand's top-five trading partners?
Court Simon; Shaw James; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): Minister you've said quite clearly that giving away carbon credits for free is a downside—it's a foregone revenue from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) that the Government could have generated from the auction mechanism. So there's clearly a balancing going on somewhere either in the Minister's office or a Government department or maybe in Treasury or Grant Robertson's office—I don't know. But the more we give away the less we get to auction the less revenue comes into the Government the less money that the Minister might have to allocate—or the Minister for Energy through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund might have to allocate to projects that this Government wants to progress. So Minister this is entirely material: what thinking has gone on around this calculus and is there anything in this bill that would allow us to potentially get a bit more transparency around what that calculus is?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): No that's the annual emissions budget the ETS unit supply process which takes place within the emissions budgets that's based on the advice of the commission under the zero carbon Act. This bill is designed to work out whether companies that are currently entitled to industrial allocation whether their industrial allocation is accurately based on their actual emissions. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the member again can I just warn the member that he is beginning to be quite repetitive about the same issue which is somewhat relevant. He may want to talk about a different clause.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to address a couple of questions there. So I had a question from Simon Watts about a couple of the points in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 409 just testing whether they are in fact minor and I think—if I'm interpreting the question correctly—that they are in fact minor and technical and you know we're not opening ourselves up to any more. I've sought assurance from officials and I'm assured that they are.In relation to the question from Simon Court quite a lot of that commentary was well outside the scope of the bill; it relates to other matters of climate policy that have got nothing to do with this however there was one relevant sub-question there in relation to the formula. Broadly speaking the intention here is to ensure that industries aren't receiving more free units than they need to in order to remain competitive and then that is in fact the purpose of the entire bill. I want to mention the work that the Environment Committee did on this you know which has led to this SOP because when we introduced the bill into the House at first reading I was not wholly sure that we had landed where we needed to; I was a bit queasy about it and invited the select committee to look at this. The select committee worked very hard on this and you know I acknowledge that it is a very technical area and the work that the Climate Change Commission the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment independent experts like Dr Christina Hood and the officials did for Ministry for the Environment—coming back to select committee a number of times in order to work through those quite complicated matters. To arrive at this amendment I think gives me all the assurance that I need that the formula does do what it is intended to do and that the bill does what it is intended to do which is to ensure that companies receive the support that they need in order to remain competitive against competition from foreign companies that aren't exposed to the same level of carbon price but without going beyond that into essentially over-subsidising them.
Watts Simon; Salesa JennySIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister some questions on the Supplementary Order Paper 409 that is on the table in regards to proposed amendments on clauses 2 5 14 and 17. I note in the commentary to this that these are minor and technical amendments to some errors that were noted in the legislation. As was noted before there are a number of formula and other aspects within the legislation. I'd be interested if the Minister could provide some assurance around the background for these amendments—the basis in which they were identified assurance that you're comfortable that there is nothing further remaining that needs to be updated and any other context that may be useful in us considering this Supplementary Order Paper.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Parts 1 to 3 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Dean Jacqui; Salesa Jenny; Halbert ShananASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill.In CommitteeParts 1 to 3 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. Members we come now to Part 1.SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It's lovely to rise in the House this evening at this late hour and support this piece of legislation. As someone from Taranaki where climate change and the challenges that we face when we have an energy industry—and we have of course the dairy and agriculture industry—obviously we are working on things like Just Transition like our Taranaki 2050 Roadmap which all people across this space are working together on. We've got challenges to face that we are going to work on together but things like this legislation will help us and that's why we see across the House—except for of course the ACT Party who are denying many things and this being one of them; that is why we support this legislation. I want to thank the Minister the Hon James Shaw for bringing this to the House to the Environment Committee for the work they have done and for hearing submitters on what's going on. It's about Just Transition it's about finding a way forward and it's about not keeping your head in the sand but looking to our future and our future generations. I commend this bill to the House.
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I rise as the last speaker for the National Party following on from my colleagues: our spokesperson for climate change Simon Watts who is by profession an accountant; and also my colleague Barbara Kuriger who sat on the select committee with Simon and is our spokesperson for conservation and a farmer; and Ian McKelvie also a farmer. So the contribution from the National Party: two farmers and an accountant very much from a pragmatic point of view in support of this Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill—quite a mouthful.So the position has been outlined by my colleagues. My contribution in this House this evening will be brief. But climate is something that we're all experiencing throughout our nation and globally as being predictably unpredictable. So listening to some of the speakers this evening who have talked about the fact—and Ian McKelvie saying that climate does rapidly change—and as a result the legislation will need to keep up with that.In summary for the benefit of members of the public who are listening into this debate this bill is to amend provisions in the Climate Change Response Act 2002 relating to the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. It updates the penalty for participants with low volume liabilities of less than 25000 units on average per year from forestry activities occurring from 1 January 2025. Now this will be meaningful to those persons who are in the forestry sector and also those persons who do have an investment in vested interests in this sector—so occurring from 1 January 2025 who fail to surrender or repay units by the due date. The bill also updates industrial allocation settings.So in saying that I'm keeping this contribution brief; it's important that the National Party does support this bill. Both amendments are reasonable and pragmatic like the contributions from my colleagues and the respective professions and sectors that they come from. These pragmatic changes we will continue to support them at all remaining stages.Just to note that at select committee this bill was thoroughly canvassed and considered by the Environment Committee: 107 submissions were received and 27 provided oral evidence. So the select committee has provided a comprehensive report which is available. It's noted that those submitters were acknowledged and the contributions appreciated particularly those impacted like those who currently receive industrial allocations.So on that note in keeping this brief in saying that climate is predictably unpredictable; something that is predictable in terms of this bill it does have the numbers and at this second reading going through to the committee of the whole House stage and hopefully this evening to the third reading it will pass into law. The National Party commends this bill to the House.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Madam Speaker thank you. I'm pleased to take a brief call before the member opposite makes her contribution to the debate. I'm pleased to take a call on this bill because it goes to an enormously important area of public policy. In some respects this debate has been quite instructive about what's been achieved and also what is in fact at risk.The good news in this space is that what we're doing is working. Over the last few years we are beginning to win the battle of reducing New Zealand's emissions. The figures that came through at the end of 2022 identified that our emissions are as of that point at the lowest certainly since 2014 and possibly since the early 2000s. That has happened because Government policy has driven change. The successive reform and making our emissions trading scheme (ETS) framework more robust under the Hon James Shaw as Minister and direct policies to work with industry specifically in emissions-intensive areas like transport energy and electricity generation are working; the numbers don't lie. The key thing that we have to do is to make sure that we continue to have the right policies and an ETS framework that actually sends the right signals into the market and to emitters.The key problem that this bill is trying to overcome is the issue of overallocation for the relatively small number of firms in these sectors who are high emitters and are trade exposed. It's a relatively small numbers of firms; I think under 100 in total. It is accepted by the Government and by this legislative framework that there is the case for there to be an industrial allocation into those sectors but we need to get it right because if we overallocate we will completely defeat the purpose of the ETS regime; there will not be sufficient tension within the system; the signals will not be sent to reduce emissions as much as those firms reasonably can under the circumstances. It's positive to see that there is pretty broad support across the House for that. The point I make in terms of what's at risk is the attitude on display in this House by the ACT Party—this is a party which opposes every single direct measure and policy that the Government puts in place to reduce emissions and says that we should fall back on an efficient and effective ETS system. Yet when we try and do that through this piece of legislation by making sure that we don't overallocate by making sure that our decisions are based on good and up-to-date information they oppose that as well. That really does show that party out to be true to form to be the climate-denying party of this Parliament as they have been for 20 years. That is the risk if that party is in Government after this election. This is a good bill. It will mean that we continue to make progress on climate change. I commend it to the House.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill and happy to make a short contribution. I support the second reading of this bill. It is a technical bill and I do want to acknowledge the Environment Committee as a member—my fellow colleagues members—the officials and submitters in particular Dr Christina Hood.The emergency action that is demanded is ambitious urgent and requires a coordinated response across Government to meet the scale and complex challenges. It enables just transition and low emissions as the Government has a priority of a climate-resilient future. We've seen quite recently this year the effects of climate change and those are being felt in our community.The bill reforms industrial allocation policy and revises the late payment penalty for small forestry participants and we heard the Minister of Climate Change talk about those changes that this bill proposes with the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. We know that this bill will ensure businesses receive appropriate amounts. It will address over-allocation and reduce the significant costs to Government to align with Aotearoa's climate response targets and the changes will also make it also easier for emissions budgets to be met.Just very quickly the allocation of baselines will be updated with new data. It allows reassessment of eligibility of current industries and also has technical improvements to industrial allocation policy. The select committee made a number of recommendations for the bill to be considered and on that also a revised penalty for small forestry participants. I commend this bill to the House.Harete Hipango: Madam Speaker. No? Am I too soon?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a Labour call. I call on the Hon Michael Wood.
White Helen; Salesa JennyHELEN WHITE (Labour): I'd like to join my colleague Dr Emily Henderson in making a short call in support of this bill. I'm not on the Environment Committee and I'm always impressed by the level of knowledge and care that they take over bills like this that are actually going to make a real change to New Zealand society.This was a bill that tried to make sure that our industries that were not carbon-friendly were able to continue to operate in a way which sustained them and sustained their employees but that also allowed them to move into a new world—and so is the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund and I'm incredibly proud of some of the things that it's done; so was obviously the move that Mr Court seemed to object to to actually go in and work with businesses like BlueScope to change the way they make steel in this country.I was a lawyer at the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union at the time I first went to the steel mill and it's this incredible place which is making steel from our sand and one of the greatest parts of job has got to be going and seeing raw material turned into product. But wouldn't it be good and isn't it going to be good when those kinds of industries and these kinds of measures become something we can do without destroying our environment and our climate. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Ian McKelvie for five minutes.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): While the previous speaker takes a little moment to sit down and calm down a wee bit may I just take a very short call on this sensible bill which essentially is updating a 22-year-old Act—the Climate Change Response Act 2002—which set the allocation of New Zealand emission units which recognised—Hon Member: Do not ask this person to be your lawyer. Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Which recognised the cost to businesses who are trying to decarbonise and do the right thing—Hon Member: You will lose.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order!Dr EMILY HENDERSON: The Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill updates these decades-old industrial allocations settings which have unfortunately resulted in some emitting firms receiving more units than they needed at an estimated cost to the Government and thus the New Zealand people of $60 million a year. It is a sensible bill it is overdue at 22 years old and I commend it to the House and thank the committee for the hard and detailed work they have done upon it.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Again I am pleased to stand and speak on another bill—I think my fifth tonight—to speak on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill.The second reading is often an opportunity for us to talk about the submissions of course and we have heard that there are 107 of them and 27 of these submitted to us orally. I do want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford who talked about Dr Christina Hood's contribution—outstanding and extremely helpful to support us in our understanding.I want to acknowledge the Minister as well. I do recall working on the Climate Change Response Act amendment in the last term and I feel like I have probably learnt much more about the emissions trading scheme than I thought I'd ever need to know. But nevertheless I think is a good piece of legislation. It tidies up a couple of things and one of them I think which is quite important is providing and creating for us a formula of how penalties will be applied.Now the reason I think that this is really important is because when these small farm holders who have these blocks of land with pine trees on don't do what they are supposed to do there's a massive penalty applied to them. As a consequence by codifying for and extending out a year and explaining to those small holdings owners what would happen it essentially does give some clarity to what they're up for. I think it's a really fair thing to do.I don't usually enjoy legislation that has a formula in it but I think this is well explained. With that I'd like to commend the bill to the House.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm just going to make a few brief comments about the bill; in particular one of the two aspects of the bill which is this question of industrial allocation which for the folks at home wondering what industrial allocation" is it's the giving of free emissions units to emission-intensive trade-exposed industries. If we didn't do this as part of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) the risk would be that the ETS would add cost to New Zealand firms causing them to either shut down or move their operations offshore with loss of jobs for New Zealand but no reduction in net global emissions.One of the things that the bill does is amend the eligibility criteria for industrial allocation by updating the emissions intensity thresholds to reflect a more recent carbon price. The problem that we're trying to solve is over-allocation. The eligibility criteria and the rules on allocation are over a decade old and are simply too generous. Some firms have been receiving more free units than they need costing the taxpayer unnecessarily and somewhat reducing the incentive to decarbonise.This is a rather technical bill. It's a tweaking of a couple of aspects relating to the ETS and I want to really just acknowledge the work of the select committee which as the previous speaker commented I think worked together in a pretty collegial way. We benefited greatly from a number of submissions including I would say particularly the Climate Change Commission but especially Dr Christina Hood an expert in carbon markets. With Dr Hood's assistance the committee worked quite hard to toughen up some of the rules around industrial allocation and I take from the Minister's earlier comments that he's satisfied that the committee significantly improved the bill. On that note I will commend this bill to the House."
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take the final call tonight on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill and can I thank the Minister for his work particularly to promote women and girls in sport. I want to just note my wonderful sister who actually could have ended up playing football for New Zealand if it wasn't for the fact that she did one of her knees while playing in America. She didn't have the opportunities as a youngster than so many of our girls do today so I'm so pleased to see that progress.I want to pay particular attention in my short call tonight to the importance of protecting children in sport and acknowledge one of the submitters a wonderful organisation based in my electorate of Nelson called Safeguarding Children. I want to acknowledge their founder and leader Willow Duffy who does remarkable work with sports organisations across New Zealand to address their child protection policies and ensure that they are doing everything they can to protect child in sport.We have seen unfortunately incidences in previous years and decades where historical issues have come to light that are unacceptable in terms of their treatment of children. There are a couple of changes in the bill that I do want to note that specifically resulted from their submission.One is around amending the Children's Act to ensure that the new commission has to adopt and report on a child protection policy. So I want to give a shout-out to Willow Duffy tonight because this is the policy that she is always in my ear about for every organisation that works with children and I know that she will be very pleased to see this change.The other change in the bill that came through that I also want to acknowledge Safeguarding Children for was ensuring that there are age-appropriate dispute resolution processes involved and if young people do bring allegations that there is child-friendly processes. Having worked in this area myself alongside people like Willow I know how important it is that when young people raise allegations that these are taken seriously and in a sensitive way to ensure our young people are supported.This is an excellent bill. It will help progress the importance of sport in our country in ensuring that integrity that safety and that appropriate mechanisms for keeping people involved and engaged in sport are adhered to in years to come. I commend it to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I too would like to put on record my sadness that the ACT Party have confused integrity with bureaucracy and also to thank the Minister who has really shown great integrity himself in his approach to the sports portfolio in recognising that sports is another avenue for young people to be able to achieve excellence and fulfilment in their life and particularly for young women. What we have seen with the FIFA success is the money the pressure and the opportunity. So an estimated $200 million worth of benefit to New Zealand 20000 extra tourists but also we can see the pressure of high performance sports and the opportunities for countries like New Zealand when there's already conversations about potential future Commonwealth Games. And certainly as the MP for Taieri I can see the opportunity around our upgraded sports facilities at Tahuna Park. So it's very timely this bill is here tonight with the semi-final that we're about to play and ironic that ACT should suggest comments about not supporting women in sports when in fact the event funding that has led to us being able to host FIFA would be cut under an ACT-National Government.My real point is that this legislation can't come soon enough because when we're looking at the nature of sports and young sportspeople it's inherently physical. There's physicality. There's also the influence of drugs or doping and the vulnerability. And the third element is that really intimate relationship between coaches and young participants. So it's really important in order to keep the integrity of that and the safety of our young people that we need an independent commission. I'm so glad that we have the support from the other side of the House. The list of those codes that have experienced problems that Tama Potaka mentioned also includes gymnastics. This can't come a moment soon enough. I want to thank the Minister for what he's done for women's sports and I commend the bill to the House.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise again to take a short call on this matter and I too want to congratulate the Minister whose championing of opportunities for women and girls in sport I have greatly appreciated even though I am probably the last person of this House who will ever take advantage of any of them!I want to speak briefly on the matters that were raised by my colleague from the ACT Party earlier Nicole McKee. She commented that she sees this creation of a commission to deal with complaints and challenges to the integrity of sports that occur from time to time in sporting disciplines—that she considers this to be over-bureaucratic if I can paraphrase nonsense" that is going to take up too much time and money and the better approach would be simply to educate our sports organisations out of bad behaviour. Would that we could—Simon Court: Tell me about the bad behaviour. Give us some examples!Dr EMILY HENDERSON: We have had too many occasions unfortunately—Simon Court: Give us one!Dr EMILY HENDERSON: We've got a comment coming from across the House from a member from the ACT Party who appears unaware so let's talk about some of those behaviours. In any organisation where you have hierarchy when you have big disparities in the power between those who are working those who are young sportswomen—and in particular I'm thinking of the young gymnasts that we have had worldwide and in New Zealand come forward to talk about the physical emotional and sexual abuse to which they were subject by coaches to whom they did not feel they could speak back. And we have had those examples again and again and again. Where we have well-meaning sports organisations which are largely run by volunteers the risks that you are going to get inappropriate and unsafe behaviours develop over time becomes worse. Our sportspeople have said "We need an organisation to independently review and assess what is going on and to police this behaviour". This is what this bill sets up and I am very happy to commend it to the House."
Leavasa Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you—thank you Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was expecting Jamie Strange.Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: It's OK. I subbed in—on the field so thank you Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good sporting analogy.Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Ha ha! So it's great just to take a brief call on the third reading of this bill and I just want to thank the Minister Grant Robertson for answering some of those questions during the committee of the whole House and again thanking my colleagues in the select committee for your awesome work and the awesome submitters that came through through that process.I just want to focus my brief comments on the sports anti-doping functions that will absorbed into the commission and I just want to acknowledge the work of Drug Free Sport New Zealand—their tremendous work not only with athletes but also with health professionals.During my years as a sports doctor I've been very thankful to Drug Free Sport New Zealand for their work in training and education for us health professionals and providing the care to our athletes. When you're looking after sports teams you get athletes messaging you any time 24/7 in regards to anything that they're taking whether it be medicines or supplements so I thank Drug Free Sport New Zealand for providing those resources that we can always recheck and providing that resource for our athletes.One other thing that I want to mention as well is the independence of the commission because I've seen other teams when players do make complaints those players are dropped from the team. So having this independent avenue for our athletes will make a huge difference—and also to keep it confidential when integrity matters are raised.It'd be pretty sad to see whether it be grassroots sport or even elite sports—seeing some of our rugby teams and the countries that they represent make complaints and then get dropped and they're not seen at the world cup. I won't mention countries but it's really said to see so having this provision in this bill will make a huge difference for our athletes. On that note I commend this bill to the House.
Kanongata'a AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour): Thank you e te Mana Whakawā. It's always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution in this House but especially in the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. This bill is about setting up the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission and sets out its powers and functions. I thought what I would do is I would actually describe what the bill defines as threats to integrity". So threats to integrity include competition manipulation; corruption and fraud; use of prohibited substances which is doping; abuse including abuse of children; bullying; violence; harassment; intimidation and racism; and all other forms of discrimination. So what the commission will do—I felt that that needed to be said because that's the focus of this bill and that's why a commission is set up to do that.So the commission their roles and responsibilities—their seven to nine members which will have two people who have knowledge and experience of tikanga Māori—are to one promote advise and educate on integrity issues and threats to integrity within sport and physical recreation. It will engage with participants in the sport and recreation sector on integrity issues. It will develop and issue integrity codes including to set a minimum standard of conduct. Of course it would prescribe policies and procedures for complaints management and dispute resolution. And of course it will implement the World Anti-Doping Code and facilitate our compliance to it as a country. With the bill as we've spoken about before it will review codes in three years and the Minister for Sport and Recreation will review it within five years.We've just finished the Netball World Cup and I can't finish my contribution without acknowledging the Silver Ferns who unfortunately came fourth. But Tonga the Tala—the Tongan netball team—came eighth and I just want to congratulate the Tongans on that. And the Fiji Pearls were 14th in the in the Netball World Cup. And I look forward—Hon Grant Robertson: Oh so the Tongans beat the Fijians.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A: Just saying you know. And I just want to acknowledge everyone that's contributed into this bill particularly the Minister because integrity is saying what you're saying and doing what you've said and you've done that Minister. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I will be brief in the acknowledgment that there is a game that people want to get to tonight. But look I only worked with the Minister for a short time when I had the portfolio but there was no question and you cannot doubt not only his passion for sport but his passion for making sure that our codes our sports our sportspeople the families involved and the community have got a framework that actually makes it a safe place for everyone and I think that he has been committed to this.He has brought a piece of legislation to the House that he has found broad party support for and although he got up and he said—and he alluded to the fact that he feels like this piece of legislation could save lives. And that may seem funny in the context that it's an Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill but he is absolutely right. He's absolutely right that this is going to provide a safe place and a backstop for someone to be able to engage with—and we talk about high-performance sport and we know how much pressure comes to bear on these high-performance sportspeople. A lot of it they put on themselves because that's why they're there—they want to be the best—but there's pressure and issues right through all of our codes whether it's grass roots right through to high performance.So I just have to say that we haven't spoken about it that much in the House tonight but a lot of the social issues that we deal with as a country—if we could get an increased engagement in young people particularly in sport then we could actually provide strong role models and mentors we could give them somewhere where they feel a part of something and it could actually go a long way to getting them on to a positive track and not a negative one.And so I just want to acknowledge the Minister. I want to acknowledge the Minister for staying committed and focused on getting this bill through and being willing to listen to and engage in cross-party discussion and debate on the bill so that we can stand in this House tonight and I'm very happy to support the third reading of this bill. Thank you.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm going to take a very short call on this bill but I want to acknowledge the Minister for the shepherding of this bill through the House and our officials for all the support they have given us. I have to say that this has been a very important piece of legislation to work on. I do agree this will save lives. It will also prevent I believe so much harm. I think back to when I was a little sportsgirl playing soccer and then I played hockey and I did surfing and I did diving and I had a whole pile of sports. One of the things that we do in this country as Kiwi kids is we play sports and I'm delighted that we are going to put the grassroots protections in place as well as the elite sports. No longer is it going to win at all costs now it is going to be about making sure we win and we win well and our people are taken care of. I commend this bill to the House.
McKee Nicole; Robertson GrantNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I just wonder if you can clarify—maybe we can put it on the record because this is part of the concern that discrimination that is unlawful under Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and Part 2 includes section 49 which we've talked about extensively. But a proposed problem foreseen within the particular bill is that the commission may decide that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is a matter of discrimination and therefore it overrides section 49 especially as clause 14(2) of this bill refers to gender identity and expression. So can you just confirm Minister—if you are in the position to confirm—that section 14(2) won't override section 49 of the Human Rights Act and that that way we do actually get that fairness?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): This is repeating material we've already covered but the Human Rights Act exists. This bill does not override the Human Rights Act—it exists. What this bill does is to also—as the select committee did—recommend an amendment to clause 5 of the bill to ensure that the reference to discrimination in the definition of threat to integrity was to discrimination that is unlawful under Part 2 of the Human Rights Act. So I am repeating myself; it is what I said earlier. I believe that this bill does important things to grow inclusion in sport and I believe that the Supplementary Order Paper that the member is discussing is jumping at shadows.
Dean JacquiIn CommitteeParts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. We come—Camilla Belich: Point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is then that Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Leavasa Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take the last call on this Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill second reading. This is my first time speaking on this particular bill—and obviously it's talking about sports and I love my sports. I love my rugby and I played for the high school that produced the most All Blacks and that's out at the mighty Auckland Grammar School. Then I became the sports doctor for Ponsonby Rugby Club which produces the most All Blacks as well.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh hang on!Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Hey let me check that on Google—I just did a quick Google check. But as a sports doctor that has worked with grassroots sports athletes for around 20 years now—that's where my first medical career started and then shifting into elite athletes and high-performance units and international World Cups as well—it's a pleasure to see this bill come to the House. I thank the Minister for his work and our awesome Social Services and Community Committee members for their work as well. Also the many organisations that have submitted on this bill.Working with our athletes it's always my goal to look after the health and wellbeing—the total health and wellbeing—of our athletes. I always follow the Te Whare Tapa Whā model in order to make sure that that has a full scope. Seeing this commission to be set up and addressing the different issues that come through to our athletes it is really important that we look at that full picture and I also want to acknowledge the youth and the children included in the commission's work.Because as a sports doctor and as a GP sitting in a clinic we often see our young folk come in and there's always a few questions to ask our young folk when they come in with sports injuries. It's Which school do you go to?"—because that'll often point out what their training programme is like—which sport do they play and also their position in the team. All these factors play a huge role in whether it be physical injuries or the mental health issues that come with it as well. So overtraining nutritional issues that come with it as well.So I'm so glad that this commission will be doing the mahi to make sure this provides another avenue—whether it be our youth our children up to our adult elite level—it'll produce many of the health and wellbeing issues that we want to be addressed. So I commend this bill to the House."