edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor GregTUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2022(continued on Wednesday 16 November 2022)COMPANIES (LEVIES) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good morning everyone. When the House finished last night we were on the second reading of the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to take a call on this bill. Now I'm not a member of the Primary Production Committee that heard the submissions on the bill but living in Southland I've got a good understanding of the huge contribution the dairy makes to our local economy.Just noting that earlier this year Fonterra Edendale marked 140 years since the processing first started on their site back in January 1882—so a huge contribution over time to the Southland economy. And so now at Edendale Fonterra there's about 670 people involved with the site—that includes transport and processing. And it basically makes a huge contribution to the local economy. When you're out and about there they've got 80 tankers out on the road every day and you see them when driving around Southland. And basically millions of bags of milk powder are produced each year. I think the contribution the dairy payout makes not only to our local farming community but just through the knock-on effects to the community as a whole—so it's incredibly important that we get this right. So this bill—well it's quite technical. For me reading through it just a couple of high-level things stood out and the first one is that Fonterra's farmer shareholders voted in favour of moving to the new capital structure in December last year. What this bill does is that it enables that to occur. And also what it does is it lowers the capital costs for farmers who want to become shareholders in Fonterra. What that means is that the next generation of farmers can come in and supply milk which also ensures further supply for Fonterra. But it's also really important that we make sure that farmers can buy and sell their shares freely because what that means is that if you get more innovative or efficient producers emerging those suppliers can swap and that encourages—or ensures—that Fonterra also has to innovate in that space. So this is a really important bill and I'm very happy to commend it to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take what will undoubtedly be a rather short contribution in support of this bill the dairy industry restructuring amendment bill. Given it has somewhat been unceremoniously personified earlier on by the Green member let me just reiterate that it's the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. I would just want to acknowledge the Minister of Agriculture and the officials for the work that's been done to date and the Primary Production Committee who scrutinised this bill no doubt with great enthusiasm.As has been said by several people today in this debate and is worth reiterating I think the one point that we can take from this is that last year Fonterra—Fonterra's farmer shareholders at least—voted in favour of having a new capital structure and a new capital structure that specifically would make it easier for farmers to become shareholders in Fonterra and therefore to continue supplying milk. Unsurprisingly therefore the Government also agrees that it is important for Fonterra to be able to do that and to be able to make those necessary changes to what is undoubtedly inevitably a changing environment.As we've heard earlier the committee received submissions—about 30 I believe if I have my numbers correct. Most of those however were in the service of providing further clarity and they didn't result in any kind of substantial changes to the bill itself. So this is a good bill. It's a bill in support of Fonterra which is a good thing and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): This is an industry I know about from a different point of view. I was the lawyer for the Dairy Workers Union and over that time I saw the contrast—this industry with others.In this industry people are paid really well. Farmers and the workers are both doing well in this industry mostly because of the cooperative structure that was set up. So that structure is looking for a reboot. This is the reboot; this is the Government supporting the way that the industry reform to make sure that they can really have the capital that they need.I welcome the introduction of the sharemilkers into those schemes because those are hard-working people I know would like to be involved in this way. I think that's a really good part of it.It's also a balanced piece of legislation which allows for people to make sure that there is monitoring on the prices and there is this attempt to make sure that Ministers etc. are involved in the pricing of milk.So this to me seems a really good piece of legislation that will support an industry that Joseph Mooney is quite right to applaud for the contribution it's made to New Zealand. Labour supports the farmers. I'm glad to see their support across the House. Labour supports the farmers and this is good proof of the understanding that we both share.Penny Simmonds: That's not what the farmers think.HELEN WHITE: And rather than mock perhaps it's time to actually take note. This is how Labour supports the farmers. Thanks.
Lubeck Marja; Dean JacquiMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a call in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill at its second reading. The bill gives effect to the Government's response to Fonterra's intended capital restructuring.We heard from the previous speaker Mark Cameron that this is creating an environment to give Fonterra certainty and it does that with two features to improve the transparency and independence of the governance and operation of the milk price-setting arrangement. Firstly it increases the number of ministerial nominees to Fonterra's milk price panel from one to two and requires the chair of Fonterra's milk price panel to be fully independent of Fonterra. Fonterra will also first up need the Minister's approval of a candidate before it can appoint the chair.The Government believes that it's important for Fonterra to be able to make changes to respond to a changing environment and to be able to proceed with certainty. That is something that we've heard all along in these speeches; the importance of that. The benefits of a high-performing and efficient Fonterra will flow through to its nearly 10000 farmer shareholders in our rural communities. This bill will play an important part in ongoing resilience and prosperity of rural New Zealand.Now I wasn't part of the select committee but I did hear Mr Todd Muller I think refer to the chair Jo Luxton as an able chair" and I've heard words as a "superb chair". She shepherded this bill through the select committee process: the 30 submissions and the 15 oral submissions that were heard. The select committee from what I understand unanimously recommended some of these minor changes to the bill which will help to avoid unintended consequences. The Minister Meka Whaitiri spoke on those as well.The bill's key risk mitigation measures and improved transparency were developed following consultation with industry and they will support ongoing performance. I commend it to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Joseph Mooney five minutes."
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on this legislation coming through the House and really to repeat what everyone has said around it striking the right balance. But what's important with this bill is that we are increasing transparency and improving the robust governance and independence of price-setting. I want to talk just briefly on the independence that we're seeing through the number of ministerial nominees on Fonterra's milk price panel from one to two; requiring the chair of Fonterra's milk price panel to be fully independent of Fonterra and appointed by Fonterra with the approval of the Minister; and requiring Fonterra to change on at least a six-yearly basis the person and persons charged with calculating the base milk price for Fonterra's milk price panel. I think on that I can commend this second reading to the House. Thank you.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. Unlike some of the members who have stood already this evening to speak I find this a rather invigorating topic.We know that it's been 20 years since this first came in and the market has changed significantly since then. We've got the development of competition in processing. Fonterra has just under 80 percent of the market share compared to when we started on this journey. So even though we have smaller players it is Fonterra that effectively determines the farm-gate milk price for the entire industry. That is why we need to make sure that we have got the increased transparency and robust governance and that the independence of price setting is as robust and clear possible to ensure that we sustain the competition that is going to continue to drive our dairy industry to be world leading.As usual when you want to be sure about what you're doing is right you go to select committee and you ask the experts. Of course that's always the workers the farmers themselves. We had a great submission from the Dairy Workers Union. They actually want all processors to succeed. They support regular review and reform of dairy so that Fonterra can continue to meet the current and future challenges. They want to make sure we have a just transition.We heard from some young and new-to-the-industry farmers who are really excited about the prospect of the reduced barriers to joining Fonterra and becoming a part of the cooperative. Trish Rankin one of our great environmental leaders in Taranaki talked about the fact that by having a little bit more capital freed up she'll be able to continue their programme: 1200 riparian plants this season extensive pest control and huge improvements that they've got planned for their land that they're more likely to be able to do if they've got some capital freed up.We heard from a few farmers who are excited about the prospects. We know how important dairy is. This bill is about supporting Fonterra farmers workers and in fact their processing competitors to secure a just transition and to continue to develop a dairy industry that is fit for a better world. This is why I commend this bill to the House.
Salesa JennyREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment and divided it into the following bills: Security Information in Proceedings Bill and Security Information in Proceedings (Repeals and Amendments Bill). I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I move Supplementary Order Paper 273 dividing the bill. Motion agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment and divided into Security Information in Proceedings Bill and Security Information in Proceedings (Repeal and Amendments) Bill.House resumed
Salesa JennyClauses 1 and 2 Title and CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to clauses 1 and 2 which is the debate on the title and commencement. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.
McKee Nicole; Allan KiritapuNICOLE McKEE (ACT): It's a good point Madam Chair. I think we do need to understand what Paul Goldsmith's saying most of the time and perhaps a translation service might be adequate. My question to the Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan is: your Supplementary Order Paper 273 Minister is looking at pulling the legislation into two pieces of legislation and I'm wondering why that is. It's an omnibus bill anyway. So could you just explain to us why we're pulling Part 4 out and the thinking behind that please?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you and I think that on behalf of the member he Christopher Penk acknowledges you for your contribution in this debate tonight.The bill is an omnibus bill and it amends several Acts to implement one single broad policy. The break up by the Supplementary Order Paper is required to divide the bill into two parts. So that's the Security Information in Proceedings Bill and then the Security Information in Proceedings (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. Break-up Supplementary Order Papers aren't that common but are used when an omnibus bill involves both a new principal Act and then significant amendments to a number of other Acts which is the case here. So dividing the bill in this way essentially just avoids cluttering up a new Act with a whole ton of amending provisions and keeping the amending provisions together in a single bill helps users find in one place the amendments for these reforms.
Salesa Jenny; Penk ChrisPart 4 Amendments to other legislationCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 4 which is the debate on clauses 48 to 150 and Schedules 3 to 9 Amendments to other legislation". The question is that Part 4 stand part. I call on Chris Penk.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you of course you do. I don't really actually have much to say in Part 4 but I would just point out that the translation service failed us when Paul Goldsmith was speaking before. I couldn't understand him so I just wondered if someone could sort that out for the future."
Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Salesa Jenny; Penk Chris; Allan KiritapuPart 3 Security information in civil proceedingsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 3 which is the debate on clauses 29 to 47 and schedule 2 the Security information in civil proceedings". The question is that Part 3 stand part. I call on Chris Penk.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you I thought you might and I thank you for it. Really just in relation to Part 3 I mean it's probably worth noting for anyone following along this is the civil proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings. It's still important. There might be security information that is swirling round and the conduct of a person might explain their actions might explain their rights and responsibilities in relation to a matter that's actually just civil in nature; it's not that they've done anything wrong or even potentially done anything wrong under the criminal law but nevertheless the information has to be out there because it might explain why they've done a thing or not done a thing that they should have done.So any thoughts the Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan can provide about the difference between this civil regime versus the criminal would be helpful but you know not particularly asking for a long exposition either. I just think it's interesting to note that we're covering both sides of the civil-criminal divide.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The member is doing very well tonight in his line of inquiry; well done. So yes turning to the security information in civil proceedings Part 3 of the bill the right to natural justice is fundamental to the integrity of our justice system. The bill has safeguards to protect the rights of affected parties and is consistent with the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Where an application is made for information to be treated as national security information the court will be required to use a closed-court process for a preliminary hearing. The Law Commission turned their mind to this and they considered that it was acceptable to adopt a closed procedure at this preliminary stage to protect the information until there has been a determination on whether it should be disclosed to the affected party.During the preliminary hearing the court will determine if the information is national security information and how it should be protected during their substantive hearing. The affected party will be excluded from the closed preliminary hearing but they will have their interested represented by as we've discussed a special advocate. The judge and the special advocate will have full access to all the national security information that is the subject of the application and that is at issue in those proceedings.Part 3 agreed to."
Penk Chris; Allan KiritapuCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. My final question under Part 2 is in relation to clause 28 Agreed general practices and procedures". I thought this was interesting just to highlight that what we've got here is a situation where the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General are being asked I think in essence to agree on general practices and procedures that might be necessary to implement special procedures and ensure that security information is protected at all times. It's just interesting to me because normally of course in legislation an obligation is framed as an obligation—you know it would be for example the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General must as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section agree on any general practices and so on. Here we are just saying "may". I presume that's sort of a deference to the courts; in this place we shouldn't be instructing the Chief Justice on how to do her job—currently her job. But nevertheless presumably the Minister would agree with me that it's going to be absolutely central to the operation of this law that general practices and procedures are necessary to ensure the protection of security information. Of course again that's at the heart of the whole regime the idea that there is such thing as security information that there are such things as national interests in relation to security and that's protecting individuals who give us this information or intelligence and it's to protect our reputation and our interoperability with Five Eyes partners and others. So any assurance the Minister can give about her expectation framed of course in the language that's appropriate for the comity between Parliament the executive and the courts.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Absolutely correct—the language in this provision is structured to acknowledge comity and to avoid any inference that the executive would be directing the Chief Justice to undertake any particular action. So as is appropriate the agreement will be struck and as the provision sets out on a basis that is as soon as practicable.Part 2 agreed to."
Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity just to respond to some of the insightful questions from my colleague Chris Penk. The role of the special advocate I think will be quite critical to the operational aspects of these procedures. But what I'll just make a brief note on is that it's not a novel solution. So you know we've seen for example the Immigration Act and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act—they make express provision for the use of special advocates. And in these areas prior the court's also relied on its inherent jurisdiction in some cases to appoint special advocates with the consent of parties to lessen the risk of closed-court procedures undermining the affected party's right to natural justice. The only other brief note I'll make there is that this is something that the Law Commission recommended.With all those caveats that you rightly raise around capacity competency etc. there is a process as to who can be appointed as a special advocate as you rightly pointed to in clause 17. One thing I will note though is that the—and it might not have been as clear on a brief read. I make no comment as to the member's observations here but the non-Crown party as opposed to having a special advocate imposed upon them can choose their special advocate. So they can nominate a lawyer from a panel; that's sort of set out there at clause 17(2). They are provided with a list so that list will have a range of special advocates that the court deems appropriate and then from that grouping the individual can therefore choose who would be appropriate to be their special advocate and represented on the panel. But there is some element of choice there.
Salesa JennySECURITY INFORMATION IN PROCEEDINGS LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill. We start with Part 1 which is the debate on clauses 3 to 7 and Schedule 1 the preliminary provisions. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Salesa Jenny; Penk Chris; Allan KiritapuClauses 1 and 2 Title and CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to our final debate which is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 the debate on the title and commencement.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. Just one question—and probably reasonably easily expressed—around the time frame commencement date. I wonder if the Minister gave any thought to having the Act come into effect on 1 January given that so much of electoral law is based around the idea of an election year being a key concept and a key marker for various obligations; as opposed to 31 March 2023.I mean it might be that that time is needed for the systems of the Electoral Commission to come into effect or for the information campaign to gear up and so on. So not suggesting that the date that's set down isn't appropriate but just to get a feel for the reason particularly that that was chosen as distinct from marking 1 January which of course in the case of 2023 almost certainly will mark the start of an election year.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes we did turn our mind to that provision. It would have been ideal if we could have kicked off all of the necessary forms from 1 January; however just to enable the system to have the time it needs to adjust and adapt it was considered it was appropriate to come in on the commencement date which is 31 March 2023.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Mitchell Mark; Allan KiritapuHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Chair and can I just acknowledge the Minister in the chair Kiritapu Allan as well in terms of bringing this piece of legislation to the Justice Committee and the bipartisan approach which she takes to be able to get important legislation like this through the House.The only point that I was going to raise is sort of in the same vein as my colleague Chris Penk's and that is that through both parts there is quite an important interaction between the Electoral Commission and the Government Statistician—both ways. So the Electoral Commission must as soon as practicable on census day supply information to the Government Statistician and the Government Statistician must prepare an alternative report which is Schedule 1A.I was wondering—that interaction is actually really important. There is definitely without a doubt some risk that something may go wrong on both sides. And I was just wondering whether the Minister and officials had sort of turned their mind to how that would interact and how there'd be accountability in the legislation should either the Electoral Commission fail to get the information to the Government Statistician or the Government Statistician fail to prepare an alternative report.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I think across all electoral law that interaction between the Government Statistician and the Electoral Commission is fundamental. They are essentially one half of the other when it comes to working out who should who can and who ought to vote in any particular period. One thing that has been quite important as we've approached these amendments in this particular bill is that the Ministry of Justice has worked very closely with Statistics New Zealand on all these amendments to ensure that those critical relationships carry through and anything that's been touched by this amendment for the Māori electoral option has been caught up. So my understanding is and I've been advised that Statistics New Zealand are comfortable with the engagement and with what's been set out in this bill.
Goldsmith Paul; Allan KiritapuHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): One question I had for the Minister is: this is just a clarification that the changes to the definition of the Māori electoral population are indeed as I understand it sort of a technical change to ensure that there isn't an overlap or that you can't be on the Māori and general electoral districts and on the dormant roll at the same time—that there isn't a policy shift in the way that we calculate people on the Māori roll for the purposes of determining how many Māori seats there are. If I can just get some clarification about that I'd be keen.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you to both members for the interesting questions. So to clause 16 my understanding is that this is required—so where a census is held in the year of a general election you have an exemption so no boundary redraws occur within that period. That exemption is not required for local body elections; so that's what that one is there. I just might have to get the member to repeat his question; sorry I was slightly distracted. Sorry about that.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It was just asking the Minister to clarify that the changes made to the definition of Māori electoral population particularly in clause 14 are technical amendments because of the fact that nobody can be on the electoral districts or general roll at the same time as on the dormant rolls but it hasn't been a policy decision to change fundamentally the way that the Māori electoral roll is calculated—or number is calculated—as relates to the proportion of Māori seats. So I just want you to clarify that.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for that helpful question. Yes you're right. So it restates the current position in the Electoral Act and so no policy changes have been made at all with this one; just pulls it right through.
Salesa Jenny; Penk ChrisPart 2 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 17 which is the Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001". The question is that Part 2 stand part.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. This is just an even briefer contribution from me on this one. I've got even less to say about it. I'm sort of looking nervously in the direction of the Hon Paul Goldsmith who has something dismissive to say no doubt. My sole question relates to clause 16. It's to do with amending Schedule 1A where in new clause 72(2A) there's a report that's done following a census and it might be that the census has been completed but the report hasn't yet been completed and so the legislation is contemplating a situation where the Electoral Commission has to supply to the Government Statistician information that's listed in the Act and then the Government Statistician has to prepare an alternative report for the purpose of the Act. So it seems like an interim kind of measure whereby if it's the case that a census has just been conducted and there hasn't been an opportunity for a report.So my question really in addition to any general comments the Minister of Justice might want to make about it is: how quickly could we expect this to take place? As soon as practicable after census day? I'm just wondering what would be a reasonable kind of time frame for us to expect in that scenario; not expecting a number of weeks or months or a particular limit to be put on it—a hard limit certainly. Obviously there's a certain extent to which the phrase "as soon as practicable" could mean just that and it might be that it's practicable or not to have it within say four weeks or—I was going to say four months; really actually that does sound quite long. Anyway I'm now at the point where I think I've basically posed my question. The Minister is engaging with her excellent officials who will no doubt provide some advice and I'll just sort of pause for a moment to allow her to get any advice that she needs to be able to answer that.I'm looking to see if anyone else has any other questions to ask and if not I'll be in the familiar territory of just simply talking anyway and I think the Hon Mark Mitchell has—Hon Paul Goldsmith: I can ask a question if you sit down.CHRIS PENK: OK. Well I will sit down then. Fine!"
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I just wanted to comment on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 282 from the Māori Party from Rawiri Waititi who was wanting to change the names that we have in electorates. Currently it's the Māori roll and the general roll and his suggestion is to change the general roll to the non-Māori roll". I just wanted to make it clear that we don't support that. I don't describe myself as non-Māori; I don't describe myself as general either. But having said that I don't think people should be defined by who they're not and I don't think that's a very helpful distinction to divide the country into Māori and non-Māori. It's a pity that we haven't had any real sort of explanation as to what the idea is behind this SOP but we certainly wouldn't be supporting it. Thank you very much."
Penk Chris; Allan KiritapuCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. That's actually a really helpful answer and if anyone had just tuned into Parliament TV at exactly the wrong moment they would have heard a Minister of the Government talking about a snap election being called tomorrow. But it was a hypothetical; to be fair she did say if". So that's helpful engagement actually not least of all because I clearly hadn't read the Supplementary Order Paper fully but in my defence it was only dropped this afternoon. So that's helpful. That's I think actually really useful lawmaking in the sense that that scenario unusual as it is—and certainly as I say wouldn't necessarily arise as a result of someone trying to game the system but nevertheless could be something that was potentially problematic—actually has been contemplated. So that's a good news story. I've got one more question actually in relation to Part 1 and then pending other colleagues' questions and comments certainly that would be my dash done. It's just in relation to section 77 as it will be within the primary legislation or the legislation that we're amending which is "Exercise of Māori option". So this is "Exercise of option by 17-year-olds". Just to get a bit of a feel for what the intent there is and I presume that the idea is that in the same way that we allow people to apply for registration as an elector—maybe the 18th birthday's coming up and they'll be able to vote in the general election but until such time as they turn 18 if we don't have a mechanism like this then they can't actually get on the roll. And it might all happen very quickly. We don't want them to miss their opportunity to #PartyVoteNational—a lot of hashtags have been thrown around tonight so I just put that out there. But anyway if the Minister can just sort of explain that that is indeed her intent that would be helpful. I for one support it and I think on this side of the House we'd say that mechanisms that apply generally should also apply to the Māori roll of course and in relation to the change which of course only people of Māori descent can change one way or the other because for the rest of us it's the general roll or nothing. So without going too deep into that underlying philosophy behind the legislation just that 17-year-old registration bit if the Minister can just sort of helpfully elucidate the thinking behind that.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The member is absolutely right in his analysis there. Currently 17-year-olds can enrol to vote. This clarifies and really expressly states that when that 17-year-old goes to enrol on the roll if they choose to select that Māori option they are indeed entitled to do that."
McKee Nicole; Allan KiritapuNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I would like to express our thanks for the work that you've done on this bill as well including looking at some of the concerns that we as a party had towards this. Again this was a bill where we agreed with the concept in being able to allow Māori to change we were hoping only once every electoral cycle but agree with your Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 280 that people would be able to change the rolls that they're on as long as it's not within three months of a local election by-election or a general election.The questions that I have for you Minister include—well there's a couple of them. One is: why was it set at three months? Is there a possibility it could've been six? And if so I wouldn't mind tabling a SOP or an amendment to make it six months instead of the three months which we would be happier with. So I just would like some clarity around why it's three months and whether or not we could actually look to make it six.Also Minister I just wonder if you could explain to us please with this ability to be able to change except for three months out from one of those three options how if in any way is it going to affect changing boundaries for electoral areas and potentially how would it change electoral seats especially for Māori seats and those greater boundary areas as well? I'm just wondering Minister whether you're able to address that because some of the concerns about using the system to game—it can still be there. So I'm just hoping that you can alleviate that concern for those viewers at home. Thank you.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Just first of all I acknowledge the member and their party for engaging constructively through the process and also for the questions raised this evening. I think that when we can get full agreement of the Parliament on these types of issues that's such a successful state for democracy in New Zealand. So me mihi ka tika kei a koe e te tuakana [I must be sure to thank you sister].The three-month period was selected because it aligns with what is the regulated period essentially for elections. So it's the period where particularly in a general election traditionally parties candidates really begin to step up their electoral campaigning efforts. So it was to align with that regulated period. Obviously there were views given to a broad range of periods right from as the bill was prior to now relatively free range through to larger exemptions and extensions. It was deemed that this was essentially the most appropriate time when people become quite interested and if there was a hint of gaming or those types of things it would become most evident in that three months during that regulated period.Just trying to recall the member's second question with respect to changing boundaries. With respect to changing boundaries that's done once every parliamentary term. It's done by an independent—well the Electoral Commission stewards and facilitates with cross-party support. So it wouldn't change the electoral boundaries but for that period directly after an election.
Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): First of all just to the member Christopher Penk thank you for your considered contributions on these constitutionally significant matters. I appreciate that you always turn your thoughtful eye to these issues with diligence.With respect to the first question just on the operational mechanics the Electoral Commission has a plan for how they will implement the continuous option. The plan is that they will deliver a nationwide public information and education plan to ensure that voters are aware of the option how they can make their choice etc. and what it means for them. They will be running this educational and informational drive through personalised mail-outs to all those enrolled of Māori descent with information about how they may switch between rolls if they choose to. They'll also receive texts and/or email messages where their information is available. They intend to run a targeted community engagement via face-to-face and digital channels work with various Māori groups and then advertising across multimedia channels public information on the commission's websites and the like.I guess that ties a little bit into the second question just in terms of practically how people can go about amending their roll. As you correctly point out new section 78 set out in clause 6 sets out the ways in which they may indicate their new choice. So an approved electronic medium as I best recall is that there are digital applications that can be filled online via the Electoral Commission but it may indeed include some fancy form of facsimile. I will have to get a briefing from my officials there but the general way that that will be done is through the forms on the Electoral Commission's website.With respect to the I guess hypothetical situation of electronic voting the member may be aware that there is an Independent Electoral Review Panel that's been established to look at a broad range of areas. This I'm sure is a part of that where they look at how we can increase participation in democracy but I thank the member for his question.
Allan KiritapuHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair I'm very pleased to be here for the committee stage of this very important piece of legislation the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill—a bill which will reduce barriers to Māori participating in elections strengthening this Government's commitment to honouring both our electoral system and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I'll keep these introductory remarks very brief but I want to acknowledge every single party in this House that will be voting for a Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled this evening which would amend one of the provisions in this bill to ensure that there is a hold three months out from a general election—a local body election—which is aligned with the by-election provisions.So to our counterparts in the Opposition the National Party to our counterparts the ACT Party to the Green Party and of course to Labour I just want to commend the collective will of this Parliament to see an equitable outcome which will enable an increased and enhanced participation rate of Māori in our electoral system.
Salesa JennyELECTORAL (MĀORI ELECTORAL OPTION) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Electoral Act 1993CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill. We come first to the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill.Members before we commence the debate on Part 1 I remind the committee that clause 5 proposes to amend section 35 of the Electoral Act 1993 which is a reserved provision under section 268 of that Act. Therefore a vote on this provision will be taken separately after the vote on the amendments and the vote on the remaining provisions of the bill. Clause 5 will stand part if the vote is carried by at least 75 percent of all members of the House which is 90 or more members. I will also scrutinise any amendments to the bill as they are lodged to check whether they also need the support of the special majority. Members we come first to Part 1.
Dean JacquiHOUSE IN COMMITTEEASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill and Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. There's been some comments made tonight about what we could call this bill and if I was going to rename this bill I would rename it the National Have Their Head in the Sand Bill" because climate change—as the previous speaker Barbara Kuriger has said—is real. In my community of Nelson we've had some of the worst floods on record as a result of climate change. It's an issue that affects our vulnerable communities and we have obligations as a country to put legislation in place as a Government to reduce the effects of climate change on our people and on our planet.The previous speaker made some comments—and I think it's fair to ask questions. It's fair to make comments and raise concerns around the sustainability of biofuels. We don't want biofuels to end up causing more problems than the problem that they're seeking to address. So the previous member asked—it is in the bill. If you read the bill it actually states that "the Minister must be satisfied that any activities that are associated with the cultivation production and processing of feedstocks … are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on biodiversity". It goes on to say "are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on food and feed security". And there's more in the bill that specifically states that biofuels can't also do harm. We will not be approving biofuels that cause other forms of harm.And we as I've said as a Government have obligations to our vulnerable communities in the Pacific and our low-lying areas in parts of the world that will be affected by climate change. It will be the poorest people that will pay the price and we have obligations. This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House."
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity and the privilege to rise and take a short call on this bill the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill at the first reading.I want to acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Resources Dr Megan Woods for the work it has taken her and officials to bring it to the House. I would also want to acknowledge the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Transport officials on their work and consultation to the public and in particular the 24 submitters who provided views on this bill.Through this bill the Government is strengthening New Zealand's fuel sector through a suite of initiatives. The bill is a proposal to increase the use of sustainable liquid biofuels in those suite of initiatives within New Zealand as the Government looks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport. As we know the transport sector across the motu is contributing and is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. The Government debated this in the House earlier this year when I wasn't here but it was supported by Labour Greens and the National Party then.The improvements pave the way for a more stable low-emissions supply a greater choice for consumers and a more competitive fuel market. Biofuels are made from renewable biomass such as plants and liquid biofuels are a renewable low-emissions fuel that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport. They're not dependent—they're not as dependent on new fuel infrastructure or new vehicles as other ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions such as electric vehicles.The bill was introduced for any entity that imports or refines the fossil fuels for transport to New Zealand which must be reduced. The scale of this work needs to be increased. The targets provide an achievable pathway for the Labour Government's commitment to reduce emissions to achieve its climate change commitments. It is better for motorists fuel producers—significant change—and retailers. The Environmental Protection Authority will monitor how well wholesalers are carrying out their responsibility. The Emissions Reductions Plan has targets for 2035 but in reality we need to avoid the increasing of emissions. It is where the rubber hits the road. I commend this bill to the House.
Chen Naisi; Dean JacquiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. The contribution by the previous speaker Simeon Brown really just shows how out of touch the National Party really is with the people outside of this place. We know that this generation especially my generation is asking our Government and this House collectively to do something about climate change. We are today to start another part of our work in this space.The Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill means that we are now asking for greenhouse gas to be considered in terms of our fuel production to make sure that we have biofuels in the mix of the fuels that we have to consume. But that is not all. Look if this was the only thing that our Government had done in this space I too would agree that this is not enough. But you have to look at it in the whole range of actions we've done in this space including our supplements to our electric vehicles making sure that there are now more and more electric cars on our roads; the supplements and the support we've given to the hydrogen industry as well—the fact that we're now setting up infrastructure solar panels through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund in our schools our green funds our schools our industries all of our State-owned enterprises who are making sure that we actually set up the infrastructure.Look I think I've repeated in this House one Chinese saying over and over again: that the best time to plant a tree is 100 years ago but the second-best time is to do it today. And because infrastructure actually takes time—anything in the energy sector actually takes time—we're starting that today. So that's why I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break and the House will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Kanongata'a AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It's great to take this brief call on the first reading of the Sustainable Biofuel Obligation Bill. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Dr Megan Woods for her leadership in this area where she belongs to a team of climate Ministers in the Government side of things.I am proud to be part of a Government that is committed to target net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and to half of total energy consumption coming from renewable resources by 2035. This bill contributes to that target. So what the bill does because we've not heard a lot from the other side about the bill is it introduces an obligation for the entity that imports and refines more than 50000 litres of liquid fossil fuels for transport in New Zealand to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions for their fuel supply and also supplying sustainable biofuels.Our biofuel obligation is defined in Part 2 of the bill—and if I can just remind the Opposition to go to clause 10 for the definition. As the Minister had said an obligation is important. Without it we will not realise the biofuels opportunity because of the significant barriers they face including a lack of production. You know unlike the other side all of whom I have heard are just full of hot air the obligation is designed to reduce the overall emissions intensity of the transport fuel. The target for 2035 is 9 percent emissions intensity which would prevent about a million tonnes of emissions from cars trucks trains and ships over two years of its operation and up to 9 million tonnes by 2025.I've heard hashtags to describe the National Party. I want to add a hashtag to that: #ThePartyOfRepeal. Repeal repeal repeal—that's all that's coming from them.I echo the Minister: the introduction of this bill is another step in the Government's comprehensive plans to reduce emissions across the economy and reach net zero by 2050. I commend his bill to the House. Mālō."