THURSDAY, 19 MARCH 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia.
BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In presenting the business for the next sitting week, it's important to emphasise that in the current circumstances it is obviously subject to change. Legislation to be considered by the House in the week beginning Tuesday, 31 March is currently scheduled to include the first readings of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 2), the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, and the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill; the second readings of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill; and the third reading of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. Wednesday, 1 April will be a members' day. As I have said, though, the situation is evolving rapidly and should things change, I'll communicate that to members through party whips as quickly as possible.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you to the Leader of the House for that indication, and also recognising that we are in interesting times, there are two questions, really. Just in the last few minutes it's been brought to my attention that some select committees who are now advised not to travel as much as they might have, and could be under further restriction by the time they are due to meet during the recess, may not be able to meet the deadline for the return of financial reviews. Has the Leader of the House given any thought to some House process to extend the date by which they might be reported back, given that the technology for some of the provisions that will be agreed by the House today may not be in place in time to meet those deadlines? Second question is: when is the Government's intention to bring an imprest supply bill to give life and effect to the package that was announced earlier in the week? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In regard to the last point, an imprest supply bill is imminent, so our intention would be to introduce that either in the first or the second week of Parliament, back after the adjournment. With regard to the first comment, of course, where timetables need to change as a result of House activity being restricted because of COVID-19, the Business Committee has the power to do many of those things at the moment, and I'd need to check it out, but I'm pretty sure the Business Committee could extend the report-back time for the financial reviews. I'm looking for confirmation for that, but if it can't, then a motion in the House would certainly be possible and the Government would look to do that. I do want to make it clear that if we reach the point where House activity and members' activity become significantly restricted for any reason—we're going to talk about this after question time—the Government will be looking to cut back the business of the House to only what is essential.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Health
1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to keep the public informed of the steps they can take to protect themselves against COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yesterday, I launched the Unite against COVID-19 public health campaign, alongside the influenza vaccination drive. The $10 million COVID-19 public health campaign has a simple call to action. It asks New Zealanders to support each other and to do everything they can to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Willow-Jean Prime: What does the public health campaign ask people to do?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The campaign has four very simple messages that everyone needs to follow. Firstly, wash your hands with soap for 20 seconds, then dry them. Do this often. This kills the virus by bursting its protective bubble. Secondly, stay home if you're sick. If you have a fever, a cough, shortness of breath, sneezing, or a runny nose, don't go to work or school. Thirdly, self-isolate for 14 days if you have been overseas or if you have been in contact with someone who has COVID-19. And, fourthly, be kind. Check in on your neighbours, especially older or vulnerable people. Make sure they have what they need to get through this.
Willow-Jean Prime: How will people hear or see these public health messages?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Every single New Zealander must and will see these messages. We have an initial spend of around $10 million to ensure this happens. The campaign began yesterday and is already appearing on social media, radio, TV, in newspapers, and on billboards, and will increase in coming days.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is it correct that she and her Government have been receiving daily situation reports on COVID-19 and that yesterday was day 58?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: If the Government has been receiving situation reports for 58 days in a row, why, then, couldn't the Ministry of Health tell journalists how many ventilators there are in the country as soon as a couple of days ago?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the Minister referred the questioner to the various health boards around the country to give an update as to the existing ones they've got, those that can be possibly brought into use as fast as possible with some work, and that's the updated situation. We're working on it as we speak.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does the Prime Minister think, though, that the Government should know how many ventilators there are in the country?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is the Government does know now how many ventilators there are in the country and those that have not been used of late but are being updated or brought back into action as fast as we possibly can. Then there are other alternatives as well, including offshore purchasing.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will there be a proactive release of Cabinet papers and daily situation reports which show why the Government are making certain decisions around COVID-19?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the matter of transparency for the Government is so obvious. We need the country all to be aware of what the Government is seeking to do in cooperation with the people of New Zealand. So transparency is not the primary issue at the moment. The major issue at the moment is solving the problem we face in terms of an enemy from without that's causing an economic and health crisis, and to stand here posturing about politics and trying to make personal advantage does that party no credit whatsoever.
Jami-Lee Ross: Does she agree with the Director-General of Health's advice that the 16 cases in the last two days were all overseas-travel related, and if so, has she sought or received any advice on closing the border to all non-citizens and non-residents?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That's an excellent question. The reality is that as of today, there are 28 and they all are connected with overseas travel—all 28—and so the answer to the member's question will be, in my view, one that we will be imminently looking at, and will be able to give you an answer not now but, I think, very, very soon.
Hon Paula Bennett: How much scrutiny are customs officials giving to visitors arriving to check whether they know about self-isolation and how they plan to carry it out?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, all scrutiny possible is now being applied to incoming passengers, including having a police force alongside our customs officials and others to ensure that they get to understand how serious this issue is.
Hon Paula Bennett: What consideration, if any, has the Government given to requiring inbound international flights to screen information, videos, and/or to hand out information pamphlets in different languages on the planes around COVID-19 and the rules in New Zealand?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At the moment, the consideration of that has already been a fact. But the reality is that international airlines are shutting down their passage to New Zealand at the moment, and we are suggesting to New Zealanders not to leave this country at the moment: just don't travel, in the interests of preserving the safety of the people of this country. Giving out the kind of information that that member is referring to is a thing of the past in this context, because there won't be any travel.
Hon Paula Bennett: Are people arriving in New Zealand today from an overseas country that may have COVID-19, and that's why they are required to self-isolate, and could better information consistently be given to them by Government officials?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, new arrival cards have already been published, printed, and issued, and are being issued as we speak.
Hon Paula Bennett: Can the Prime Minister accept I'm not asking about information cards that they fill out but information given to the visitors so that they understand the rules of New Zealand for them coming in, what self-isolation actually means, and are given the right information at the right time, and not open to rumour and innuendo?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am so glad that it's not open to rumour and innuendo, because that's what we've heard from some sources thus far, sad to say. But the reality is they're given all the information, they're told exactly what it means in terms of self-isolation, and in every way the guidance that was given by the Minister of Health is passed on to them as well. Plus, they're told, "If you don't keep your word and we find you, you'll be right out of this country. You'll never be able to come back in."
Hon Paula Bennett: They're not told that.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, they are.
Hon Paula Bennett: Are people arriving in New Zealand from Pacific Islands where they don't have COVID-19 at the moment and so do not have to self-isolate, then standing in queues at the airport with people arriving from other countries that do have COVID-19 and are required to self-isolate?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It's very hard to imagine how people from the Islands—for example, from Samoa, and are coming on a plane that is out of Samoa—will have people from Europe in the same queue, because they will be on different flights.




Question No. 3—Transport
3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Transport: Will he cancel the 3.5 cents per litre petrol excise increase due to take effect from 1 July this year, to reduce costs on consumers during the predicted recession?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: On behalf of the Minister of Transport, our Government is very concerned about the impact of COVID-19 on the economy and on our communities. That's why we've moved quickly with an initial $12.1 billion package to support New Zealand workers and businesses. This morning, I ruled out any further increases for the next three years, but we have no current plans to cancel this year's increase. 




Question No. 4—Police
4. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: What advice has he received about the Police's role in responding to COVID-19?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I'm advised that the New Zealand Police are working closely with the Ministry of Health to help deal with a dynamic situation that is COVID-19. The Commissioner of Police is providing operational strategic oversight to the all-of-Government response. Police's main role at this time is to help the Ministry of Health enforce the new self-isolation requirements that came into effect on 16 March. For example, on Tuesday, 17 March, at the direction of the Ministry of Health, police conducted compliance and welfare visits on a random sample group of travellers who had arrived into New Zealand after the new self-isolation requirements came into effect. Police say they are pleased with the high level of compliance and report that most people are taking the self-isolation requirements seriously.
Greg O'Connor: What advice has he received about compliance with the requirements to self-isolate?
Hon STUART NASH: As the Prime Minister has stated, more than 10,000 people have already voluntarily self-isolated before the new self-isolation rules came into force on Monday. I have been advised that a range of front-line agencies, including Police, Immigration, and Health are receiving tip-offs from the public. As of yesterday, police received 90 COVID-19 - related calls in this first two days of the new rules. Most of these reports were from members of the public who suspected breaches of self-isolation by others. This is promising to see as it shows that neighbours, families, workplaces, and the community recognise that everyone has a part to play to contain the spread of COVID-19. Government agencies like the police cannot do it on their own. We are all in this together.
Greg O'Connor: What advice has he received from police about what members of the public can do if they suspect someone is in breach of the new self-isolation rules?
Hon STUART NASH: Police advise me that if a member of the public suspects a breach of the self-isolation rules, they can email. I would like all the members to note this down and send it out on their social media or other platforms. This is the email address: . That's "nhccselfisolation"—one word—"@health.govt.nz". They can include details or screenshots from social media as appropriate. In the last year, police have been tested by extraordinary events from the Tasman wildfires, the terror attacks, the eruption at Whaakari / White Island, and now COVID-19. But I would like to reassure members of this House and members of the general public that police's top priority is, as always, keeping our communities safe.




Question No. 5—Finance
5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What are the assumptions behind the estimated $5.1 billion cost of the Government's COVID-19 wage subsidy scheme; in particular, how many workers does the Government estimate will be subsidised by the scheme?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The estimated cost of the Government's 12-week, $5.1 billion wage subsidy scheme to support jobs and businesses assumes approximately 50 percent of employers, including the self-employed and sole traders, take up the scheme. That estimates approximately 270,000 employers and self-employed and sole traders taking up the scheme. This is comprised of approximately 10,000 larger employers with greater than 20 employees and approximately 260,000 employers with fewer than 20 employees or self-employed sole traders. Accordingly, the $5.1 billion package was estimated to directly benefit approximately 750,000 working New Zealanders, but, of course, the wider macroeconomic impact will clearly be larger.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So what percentage of businesses in New Zealand would have to apply for their full entitlement of up to 21 full-time workers for the $5.1 billion to be spent?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Sorry; could the member just repeat that question?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So, roughly, what percentage of businesses in New Zealand would have to apply for their full entitlement of up to 21 full-time workers for the $5.1 billion to be spent?
Hon DAVID PARKER: In the answer that I gave, the estimate is that of the 270,000 employers, self-employed, and sole traders who take up the scheme, 260,000 of them will have 20 or fewer employees or be self-employed or sole traders.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he assuming that virtually all businesses of fewer than 20 employees will face a 30 percent drop in revenue, in order to qualify for the scheme?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No. I think it's clear that it seems to be others that are suggesting that every wage and salary earner in New Zealand should have their earnings guaranteed by the Government. If that is indeed the position of the Opposition, they should confirm that to the media.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he consider devoting a greater proportion of Tuesday's economic package to urgent relief to businesses and their workers so that they could save more jobs now? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm advised that by earlier today, already 16,200 applications for wage subsidy have been received, together with 676 COVID-19 leave applications. I'm further advised that these applications collectively cover more than 50,000 working New Zealanders and that some payments have already been made and more have been authorised. I believe that this is an incredibly fast start by the Public Service, and I'm confident that I speak on behalf of the whole of this House to commend them. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why will he not release the Cabinet paper today so that we can understand the workings behind it all? 
SPEAKER: No, I'm going to ask the member to rephrase the question. There's an assumption in the question which hasn't been established by the facts. "He will not"—I mean, that's a for ever thing. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he release the Cabinet paper behind the economic package today? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister today has noted, we are endeavouring to be transparent in respect of these issues. I think we have been open as to the primary question and the detail that the member has provided. If he wants some further statistical information, we're willing to consider that. In respect of the release of the overall papers, that will be dealt with in accordance with the law. 
Kieran McAnulty: What has been the response to the support package from leaders in areas heavily dependent on tourism? [Interruption] 
Hon DAVID PARKER: The—
SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just interrupt and ask who's got something that's dinging in here? [Interruption] Can I ask the people in the immediate vicinity of the Deputy Prime Minister to—there's a dinging that's occurring that even I can hear. So can everyone in this general area make sure that their phones are turned off. Right, the Hon David Parker. 
Hon DAVID PARKER: I think you might have pinged the wrong person, sir. 
SPEAKER: I said in the general area. 
Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, thank you—thank you, sir. The Wānaka Sun reports that the Queenstown Lakes District Mayor, Jim Boult, has welcomed the package, saying, "Minister Robertson and his government colleagues are to be congratulated for recognising the pain that coronavirus has brought to the industry and New Zealand generally, but in particular to our district. We applaud this and thank the government for their swift intervention.", and he also notes the significance of the Reserve Bank announcement on interest rates, also this week. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why will he not release the Cabinet paper behind the economic package today? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm sure the Cabinet paper will be released. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: As a precedent, can he recall any former time when such a request was made in this House and met? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: I don't recall the detail of the incidents around the Christchurch earthquake or the Kaikōura response, but I am sure that the methodology and the time frames that were met in respect of those incidents by the Public Service—who is the one that processes these requests—will be similar to the response by this Government. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he not consider the very rapid-moving situation that we're facing does justify getting as much information out in the public domain so that New Zealanders can understand the basis upon which these major economic decisions are being made? 
Hon DAVID PARKER: The Public Service is concentrating on enabling the businesses—and be they self-employed or employees, the Public Service is focusing on getting them the help that they need, not the release of the paper to the Opposition, which, none the less, will be handled promptly and in accordance with the law. 




Question No. 6—Health
6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What is the best estimate of the number of COVID-19 testing kits currently available for use in New Zealand, and is he satisfied that is sufficient to meet projected demand?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Internationally, COVID-19 outbreaks are testing the capacity of even the most prepared health systems. That's why we are putting such a strong focus on stamping out the sporadic cases we've seen in New Zealand to flatten and supress the curve and reduce pressure on our health service. Testing kits are comprised of various components, including swabs, probes, primers, and enzymes. I'm advised that we have around 30,000 swabs in New Zealand, with 90,000 more on order. I'm also advised we have sufficient supply of reagent for the near future, and we have more on order, and we're expecting that to arrive soon. As part of the $500 million investment in health announced earlier this week, $5 million has already been allocated to increasing testing capacity. Specialised testing machines are critical. An additional machine is expected to arrive shortly at the Auckland laboratory. Most importantly, testing capacity relies on highly skilled technicians to perform the tests and interpret the results. We now have four laboratories in operation across New Zealand. Finally, I'm advised that in the 24 hours to midnight last night, more than 1,000 tests for COVID-19 were performed. I want to take this time now to thank the hard-working laboratory staff that are doing this important work.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Are reports of global test kit shortages accurate, and if so, what measures, if any, is he taking to reduce the impact on New Zealand?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We are putting a strong focus on stamping out the sporadic cases we've seen in New Zealand, to flatten and suppress the curve and reduce pressure on our health services. We are working, of course, to ensure we have all of the necessary components of testing kits, and I've given the member indications around the fact that we have sufficient orders, and I'm advised that we have sufficient stocks currently. Of course, we are looking to make sure that is the case into the future.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that testing according to the current case definition criteria of close contact with an infected person and symptoms will prevent a sustained community outbreak?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The things that will prevent an outbreak are people taking the public health advice seriously. That includes not going out when they're ill, observing the self-isolation requirements in New Zealand for travellers, washing of hands regularly, sneezing into elbows. Those are the measures that will prevent community outbreaks.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree that the number of close contacts of the 28 confirmed cases are the equivalent of less than two days of testing capacity, and does he agree that testing them, notwithstanding they might not have symptoms, is prudent?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Could the member please repeat that question?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree that the number of close contacts of the 28 confirmed cases number the equivalent of fewer than two days' testing capacity, and does he agree that testing them, notwithstanding that they might not have symptoms, is prudent?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I will answer that question as best as I understand it.
SPEAKER: I'm actually going to ask the member to ask it again, because I think it could have been clearer.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm that the close contacts of the 28 confirmed cases number between 1,000 and 2,000—less than two days' testing capacity—and would he not agree that it would be prudent to test them, notwithstanding that most of them will not be symptomatic?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Of the 28 cases we have so far, I would note that they've come in over many weeks and many of the close contacts have long since been followed up with.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Who decided the 150 children at Logan Park High School and their teachers would be tested, and are all of them symptomatic?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Clinical experts advised that this was a unique circumstance and that it was appropriate to test in this case.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, will he join me in encouraging those clinical experts to continue to take a broader approach to testing to reduce the likelihood of a community outbreak, and providing peace of mind to the public?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I will continue to encourage the clinical experts to use their clinical expertise and not the judgment of politicians.




Question No. 7—Customs
7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Customs: What precautions are being taken at the border to help slow the spread of COVID-19?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): This morning, I was at Auckland international airport, our country's largest passenger port, to ensure our strict border measures are being enforced. There are measures in place. Passengers are being questioned; they're being stopped and required to hand over detailed information. One cannot miss the signage and the public address announcements at the airport. The responsibility of self-isolation is being made clear to all travellers. However, I am concerned about the experience reported by some of our travellers, which is why I physically went to Auckland Airport this morning. I saw areas where we can and should improve our overall border response, and I have tasked agencies with addressing these concerns immediately.
Ginny Andersen: Why isn't the Government testing people for COVID-19 at the border?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Because testing people who are asymptomatic at the border will not necessarily address the issues. During the incubation period, it is impossible to test for COVID-19, as per the advice we have from public health officials. Tests only work when symptoms are showing—this is the advice from the Ministry of Health and from the World Health Organization. We do not—I repeat: do not—want people entering Aotearoa New Zealand falsely believing that they do not have COVID-19 and not self-isolating for 14 days. Our instruction to travellers remains the same: self-isolation will help slow down the spread of COVID-19.
Ginny Andersen: What are the consequences for those that don't follow the rules at the border?
Hon JENNY SALESA: We have the full force of the law. We have the customs Act; the powers of customs. We have the powers of public health. We can fine, we can detain, and we can deport these people when they do not adhere to our rules.
Hon Paula Bennett: Are customs giving all visitors to New Zealand a handout that they can keep, giving them information on self-isolation and the rules in New Zealand?
Hon JENNY SALESA: What I saw this morning at the Auckland international airport is that it is very clear as you come through. People are stopped as they come out of the international airport, are asked about self-isolation—
Hon Jacqui Dean: Why don't you just answer the question?
Hon JENNY SALESA: —given the handout for—I am answering the question—
Hon Jacqui Dean: No, you're not.
Hon JENNY SALESA: —given the handout for self-isolation—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. That member will stop reflecting on me. Jenny Salesa, complete the answer.
Hon JENNY SALESA: People are handed information on self-isolation. They then have to go through health staff again, and at the customs area they are again talked to, given information, and asked questions about self-isolation. There is no way that you would not know about self-isolating for 14 days in New Zealand.
Hon Jacqui Dean: She doesn't know.
Hon JENNY SALESA: I do; I've just been visiting.
Jami-Lee Ross: Why has the border not been closed to non-citizens and non-residents to help slow the spread of COVID-19?
Hon JENNY SALESA: We have one of the strongest restrictions at the border compared to other countries. What the member should know is that the majority of the people coming through our border right now are New Zealanders; they're either New Zealand citizens or they're New Zealand permanent residents. We are doing as much as we can to ensure that our borders are secure.




Question No. 8—Health
8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: How many respiratory ventilators are available across the health system, and is he satisfied that New Zealand's health system is prepared for an outbreak of COVID-19?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Internationally, COVID-19 outbreaks are testing the capacity of even the most prepared health systems. That's why we are putting such a strong focus on stamping out the sporadic cases we've seen in New Zealand—to flatten and suppress the curve and reduce pressure on our health service. I'm advised that 238 ventilators are available in ICU and high-dependency unit beds. There are also 44 mobile ventilators across the public health system and 24 ventilators available at private hospitals. Some operating theatres and post-operative areas also have ventilators that could be used if necessary. DHB planning is also well advanced to ensure that we have the staff available in the right place at the right time, to ensure the best use of equipment as required. The priority is to scale up capacity, and that's why the Government has invested $32 million to purchase additional ventilated and non-ventilated ICU capacity as part of the $500 million package for health announced earlier this week, to back our health professionals to combat COVID-19. Health workers are working around the clock to make this happen, and I want to thank them for this.
Dr Shane Reti: At any one time, what percentage of the ventilators he has just mentioned are already in use most of the time for urgent care?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don't have the exact number on that in front of me, but what I can say is that the member will know that historically, under-investment in our health system has meant that the number of ventilators is not as many as in some of the other health systems around the world. That, of course, is why we are putting such a strong focus on stamping out the sporadic cases we've seen in New Zealand to flatten and suppress the curve and reduce the pressure on our health service.
Dr Shane Reti: How quickly can nationwide ventilator capacity be increased?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I appreciate that people want simple answers to complex questions. For example, I'm aware that—[Interruption] 
SPEAKER: Order! Can I say that some of the prefixes that the Minister's using are winding up the Opposition and it means that I can't hear the answer. If he could just go straight to answering the question it would be useful.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I will endeavour to do that. I am aware that work is under way looking at the feasibility of returning to service some recently retired equipment. We also need to ensure that we have the staff available to operate that vital equipment, and I understand that additional training is already under way. What I can assure the House is that we will use this investment wisely, and if more funding is required, it will be made available.
Dr Shane Reti: Are there currently more ventilators than there are qualified medical staff to run them?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Again, I do want to say that it's not quite as straightforward as that question sounds. We do have to plan for the contingency that some staff may not be well or may be in self-isolation. That is already the case in our health system. So there are a range of complex planning activities under way to ensure that we are as well prepared as anywhere else.
Dr Shane Reti: When he said in this House on Tuesday, no, he didn't know how many coronavirus cases a day an average general practice had protective equipment for, does he know today how many coronavirus cases a day an average general practice has protective equipment for, and what is that number?
SPEAKER: That question has no relationship with the primary or the supplementary. 
Dr Shane Reti: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. The primary question also asked about whether the health system is prepared for an outbreak of COVID-19, and I would submit—
SPEAKER: Yes, and subsequent clauses to primary questions relate to the primary part of the question, otherwise it would be two questions. Question No. 9—the Hon Nikki Kaye. Question No. 10—Marama Davidson. 




Question No. 10—Social Development
10. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development: What support is this Government providing for people most in need in light of the impacts of COVID-19?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Alongside initiatives that strengthen business continuity, the Government's economic response package has three key initiatives that support people at most need during this time. From 1 April, those on main benefits will see a boost of $25 per week; from 1 May, to further support beneficiaries and superannuitants, the winter energy payment will be doubled in 2020; and, lastly, from 1 July, working families with children who are not on a benefit will no longer have to satisfy the hours test to receive the in-work tax credit. These initiatives alone represent an investment of more than $2.8 billion over the next four years. It is a significant investment to get in front of the impacts of COVID-19 and support individuals and families most in need.
Marama Davidson: How will these changes support communities and local businesses through this difficult time?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We know that people on low incomes spend what they have to cover essential costs. This investment is a boost to consumer spending. It will go to local business and local communities, and that's good for everyone. Spending through our local businesses, be they big or small, helps employers to keep people employed. We also know that providing a boost to those on the lowest incomes is a tried and true instrument to support people during times such as these. This just makes sense and is the right thing to do to support people in the most need.
Marama Davidson: Why is it important for the country that we provide this extra support for those in need to care for themselves and their whānau? 
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Main benefits and the winter energy payment reach around one million Kiwi homes every year—largely superannuitants. We know that this is likely to increase. We also expect that the changes to the in-work tax credit are likely to provide a boost to around 19,000 families in work. As I noted yesterday, Mangere Budgeting Services believe that the increase in main benefits alone would likely help people buy another three or four meals a week. These changes can mean that people most in need can be less stressed about being able to meet some of their essential costs during a time of significant economic impact. Our response to COVID-19 must place our people at the centre, and that's exactly what we're doing.
Marama Davidson: As the impacts of COVID-19 deepen, what further support will the Government be looking to provide for those most vulnerable?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As the Minister of Finance noted on Tuesday, it's only the beginning of what this Government will do to support New Zealanders through this time of crisis and lead our recovery and rebuilding. We know in these extraordinary times that we need to be watching closely how those already most in need are faring, which we are. I am encouraged, though, by the actions we had already taken as a Government prior to the economic response package to ensure we were poised and ready to support people in need, including the stand-up of the Government helpline, the deployment of rapid-response teams, and the removal of stand-down periods, which comes into force on Monday. The incredible work of the Ministry of Social Development, and indeed across the entire public sector, cannot be understated. Will there be more to do? Undoubtedly, yes. We will assess and act as we go. However, it's not only Government that are acting; business, communities, and social services—everyone is doing their bit. We need to continue looking out for each other.
SPEAKER: Members will have noticed that I moved, when Nikki Kaye didn't take the call for her question, on to the following question. I've had an indication from the Minister of Education that he thinks it's an important question. He would like to go back, and therefore I seek leave of the House, looking very carefully so that it is granted, to now move back to question No. 9. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.




Question No. 9—Education
9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Is he confident that the Government is taking all necessary measures in our education system to reduce the impact of COVID-19 and keep people safe?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. As I've said to the member, and said publicly, it is a rapidly evolving situation and advice is being updated and is changing. Health officials and education officials are working very closely together to keep people safe. They have agreed a joint protocol, which they're implementing, which takes into account a whole variety of different scenarios and situations. The approach is currently a targeted one because there is no community transmission at this point. We saw this in effect yesterday, where public health authorities closed a school temporarily where there was confirmation of a case. Public health advice is that schools and early childhood services are safe places for young people to be. The health, safety, and wellbeing of New Zealanders is of upmost importance, and as situations change, we will take action accordingly.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What criteria does the Government have for full or regional closure of schools or other education providers due to COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The protocols that are being implemented at the moment have a number of different escalation points. At the moment, we're still at the lower level of that, so we're still looking at cases where children have gone to school where their parents may have been tested positive but they have not displayed any symptoms, or where a student has gone to school who has been displaying symptoms, and in that case it would be the school that is closed. For where there was a series of unrelated cases within a community, of course, the number of school closures would depend on the particular circumstances. Where there was evidence of community transmission within a particular geographical area, then closure of schools within that geographical area may be deemed by those officials to be appropriate, and where there was widespread community transmission throughout the country, then those are the circumstances under which a more widespread school closure would be considered.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Has he considered bringing forward the school holidays as a pre-emptive public health measure to fight COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, we are receiving advice on those sorts of things all of the time. Bringing forward the school holidays early in order to create some breathing space is an option and, if the public health advice is that that's useful, that's certainly on the table as one of the options that they can draw on.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What arrangements can he confirm for the capacity for large-scale remote learning, either via online learning or broadcasting, as a result of COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The officials at the Ministry of Education, along with representatives of the telecommunications industry, have been working on a whole variety of different scenarios. There's a series of issues to be worked through: one is obviously the learning materials and the teaching that goes with those, but then there's also the capacity. With regards to capacity, that's going to depend on the circumstances; it's also going to depend on how many other people may be using the network—people working from home, and so on. So there's a whole variety of different scenarios being mapped out, and I do want to thank the telecommunications industry for their cooperation here—they've been working very constructively with the Government. With regard to remote teaching, we've obviously got some additional capacity through Te Kura at the moment where there are isolated cases—for example, where there might be one or two schools that are closed for a period of time, or where students are in self-isolation. Online resources are currently being made available for students who are in self-isolation so they can continue their learning for that period of time. When we get to the point where we are—if we end up—looking at much larger closure, then that's obviously a much bigger thing to plan for. Scenario planning is taking place for that, should that eventuate.
Hon Nikki Kaye: When is he expecting to announce a further financial support package for education providers to ensure they can deal with the impact of COVID-19?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a number of different variables here. When it comes to schools, schools are relatively well-prepared financially because their funding is very certain—we fund them based on the number of students that they have, and we have a great degree of control over that funding and will keep that money flowing. In early childhood education, I am looking at some of the regulatory settings around funding for early childhood education—for example, where there are a significant number of increased absences, how the funding system may change if that eventuates, because I know, particularly for small early childhood centres, that's a very real consideration. And also, at the tertiary end of the system, where there are also sort of funding penalties for a variety of different things, we're looking at those as well to make sure that we are easing pressure where we can where the situation genuinely is beyond an education provider's control. For private training establishments, for those services where they've experienced a significant decline in their business—particularly those dealing with large numbers of international students—there is already support available through the package the Minister of Finance announced earlier in the week. We've got some very open dialogue with those parts of the sector as well to see what more we can do to ease some of that pressure.




Question No. 11—Customs
11. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Customs: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to COVID-19?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): Yes, in the context that they were given.
Simon O'Connor: When she said in her speech yesterday that she expects every person to self-isolate, what precisely is Customs doing to ensure that every single person understands their obligations?
Hon JENNY SALESA: The strict border measures that we have combine customs, health workers at the border, as well as the Ministry for Primary Industries. What Customs is doing is, we have actually changed the customs arrival card so that we include health information on there in terms of self-isolation. This is actually being rolled out later on this evening, and these are some of the questions that are being asked that are different to what has been on that particular form in the past: "Have you been in close contact with a person who's been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the past 14 days?"; "What date did you have last contact with that person?"; another question, "Have you had any of the following symptoms in the past 14 days: fever, cough, difficulty breathing?"; next question, "Have you been tested for COVID-19?"; next question, "What date were you tested?"; next question, "Have you received results from that test?"; "Was that test positive?"; "Do you intend to self-isolate?"; and, "What address are you going to self-isolate in?" This arrival card is a legal document. False declarations can lead to penalties including fines, prosecution, imprisonment, and deportation from New Zealand.
Simon O'Connor: Acknowledging the Minister's answer—and thank you—can she confirm to the House, though, that every single returning passenger has at least one person-to-person engagement to specifically outline their health obligations?
Hon JENNY SALESA: I can confirm to the House that what I saw this morning when I went to Auckland international airport was a lot of interaction from different people. So every person who gets off an international plane is stopped by a health person and given a self-isolation card. They then have to fill the card out and then they queue up to two other health folks who then go through the form, either approve it or not approve it—they actually mark it OK or not—then everybody goes on to customs, and it is at the customs booth that folks are then asked again about their self-isolation plans. These forms are then collected, handed to Healthline, and we have the police, who are helping us in terms of spot checks. Those who have filled in their self-isolation plans—police are now going through and doing spot checks to ensure that folks who've said they're self-isolating are indeed self-isolating. 
Simon O'Connor: When she says—or has said, rather—that those who refuse to self-isolate may be put on a plane and deported, can she articulate if that is immediately or if that person has to wait in self-isolation in New Zealand first?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Customs actually has powers to detain people at the airport for a certain period of time. Customs is working right alongside our health people at the airport. It is actually advice from health—they are the ones with the power, basically, to deport folks, actually, working alongside immigration. We have all those powers. Customs has powers under the public health Act. It also has powers, and the Minister of Immigration also has powers. It is indeed our intention to enforce all of these different powers to ensure that people who flout the laws, who don't actually have a plan to self-isolate, do not enter our country, and that they are indeed deported.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that was asked is a very important one, and I listened carefully to what the Minister said. She may not have quite picked up what was in that question, and it arises out of the fact that if people aren't immediately deported and they are kept in New Zealand for their two weeks of isolation, under our current law they'd be entitled to appeal their deportation and therefore stay in the country for a much longer period of time. So I think if the Minister could deal with that—
SPEAKER: Well—[Interruption] I don't need any help from Iain Lees-Galloway. There's a general point—saying that one's not satisfied with an answer is not generally acceptable, but I'll ignore that and say that I did listen to what the Minister said right at the beginning of her answer. There was a lot of stuff afterwards, but right at the beginning of her answer, she did indicate that there was a power to immediately deport. 
Simon O'Connor: What does she say to New Zealanders returning home in recent hours who have not experienced the "strictest border measures in the world", particularly bearing in mind that they are now through the border and in the community?
Hon JENNY SALESA: What I can say is that everyone who has filled out the form, including their address and, you know, the fact that they say that they will self-isolate—as I say, we are now having the assistance of our police to ensure via spot checks that people are indeed self-isolating. Can I say that fighting COVID-19 is something that we collectively as a society have a responsibility for. The Director-General of Health has already appealed to everyone to dob in people who they know should be self-isolating but are not. This is actually something—in order for us to successfully fight COVID-19, I appeal to all of New Zealand: let's unite and fight COVID-19.




Question No. 12—Ethnic Communities
12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Ethnic Communities: Does she stand by all her actions and policies for New Zealand's ethnic communities?
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Ethnic Communities): Yes, in the context that they were given.
Melissa Lee: What steps, if any, has the Minister taken to mitigate panic and fear among New Zealand's ethnic communities regarding COVID-19?
Hon JENNY SALESA: As was covered by the Minister of Health earlier on, we have this big Unite against COVID-19 PR, that has just been delivered as of yesterday. As part of that, the main messages are to be kind, wash and dry your hands, self-isolate, and stay home if you're sick. That information is also translated into ethnic community languages: Chinese, Indian—you name it.
Melissa Lee: What steps has the Minister taken to promote or distribute information about COVID-19 to Samoans, Tongans, and other Pacific peoples now that we have potentially exported COVID-19 to Samoa?
Hon JENNY SALESA: I'm the Minister for Ethnic Communities; the Minister for Pacific Peoples has responsibility for that question. However, I can say that Unite against COVID-19 is translated to Pacific languages as well.
Michael Wood: Does the Minister stand by her policy of increasing the Ethnic Communities Development Fund, which supports the resilience of ethnic communities, to over $4 million after it had been frozen at $500,000 since 2008?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Absolutely. Our Government has increased the Ethnic Communities Development Fund eightfold, from $520,000 to $4.2 million each year, and it does absolutely assist our ethnic communities on the ground.
Melissa Lee: Is the Minister concerned that statements such as—and I quote—"Our kids are facing bullying at school because of the virus, and the parents are not getting enough information from our Government." are circulating within New Zealand's ethnic communities; if so, what efforts is she taking to address those concerns?
Hon JENNY SALESA: One of the things I did last year as Minister for Ethnic Communities was I went around the country and had a consultation to find out what the main issues are that our ethnic communities are facing. Bullying and discrimination and bias were some of those issues that came through loud and clear. We are in the process of addressing that. One of the reasons why we increased the Ethnic Communities Development Fund is because we know that these are issues the community raised with us and we know that they are best at helping the Government to address these issues.
Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister actually addressed my question with an answer relating to her work last week. My question was quite specific, relating to bullying because of the virus COVID-19, and she hasn't actually addressed that.
SPEAKER: Well, I think it's fair to assume that the general matter of bullying does include specific bullying, and if she says she's working on that, that addresses the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: in terms of ethnic communities' interests, is she aware of the amount of money the Government is putting into the Pacific—the Realm countries, Tonga, Samoa, and the wider Pacific—to ensure that we can help those nations through the coronavirus attack that's happening in our part of the world?
Hon JENNY SALESA: Yes—historic amounts. I also want to remind the House that one of the reasons why we've got such strict border measures is to ensure that COVID-19 doesn't go through as a gateway from New Zealand to the Pacific.





BUSINESS OF SELECT COMMITTEES
Reporting Dates
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I followed up on the issue that the shadow Leader of the House raised with regard to annual review report-backs. I understand that there are five annual reviews still to be reported back, but the deadline for them to report back is the next sitting day. Therefore, I seek leave for that report-back deadline to be extended until 6 April. That would give that committee all of the next sitting week in order to be able to meet and to do that if needed.
SPEAKER: I know it's not a good practice for the Speaker to object to leave being sought—and I won't—but I will remind members that we are about to consider a motion which would allow for the remote consideration of these things, and not require members to come together to do it. But I will put the leave. Is there any objection to the leave that the Leader of the House is seeking? There appears to be none.





STANDING ORDERS
Sessional
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the House adopt the following procedures to facilitate the activities of the House and its committees during the current epidemic:
SPECIAL PROCEDURES DURING EPIDEMIC1Business CommitteeThe Business Committee may meet, and make determinations, by electronic means, including remote participation.2Assistant SpeakersFurther to Standing Order 28, an Assistant Speaker may perform all duties and exercise the authority of the Speaker during an adjournment of the House, if both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are absent from duty (for whatever reason).3Giving notice of motion(1)Further to Standing Order 98, a member who intends to give notice of a motion may lodge the notice with the Clerk in electronic form.(2)A notice of motion lodged under paragraph (1) must—(a)be lodged by 10am on a sitting day, and(b)be signed by way of an electronic signature by a member.4Casting of proxy votes(1)The Business Committee may determine that, for a specified period, the limit on proxy votes that may be cast by a party during a party vote is to be adjusted or waived.(2)Standing Order 155 is read accordingly.5Special arrangements for select committee meetings(1)The Speaker may approve special arrangements for select committees to meet and conduct business.(2)Special arrangements for committees under paragraph (1)—(a)may include meetings, or other forms of decision-making, by electronic means with remote participation:(b)may apply for a specified period:(c)may make different arrangements for a specified committee or committees.(3)Standing Orders 190 to 194, 205(2), 208, and 210–214 are read in accordance with any special arrangements made under paragraph (1).6Lodging of oral questions(1)Further to Standing Order 381, notice of an oral question may be lodged by a member with the Clerk in electronic form.(2)A notice of an oral question lodged under paragraph (1) must be—(a)signed by way of an electronic signature by the member or by another member on the member's behalf, and(b)lodged no later than 10.30 am on the day on which the question is to be asked.7Lodging of urgent questions(1)Further to Standing Order 388, notice of an urgent question may be lodged by a member with the Clerk in electronic form.(2)A notice of an oral question lodged under paragraph (1) must be signed by way of an electronic signature by the member or by another member on the member's behalf.8Electronic signaturesIn rules 3, 6 and 7, an electronic signature for this purpose must adequately identify the member and adequately indicate the member's approval of the question.
The provisions outlined in this motion are about the House preparing itself for the possible effects of COVID-19, just as we are asking the rest of the country to prepare for those possible effects. And I want to acknowledge the cooperation that we have had across the House in putting this set of rules together. This motion proposes putting in place a sessional order that will become part of the House's rules until the next election. It's important to note that only minor administrative measures proposed come into effect immediately. The more serious measures would be triggered only if the situation developed in a way that means a significant number of MPs are unable to travel to Wellington to be physically present at Parliament.
These measures have been conceived in order to make sure that Parliament continues to function and that it continues to exercise scrutiny over the Government throughout any emergency, and that the Government can continue to report to the House and therefore put to the people of New Zealand any measures that it puts in place to deal with the effects of COVID-19. It may also be necessary if there is a need to pass urgent law changes, and so that the House can approve any necessary expenditure. 
The most significant threat to Parliament being able to function would be MPs being away from Wellington for whatever reason in large numbers. Usually, a maximum of 25 percent of MPs from any one party can be away from the parliamentary precinct at any given time without affecting the proportionality of the votes cast in the House. Proposal number 4 gives the Business Committee the power to adjust or even remove the 25 percent limit. This would allow the House to continue to function with lower numbers of members and to maintain the balance of proportionality created at the last election.
It's important to note that this power to make changes is exercised by the Business Committee and the Business Committee operates on near unanimity. So this is not a question of the Government or even a majority of Parliament adjusting these rules. Any adjustment would require near unanimity.
As the Leader of the House, I also want to undertake, as I did during the Business Statement, that if numbers in the House became severely depleted for any reason, the Government would not continue with a full legislative programme. The House would be left to focus upon scrutiny of the executive and passing any legislation that was necessary to deal with COVID-19 or any other urgent matter, and it's likely that sitting hours could be reduced in order to effect that. The Business Committee already has the power to adjust the sitting programme if necessary.
Because the Business Committee is central to the decision-making process in this situation, these special procedures also need to allow it to meet remotely if that is necessary. Select committees would continue to have an essential role in holding the Government to account, and for this reason, proposal number 5 gives the Speaker the power to put in place special arrangements for select committees to meet and conduct their business, including allowing them to meet remotely. These arrangements can be varied according to the different circumstances of each committee. For example, committees could be given the authority to meet remotely if a number of its members were in self-isolation. 
Proposal number 2 gives the Assistant Speakers the authority to exercise all of the powers of the Speaker and/or the Deputy Speaker if necessary. I'm sure we all hope that that won't be required. But this is a plan for back-filling in the same way that many organisations and Government entities are planning up and down the country should key members of the organisations become unavailable.
Other changes are administrative—for example, allowing papers and notices of motion and questions to be lodged electronically. The Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service are putting in place a range of measures that will enable the House to function in an emergency. We all hope that these special procedures that we're considering today won't be necessary, but it's essential that we hold them in reserve so that the Parliament is able to continue to exercise its critical democratic functions on behalf of the people of New Zealand in a case where they may be required.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I just acknowledge the comment that has been made by the Leader of the House in outlining the provisions that are being put in place today. He is right that it simply will enable the Parliament to continue its work at a time when New Zealand is facing a great deal of uncertainty, and the capacity for the whole 120 members of Parliament to turn up here to do that work may be impugned by some of the restrictions that could come as a result of the fight against this virus and its worst effects. It is pleasing that the near unanimity of the Business Committee is going to be the determiner of what will be the shape of any Parliament in any straitened circumstance.
Parliament is very important in a democracy like ours, and I very much appreciate the comment that the Leader of the House has made with regards to the legislative programme. While we wouldn't want to see all of that stop—because it's important for the rest of New Zealand that the confidence that they need to work through this is maintained by the way that we show from this place that life can go on—it is, none the less, prudent that we do have a provision that would let people participate from a distance. 
I just want to make the point that we just a few moments ago granted leave to extend a report back on the financial reviews. The main reason why I thought that was necessary is because all of this, while it's been brewing for some 60-odd days, has really crystallised as being a massive problem in the last 10 days. And in many cases, there will need to be upgrades of the hardware, essentially, that MPs have. I know that the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service Commission are working to ensure that that upgrade occurs as quickly as possible. But just in the event that there can't be that type of remote activity in the next week, it was a prudent thing today, but I do appreciate the Speaker making the proper point that there is another usual way to do it, and in these unusual circumstances, I think the House did the right thing today. 
So I conclude my remarks by saying that the National Party supports the decision to introduce these relatively straightforward changes to our Standing Orders for the remaining session of this Parliament. I think it will enable us as a Parliament to convey that confidence that New Zealanders will be looking for.
Motion agreed to.





ELECTORAL (REGISTRATION OF SENTENCED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILL
Instruction to Justice Committee
Debate resumed from 18 March.
Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I'll stand to take a call on this bill. Again, I think that we find ourselves in extraordinary times. I'm actually embarrassed that I'm even standing in the House speaking to this bill, a bill about giving prisoners the right to have the vote back, or, more accurately, prisoners that are sentenced to less than three years who will be coming out in that electoral cycle. In all honestly, if the Government really believed in this, if you actually really believed in the fact that you feel like there's a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or if you really believed in the report that came out from the Waitangi Tribunal, then why aren't you giving prisoners the vote back, full stop? Why don't you just give them the vote? If the Minister of Justice stood up in the House and he said, "We're going to address the issue around the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We're going to address the issue that was raised by the Waitangi Tribunal."; you're not addressing those issues. If you're going to do it, why don't you just give prisoners the vote back? Sadly, I think it is political and that they realised that that was going be deeply unpopular with the public of New Zealand. I think that it goes against everyone's sense of justice.
Hon Nathan Guy: What does New Zealand First think?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Darroch Ball will not believe in this legislation, make no mistake about that. It's inherently against everything that he's—look, I have to acknowledge him because I've worked with him on some very good, strong law and order legislation over the last two parliaments. This is inherently something that he does not believe in, and it's against—
Hon Nathan Guy: Is he voting for it?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: He's voting for it.
Hon Nathan Guy: Well, how does that work?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: They've done a deal. For whatever reason, New Zealand First is supporting this bill. He made a speech yesterday that suddenly changed, and I said, "Oh, this is going straight to the pool room." To be honest with you, he didn't really address the issue. So we'll look forward to—I see we've got Mark Patterson in the House. 
Hon Nathan Guy: Well, what does he think?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I'd say that he's probably in exactly the same position. He inherently does not believe in or support this bill—like most Kiwis don't, because most Kiwis accept the fact that when someone has offended so badly against our community; when someone has broken the laws that we put in place that they will adhere to, that they will respect; when someone's offending has been so serious that there are victims and there is often serious violence involved and recidivist offending, they end up in a New Zealand jail.
It's hard to go to prison in New Zealand. That's a good thing. I actually think that the threshold should be quite high in terms of going to prison and going to jail. But the reality of it is if they offend that badly and they're in jail—they find themselves in prison—inherently, they should lose some rights. Kiwis feel that "Yes, the vote is a right." We have lots of rights. We have the right to freedom of movement—that's taken away from a prisoner when they go to jail. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: It's not a general debate.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: They lose some rights like—well, Mr Hipkins said that it's not a general debate, but if you choose, Mr Hipkins, to put a bill like this into this Parliament, at a time when we're trying to deal with something like coronavirus—
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a debate on a referral motion; it is not a debate on the bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. I appreciate your guidance and support. As was mentioned many times in the debate yesterday, your contribution must be about the instruction to the committee, not about the bill. 
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): My pleasure.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: You're absolutely right, and the Leader of the House raised a very valid point. I'd ask him or someone to stand up—in fact, I'd ask the Leader of the House to stand up, take a call, and tell us why you are going to force on this Parliament a shortened select committee process. What is the need for that? Why, at a time in our country when we're facing some major issues, can't you bring a bill—I would accept the fact if you put a bill to this House to deliver Penlink, a critically important piece of infrastructure in my electorate, and you said, "You know what, we need to do a shortened select committee process because we need to deliver this critical piece of infrastructure, keep people working, and actually try to catch up." when we've got a huge deficit now because you're being far too slow to act on infrastructure in this country. I'd welcome that. I'd accept that. But why are we debating in this House a shortened select committee process on a bill that gives prisoners the right to vote? 
I'd welcome the Leader of the House to stand up and take a call and explain to us why we are subverting and shortening a process. There is no logical reason. There is no logical reason why the Minister of Justice and the Leader of the House would ask this Parliament to engage in a shortened select committee process. 
I remember when they were in Opposition. I remember when we passed the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill in response to an external threat. I remember them standing up and challenging that hard, saying, "Why would we go for a shortened process? Why would we go for a reduced select committee process?" Well, the answer to that was pretty clear. It was national security. We had a major national security threat. We had to respond to it, and we did respond to it. And actually, I want to acknowledge the Labour Party because at that stage they had guys like David Shearer, who worked with me on that bill. He was outstanding. But I'm sorry, Mr Hipkins, you cannot come to this House with a straight face and look us in the eye and look the country in the eye and give us any explanation or any reason why we would be engaging as a Parliament in a shortened select committee process to give prisoners the vote back. What is the strategy? What is the reason? We haven't heard one. I doubt very much Mr Ball will take a call on this bill and want to stand up. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone from the Government does want to stand up and explain to us why you wanted to shorten the select committee process, but I'd welcome it if you did. 
We think it's perverse, and we think that it's especially perverse at this time in our history, when we're facing the types of challenges that we are facing. We should be coming together as a Parliament. We should be working together. We're committed to do that, but bring some serious legislation into this House that will actually make a tangible difference to Kiwis' lives when they need it most: right now, in terms of what we're facing and what we're dealing with. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to participate in this very important debate in opposition to the motion, and, if the motion is to pass, then I am in favour of Dr Jian Yang's amendment that would at least give the public another month to make a submission on this bill.
It's important to recite and remember how this Parliament works and why it works for the benefit of New Zealand when we come to a debate such as this. We are a country where people believe in and follow the rule of law. People follow the law in New Zealand because if they didn't we would have chaos, we would have no security of our property, and, in particular, we would have no security of our person. One of the reasons people follow the law is that they believe in the due process of this Parliament in making it. They follow it voluntarily, which is another great benefit.
By and large, we don't rely on the police or punishment for people to follow the law in New Zealand. If we had to do that, we would be a police State and we'd be a very inefficient society. In New Zealand, we rely on people following the laws made by this Parliament, because even when we as citizens disagree with the law, we know that it's been made well.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but you've had two minutes and it's more than overdue for you to refer to the instruction to the committee, please. It's a very narrow debate.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker, I am referring to the instruction to the committee to reduce the amount of time that people in this country have to submit on the making of this law. In particular, the reduction in the submission time that the public has undermines New Zealanders' faith in the law. As I was saying, people voluntarily follow the law even when they disagree with it, because they know that in this country it is made by representatives who are servants of them and who listen to them during a public submission process.
Now, I have sat on select committees—at least four different select committees in the last 5½ years, including being a permanent member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for that entire period—and I know that it is nigh on impossible to hear from New Zealanders in order to properly process their submissions and opinions in three months. The reason for that is that a series of things have to happen.
First of all, we have to give notice to the public that submissions are required. The public have to take time, and most people have lives, jobs, kids, and homes to run. They can't drop everything immediately because this Parliament has made a request for submissions. So after they receive a submission, New Zealanders have to make time to consider their views and prepare a submission and get it ready to be sent to the select committee.
Once they've done that, they might hope to be heard by the select committee. That often involves, for many New Zealanders who don't live in Wellington, travelling to the capital to appear in person if they want to be heard. If New Zealanders need to do that, well, not everybody has unlimited access to free flights from Air New Zealand, like members of Parliament. People often make quite a sacrifice to present to select committees.
I remember people who came to speak to the select committee—the Education and Science Committee, as it was at the time—about the partnership schools kura hourua legislation.000000
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just give the member a second opportunity to speak to the instruction to the committee. Give it your best shot, Mr Seymour. 
DAVID SEYMOUR: I am outlining why it is so important that we do not shorten the time for submissions by the public. Now, if that is not in line with this motion to shorten the time the public has to submit on a bill, then I'm not sure what it is that we can debate about on a motion such as this. I'm illustrating that with examples of the sacrifices New Zealanders make to come and submit that they may not be able to if this motion passes. I'm not sure how else it is that I can address the motion. 
So let me tell you what these people had to do. They were asked, "When is your flight to Wellington to make a submission?" And the person who asked them—it wasn't me; it was another former member, I might add—was rather embarrassed because they said, "You know, we don't have flights. We've caught the bus from the Far North." That's what they did to come and speak to this Parliament about a matter affecting them.
That's the practical reality in a democracy for people who want to participate in the process of parliamentary democracy. If we reduce the submission period for feedback from the public on this bill, people in positions like that will be disenfranchised from democracy. That's what's at stake. 
Then, if people have been able to make submissions, the next thing that has to happen on a select committee—and I've been on a few; not as many as you, Madam Speaker, but a few—is that as members of Parliament, if we're doing our job, we have to think about what the public have said. None of this is radical; it's just what should happen. That takes time because as you know, members of Parliament also have a lot to do and they need to put aside time to read the submissions, to cogitate on them, sometimes to get other advice, and then to deliberate as a committee and make sure that the public's opinions of the law being made have been given due respect, because it's only when we give due respect to the public that they in turn respect this Parliament and follow the law voluntarily. As I've argued in this speech, it's critically important to the wellbeing of our society.
But for everything I've just said about why it is wrong to shorten a select committee process, it can sometimes be justified to ignore it, and the circumstances are not difficult to imagine. One day, when I was early in my time in Parliament, it was discovered by accident that it was illegal to issue speeding fines in a large part of New Zealand. We had to move quickly. We couldn't have a six-month deliberation on whether we should ban speeding on the Kāpiti coast because it would have been the Indy 500 up and down State Highway 1 if we hadn't acted quickly. In that instance, Parliament did act quickly. 
So there are times when it's OK for Parliament to act quickly, but that's when there is a specific reason why, and without going into the bill itself, I see no reason in this bill for us to reduce the amount of time it takes. The Government has had almost three years to move on this issue and it hasn't. They clearly don't believe it's urgent, but for some reason they want to legalise prisoner voting right before an election. 
Now, I've used the first nine minutes without getting to my main topic, which is this: we live in extraordinary circumstances. People up and down this country are in a great deal of uncertainty. I just went to Thorndon New World at lunchtime, and you can't move in there. People are not focused on making laws right now. People are focused on survival, on business continuity, on certainty, and on making sure they've got enough food in their pantry because they don't know what's going to happen next. If there was ever a time for a Parliament to start rushing through legislation, this has got to be the most inappropriate time that we have ever seen. 
I think this Government has a leadership role in New Zealand at the time of the coronavirus crisis, and it could start showing that leadership by stopping rushing through legislation in an undemocratic fashion. So I challenge the Government to withdraw this motion; make this law properly, like any other; and if not, then at least support Dr Jian Yang's amendment to give people at least five months for a normal select committee process. 





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The question is that the question be now put. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Webb has already moved that in this debate. I think the rules of the House mean that one person can move it only once in any debate. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's correct. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and I apologise for my error. 





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That's all right, Madam Speaker. Look, I want to pick up from where David Seymour just left off—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, but it might be better if you pick up with the instruction to the committee, if I could just recommend that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The instruction to the committee has become a total irrelevance in the last couple of days. We've just passed provisions in this House to enable a select committee to do its business remotely, and we've said that it's only going to happen when there is urgent business for the House to conduct when there are difficult circumstances for it to come together. Well, anyone would have to be completely blind or deaf or unseeing, in all sorts of sensory ways, to not know that that's where it's all heading. 
So one of the statements made to the House by the Leader of the House was that when we get to that point, non-essential legislation will be put on the back-burner. So this is one of the first pieces of legislation that would go on the back-burner. What we haven't heard in the argument for this particular motion is why it's so important. 
I'd like to know whether it is more important than the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. Apparently, it is. It's more important than the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. The Government predicates its whole dealings with the public of New Zealand on the basis of wellbeing, but the prisoners getting to vote first in the next election is more important than that bill. 
Then, there is the Arms Legislation Bill—the Arms Legislation Bill. A huge amount of posturing from the Government about a lot of very honest New Zealanders having to turn in their hunting weapons, etc., and being made to feel bad for even keeping the weapons that are legal, and a huge amount of select committee process up and down the country and lots of public meetings, but, apparently, the Arms Legislation Bill is not as important as the bill to let prisoners have a vote at the next election. 
Then, there's the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. How many times have we had members in this House from the Government stand up and talk about pay equity and equal pay, and the desire to balance that up across the workforce in New Zealand? But that's not as important as getting the parliamentary time cut down so that prisoners can get a vote at the next election. 
Most New Zealanders understand that when someone breaks the law and someone is sentenced to a prison term and the prison term runs across an election cycle, one of the liberties that's lost is the right to vote. But, apparently, that right to vote, for lawbreakers, or for prisoners who are serving their time—and, let's be clear, people who are in prison these days have committed criminal acts, have destroyed the lives of many people by those criminal acts, and have put fear into the lives of many people by those criminal acts. This motion is to ensure that those people regain that liberty—that right to vote—while they're still in prison. It's very hard to understand, and we haven't had one argument from the Government today or from the debates that were in yesterday to explain to us why it's so important that this House report back by 2 June on this particular bill. 
We know that if the circumstances that are prevailing in the country at the moment are exacerbated, then a look at the Order Paper will see this is one of the first bills that gets sacrificed. So there is no need to hurry. The idea is that the victims of the people who are currently in prison and are likely to get the vote out of this—families of the people who might have been brutally murdered, families of people who have had their whole lives disrupted by a criminal act of one person who's now in prison, people who have to endure their own kind of prison because of the acts of those people—may want to come to a select committee and make their point. It would be hard for them to do it, but they may want to do it. But the Government is saying, "Oh no. Let's whip it through." Even though we know that there is going to be difficulty with legislation in the weeks ahead, they still want to have it back by 2 June, because it is such an important bill for the Government.
I think the waste of time we've got this afternoon is a disgrace. I might be wasting some of that time by standing here speaking, but I'm not responsible for the motion being on the floor of the House. I don't set the Order Paper; the Government does. So on a day when we've had the exponential curve on the COVID-19 virus going absolutely north, we are in the House talking about the right for prisoners to vote. I don't understand the Government's motivation—I really don't. I look forward to at least one Government speaker—one Government speaker—standing up and justifying what this is all about.
Hon Member: Angie.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Ah, we've just had Angie Warren-Clark, who's just said that she will stand up and defend the Government's position. Well, I'll make a prediction. That speech will be "I move the question be now put.", or some variation of it. [Interruption] She's just told me I'm psychic. They don't want to justify it, because there can be no justification for shortening the time where New Zealanders can exercise their right to come to a select committee and speak about this.
What's also slightly ironic is that if it had been four months and two days, we wouldn't be here now talking about it. But they also know there wouldn't be time to get it passed before the election. Well, then that raises the question: what's it all about? Well, it's not going to make that big a difference. If everyone in jail in New Zealand voted for Labour, it wouldn't make that big a difference, and where are the prisons located? Helensville—is that going to turf the member out? I don't think so. Selwyn—is that going to turf the member out? I don't think so.
So it has to be about returning the right of liberty that comes with any law-abiding citizen or for any law-abiding citizen to criminals who are being punished for their despicable acts that are perpetrated not only on the individuals most affected but on the wider community as well. That is what's so hard to understand here.
So for fear that I might stray from the motion and suffer the wrath of the Speaker, I'll leave it at that, and look forward to Angie Warren-Clark giving us the justification for the Government deciding that this bill should be considered in this very short time frame, ahead of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, the Arms Legislation Bill, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and, frankly, an enormous amount of others on this Order Paper as well. What is the explanation?





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the date be changed to "6th July 2020".
Ayes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Noes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





REGULATORY SYSTEMS (TRANSPORT) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.
Keeping New Zealanders safe while they travel is a priority. Making sure that we have a strong regulatory system is part of that. The objective of this bill is to reduce the chance of regulatory failure and maintain the integrity of the transport regulatory system. This involves robust development of quality regulation that reflects considered choices about the right type of transport rules or regulations, the appropriate regulatory tools to use, and who is best placed to operate them. It is also about adopting a whole of system view of regulation. It requires a proactive, collaborative approach to the monitoring and care of regulatory systems. This means constantly ensuring that the transport regulatory system is fit for purpose.
This bill makes sure regulatory changes can be made in a timely and cost-effective way to deliver benefits to the transport system, as well as making some common-sense changes. These include: addressing transport regulatory duplications, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies in transport legislation; ensuring transport regulators have the tools they need to keep the transport regulatory system up to date and relevant; removing unnecessary compliance costs from the transport system; and amending the board sizes of transport Crown entities.
This bill proposes an amendment to enable the Minister of Transport to create transport instruments. Transport instruments will specify how to comply with a rule or regulation. For example, a transport rule may describe the need to carry certain safety equipment on a vessel. The instrument could then set out the specific information and certain standards that should be followed to meet those requirements. An example of this is traffic control signs. This is a highly prescriptive rule with the exact dimensions, colours, the images, and wordings of signs. The rule is updated frequently when slight changes are needed for signs in different circumstances. This currently requires a full rule change process when the change could be as simple as allowing two signs to be used at the same time on the same pole, or adding a new type of bird to a group of signs that instruct road users to watch out or slow for animals—for example, "Slow for bittern". These examples would be better set in a transport instrument.
This will provide a more efficient way to update detailed, technical, or frequently changing information in the transport system. The Minister of Transport would permit the creation and management of a transport instrument. The instrument is allocated to a specified individual, such as the relevant transport regulator, in the rule or regulation. The specified individual must be satisfied that relevant people and organisations are consulted for any proposed transport instrument. In the last land transport omnibus rule changes, 89 percent of those changes could have been made through various transport instruments if they had already been in place. This change leads to cumulative benefits to the transport agencies and the economy. Transport users will also benefit from having particular legislation more up to date, responsive, and efficient.
The Land Transport Act, the Maritime Transport Act, and the Maritime Security Act currently allow the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and the director of Maritime New Zealand to exempt a person or thing from specified requirements and rules. For example, the NZTA could shift an exemption to a restricted driver's licence holder who works an evening shift and would otherwise be breaching the 10 p.m. curfew that is set out in the driver-licensing rule. This is so the driver can drive home from work after their shift. This is an individual exemption in that it only applies to the named person or people. NZTA has issued hundreds of these exemptions.
Through engagements with transport regulators, the Ministry of Transport has realised that these exemption powers lack some necessary features and do not reflect modern best practice. In particular, the current provisions do not give regulators clear powers to grant class exemptions where a category or thing or person is defined. Changes in the bill specifically provide for class exemptions and will make sure that these are treated in the same way as secondary legislation—since they are, effectively, changing a rule for a group or category.
Changes in the bill provide powers to revoke set time limits, add amendments, and for NZTA to make exemptions from regulations—all of which are currently difficult or not allowed.
The current legislation does not give the transport Crown agency boards flexibility in the number of members like other boards have. NZTA must have six to eight, and Maritime New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) both must have five members. It's not good practice to have an even number of members for voting purposes, but the workload and scope of the NZTA board responsibilities has meant that the default is to have eight members. In the case of the civil aviation and maritime boards, the requirement that there be exactly five members makes for overly complex appointment processes and succession planning. The small number of members has also meant that the workload of members is too high, particularly when facing governance challenges. Recent resignations from the CAA board have cited workload as a key issue. This bill proposes that the number of members of the NZTA board be amended to at least seven but no more than nine members and that the number of members of the Civil Aviation Authority and the Maritime New Zealand boards be amended to at least five but no more than seven members.
This bill also includes three other matters that reflect regulatory stewardship obligations. These are: updating maximum fines outlined in the Maritime Transport Act and the Maritime Security Act for consistency to match those in the Land Transport Act and the Civil Aviation Act. Endangering lives should have the same penalties on land, in the air, or at sea. 
Increasing the time period that a vehicle can be impounded by an enforcement officer for the purpose of collecting evidence after an accident or incident—in many cases the current seven-day period is inadequate or puts unreasonably tight time constraints on inspectors to properly examine and return the vehicle. This will save police time and money, with investigators no longer having to work through the weekend.
Amending the Maritime Transport Act to explicitly include the Chatham Islands Council in the definition of regional council to enable the council to appoint a harbour master and enforce navigation by-laws. In a previous legislative change done under the last Government in 2013, the Chatham Islands Council was unintentionally removed as a regional council.
This bill will help ensure that the transport regulatory system remains up to date and fit for purpose, which will speed up changes and, most importantly, will help keep New Zealanders safe. I commend the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill to the House.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in this first reading of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Spoiler alert: we will be supporting this bill through to select committee.
But it is quite remarkable that here we are dealing, today, with a bill which extends regulation powers. It is not remarkable in the fact that this Government might produce a bill that does, but remarkable in the sense that this Parliament devoted attention, just after question time, to granting greater powers to make decisions outside of the complete Parliament, in the face of what is an unprecedented crisis looming upon us all. In doing so, the Leader of the House said that with that impending—some would call "impending"; it's certainly more than a remote possibility that we might have to exercise such powers—the Government would shrink back their legislative programme to only elements that are essential. I find it difficult that anyone could argue that this bill today is essential to the functioning of this country.
We could have been debating legislation that could have been introduced by the Government to give effect to its COVID-19 response package released this week. There will be elements in that package that will require legislative change—for instance, the Government has signalled that it's going to change depreciation claiming on commercial buildings, and, in doing so, Parliament will need to take some action. Why is Parliament not taking that action today but instead dealing with granting more regulation-making powers which take immediate scrutiny away from Parliament? How is this more important than that?
Which brings me to this Government's propensity to govern through regulation: all too often—in fact, in almost every bill that is now coming to this Parliament, they are riddled—riddled—with regulation-making powers. It's like a pernicious weed that infests our legislation, choking our democratic process, and, far too often, constraining people and businesses in their everyday lives and their commercial activities; so why this suite of regulation-making powers?
Look, if the Government gets it right—and, look, some of us on this side are not too confident on that—these changes can help for more efficient and effective transport governance in New Zealand. That would not be a bad thing, and we would support that—absolutely support that—but we shouldn't kid ourselves or the public, despite the examples that the Minister gave, that this is some minor level of regulation-making authority, that you can have more than one sign on a post or the like. "A transport instrument"—to quote—"may define terms, prescribe matters, or make other provision in relation to any activity or thing, including (without limitation) by listing standards, controlling activities, setting requirements, procedures, or means of compliance, setting competency requirements, or providing for exceptions." It is not a minor regulation-making power; the scope of how this could be used is both broad and deep.
Now, regulation is important in governing in New Zealand—it is important; there's no question about that. But what is important is that the scale, the breadth, and the depth of regulation-making powers are appropriate. So we want to look into this in the select committee—and, thankfully, this bill at least appears that it will get a full select committee process, unlike prisoner voting, which is only going to get three months, and the public will ask themselves what the Government's motivations are behind shortening that select committee. But this one will get the default six months, it appears. We will be looking very closely into just what those regulation-making powers are going to give the directors and chief executives, and into just what extent it could be used. We will be questioning as to whether there should be some amendment to curtail it. If it is going to be used appropriately and doesn't having such unlimited powers to cause great concern, then we would absolutely support something that helps to improve efficiency and effectiveness of our regulatory transport bodies.
The other part that I just want to touch upon, which we also have concerns about, is the increase in size of Crown boards across the transport sector. Now, if those increases are going to be used to add genuine, relevant, and specific skills that will improve the quality and governance of those boards, then that is not a bad thing. But it is a natural worry across a Government entity that increasing the size of the board could just simply add bloat—just add numbers for the sake of adding numbers. And look, it was a criticism of the last Labour Government that such positions were used to give cushy sinecures to former supporters, presidents, and others of the principal governing party in that administration. If that is what the outcome would be from increasing the size of these boards, then we would be adamantly opposed to that—and all New Zealanders should, irrespective of the stripe of Government of the day. It is not right. 
But if it is the case that these measures would be used to add genuine capability and skill that is materially relevant and would improve without question the governance of those organisations, then that is not necessarily such a bad thing. And so we have the select committee process to inquire into that, to ask very probing questions of officials, to hear from interested stakeholders and New Zealanders, and then we will arrive at a determination as a party whether we can continue to support this bill. 
I note some comment that it is simply a matter of small changes that don't quite meet the standard for a statutes amendment bill, but which are a little more complicated than that and deserve and warrant their own bill. Well, let's hope that that is actually the case. We'll look into it and if it is the case, then I'm sure we can maintain our continued support. But without question, we have some serious reservations and we intend to use the select committee process to delve into those. So certainly for the moment, we will commend this bill to the House.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it's a pleasure to be taking a call on this, the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill first reading. There's lots to be said, but I'm going to restrict myself to just, sort of, correcting a few things the previous speaker, Brett Hudson, said. Look, I know that on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee we sort things out. So when he said, look, they were going to scrutinise it, I know really we're just cleaning up what they just didn't do. So it's really that simple. It's some simple things, but very important. 
On this side of the House, or this curve, I'm certainly keen that we just clean them up. I mean, who else would forget the Chatham Islands and their status—being the only member along with, of course, the Māori electorate member for Te Tai Tonga, Rino Tirikatene? We know much better than to forget our cuzzies down on the Chathams and, Madam Speaker, you too have had some experience there, but not on that side of the House. They probably thought it was a Pacific Island. But no, they are Kiwis, New Zealanders. And so we are working to ensure that their status—not as a regional council, but to include them in there—is put back in here. This is actually really important. 
These amendments in here, these additions, are small things, but really, really, really important. When you talk about transport instruments they are quite technical. They're detailed, but I tell you what, when it gets all put into practice then you know, and you wish that you had the legislation on your side. There's no cosiness around Crown agency boards here. That's simply just a practical thing. In the paper it talks about numbers—just sizing them up in terms of not having even numbers on the board. That's practical. That's common sense. I know those boards must have been frustrated when things came down to taking votes on things, maybe, but it's also part of our Public Service standardisation across the service, including Crown entities, so nothing to see there other than to clean it up.
Look, I'm going to stop there and just commend this to the House and let's get going with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and work this through. Kia ora.





ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity this afternoon to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. But before I do get into my contribution, I'd just like to acknowledge that there are 28 people, unfortunately now, who have come down with the COVID-19 virus, and I just want to pass on our best to them and to their families and, of course, to the health professionals, who are doing such a fantastic job. 
So I do want to turn to the bill now. It is a quite simple bill, actually, and quite a straightforward one, and my colleague Brett Hudson has outlined some of the reasons why we'll be supporting it this afternoon. But the reason I want to take a call today is because I do find it quite strange that here we are dealing with this COVID-19 virus and yet here we are in this Parliament discussing the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. I accept that there are some changes here that need to be made, and Paul Eagle, our colleague across the House, has touched on some of those in relation to the Chatham Islands. But is it the most pressing issue that this Parliament has to deal with right now? Is it the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill? 
That said, I do just want to run through some of the provisions in this bill, and there are three aspects to it as we've heard. They are enabling transport instruments, clarifying exemption and revocation powers, and other minor regulatory stewardship matters. One of the reasons that I'm supporting the bill, at least at first reading, is because the bill talks about greater efficiency being brought to a number of regulatory transport agencies. And of course, one of those transport agencies that we have in New Zealand is the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). My view is that they do actually need to be improved somewhat and certainly have some greater efficiency brought to them because, you know, if I look across the country at the moment, at some of the very substantial transport issues that we have in this country, a lot of them just are not getting done. 
Right next to me here, I have my colleague Matt Doocey, of course, who's been lobbying for a very long time for the Woodend bypass, which is a much-needed project for road safety in North Canterbury. It hasn't been done. The Government, of course, have announced a very substantial transport programme across the country. It's largely ignored Canterbury and certainly ignored Woodend. Another one in my part of the world where this greater efficiency needs to be brought to bear is there's an intersection at the corner of State Highways 1 and 79. It's in the town of Rangitata rather than the electorate of Rangitata, but it is a serious concern. There were more crashes there last year alone than there were in the previous five years. So my view is that NZTA at least do need to be more efficient, do need to do a better job at some of those things and in responding to some of those issues.
The other one, of course, in my part of the world is State Highway 1 between Ashburton and Christchurch, which is—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry, Mr Falloon. I'm sorry to interrupt. It's a very interesting contribution. Could you just advise me which part of the bill is dealing with the Woodend bypass or Rangitata?
ANDREW FALLOON: I'm referring to the greater efficiency of regulatory transport agencies, which is in the bill, and, of course, NZTA is a transport agency. My view is, of course, that they do need to do a better job across the country. One of those things is efficiency, because if they're spending too much money on governing themselves and on being an efficient—unfortunately, they don't have enough money for some of these projects around the country. One of those is Woodend, one of those is the Rangitata intersection, and, of course, one of those is the road between Ashburton and Christchurch. 
Mr Brett Hudson talked earlier about increasing board size. That intrigued me, actually, because if this bill is talking about making our transport agencies more efficient, I would have thought the last thing you'd want to do actually is to be increasing board size, because as he so eloquently pointed out, when you do increase board size, that often has the complete opposite effect of increasing efficiency. Larger boards—certainly any boards getting more than about 12 or 15 people—do start creating more work for themselves than they're actually doing in terms of governance, and so I do worry about increasing board size and the effect that will have on the efficiency of those agencies.
I do just want to finish up though—as I mentioned before, Mr Paul Eagle, our colleague across the House, referred to the Chatham Islands Council and how perhaps there was a slight oversight when legislation was passed several years ago. I would just say to Mr Eagle that, look, we are fallible on this side of the House. If that's the largest mistake that we made in nine years, then I'll certainly accept that—certainly when you compare it to some of the mistakes that this Government's made in just the first 2½ years that they've been in Government. So I'll put it this way: I'll never forget the Chatham Islands, Mr Eagle, because I've visited there once. 
Dr Duncan Webb: They wouldn't forget you.
ANDREW FALLOON: Well, hopefully, they won't forget me actually. I caught quite a lot of blue cod when I was over there, so it is a place that is close to my heart. It does take a little while to get used to that 45-minute time zone, but it's a great place. I am pleased that this bill is going to restore their authority to be considered as a regional council and so, for now at least, I commend it to the House.





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also support this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. It is a good, common-sense bill. I think it gives the Minister some additional regulatory-making powers. And, of course, one of the main aims of this is safety—so we can respond to safety developments—and we've had a strong focus on investing in road safety during this course of Government and budgeted accordingly. It gives the Minister powers to create what are called "transport instruments", which will allow him to do a number of things and build some flexibility into the system. I note the Opposition have been looking to set a bonfire under regulation, but sometimes regulations are important, and these ones here look to give the Minister some powers to cut through some red tape and make it easier to bring in some common-sense measures—things like giving the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) some flexibility to grant exemptions around drivers' licences. We know that, for shift workers—maybe for drivers on learners' licences, restricted licences, there's a 10 p.m. curfew. It gives the NZTA a much easier pathway to creating exemptions, and we know, for our shift workers, with the likes of our dairy farmers that are working long hours or our agricultural contractors, having those sorts of common-sense regulations brought in will be welcome.
It also looks to reduce compliance costs. And, of course, we're a Government relentlessly focused on driving down costs for business. Also it looks at the make-up of the Crown agency boards and does allow, as the previous speaker, Mr Falloon, alluded to, the boards to be larger boards—no more nine for NZTA. The Civil Aviation Authority increased to seven. In terms of the NZTA, of course, they've had this massive, massive boost with our infrastructure package—that $12 billion. They're going to be heavily called upon to bring that package to bear, and so having the capacity to increase that board, should it be required, does seem a relatively sensible measure. And it also, I note, has the provision to increase fines within the Maritime Transport Act and bring them into scale with some of the other Acts. That seems appropriate, as we look to be consistent there, and we have to have a system that allows for some measure of making sure there's some adherence to the law, some consequences if you're breaking the law. So we welcome the increase around Maritime Transport Act fines, if they come to bear. It also increases the time, potentially, that police have to impound a vehicle—I believe it's seven days now—and police often have to work through weekends or whatever to work through their prosecution process. This gives them a wee bit more leeway—just small measures like that that do make a big difference.
And, finally, also the small issue of the Chatham Islands, which, I note, Mr Falloon dubbed a "slight oversight". I'm sure the good citizens of the Chatham Islands will be outraged that they were overlooked in the previous 2013 legislation. It is absolutely important that they are made to feel a part—as, of course, they are—of this country, and it is actually quite a slight to overlook them completely in that previous 2013 legislation. So we will put that right wrong—or that wrong right, actually! So it's not a slight oversight, but it is a slight that we will remediate. So, with that in mind, New Zealand First will look forward to supporting this legislation through to the select committee. There will be a lot of detail in this for the select committee to work through, and we look forward to assisting them to do that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, and I hope that that member who's just taken his chair, Mark Patterson, has got his rights from his wrongs. Maybe he'd like to spend a bit more time reading this bill to just double check that all the rights have been wronged, all wrongs have been righted, so that we have the right piece of legislation coming out of this Parliament.
There are three aspects of this bill—
Tim van de Molen: You're not wrong.
SIMEON BROWN: I'm not wrong, says Mr Tim van de Molen. That's very kind of you! There are three aspects to this bill. It enables transport instruments, clarifying exemptions and revocation powers, and other minor regulatory stewardship matters. And, of course, the National Party is very supportive of measures which help to make our regulatory systems work more efficiently. We've said that, if we are in Government, we'll be making sure that we have a regulation bonfire and that we will reduce the number of regulations by two for every new regulation that we put in place, to ensure that we can reduce the compliance on New Zealanders and on businesses so that they can go about their daily lives in a more efficient manner, but also in a way which saves them costs and keeps more of their own money in their own back pocket rather than spending money on regulations which simply, sometimes, only cause more inconvenience than actually making a real difference.
It's interesting that the Government has decided that this is their No. 1 transport priority at the moment. Their No. 1 transport priority is the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. At a time of economic and health crisis, where we have the COVID-19 coronavirus causing enormous stress and anxiety and health concern across our country, and economic concern, the Government has decided that it's time to fix up our transport regulation systems. Now, we support the bill, but surely there should be other transport priorities which they should be getting on with? Ever since this Government came to office, they first cancelled a whole bunch of roads, they postponed a whole bunch of other roads, and then earlier this year they tried to resurrect them, which is going to take many, many months of re-planning, reorganising, re-skilling, getting companies ready to tender for these jobs. In my electorate of Pakuranga, we were waiting for the East-West Link. It was meant to be started, consented, and now it has been cancelled and it hasn't even been resurrected. That is a real shame, and that shows that this Government has its priorities completely wrong. It might be one thing to improve the regulatory systems, but it's another thing to actually get better transport in place for New Zealanders. New Zealanders want a good transport system, not necessarily just good regulatory transport systems, and I think the former is what they want. Both are required but, if you think about priorities, the first is what they need.
Another point I'd like to make is that this bill increases the number of members which can be put on the New Zealand Transport Agency board, and we do hope that that is for the purpose of increasing skill and people who can support the aims of this legislation and not just the ability for the Government of the day to put their mates in cushy jobs. So we'll be scrutinising that very carefully to make sure that that isn't the case.
So we support the bill and we look forward to what will be a six-month select committee process, is what I understand. That seems like quite a generous time these days—
Tim van de Molen: That's unusual.
SIMEON BROWN: Very unusual, when it seems every single bill being put forward by this Government is being rushed through without regard to the democratic process that this House has set down, which allows for a six-month select committee process so that New Zealanders can have their say, put their submissions in, come down to Parliament if they choose, and speak to a select committee, and for that evidence to be considered to make sure the bill is better, and that the wrongs are righted. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe. Members of the National Party seem to have a very short memory. There has been a huge crisis in transport regulation, which this bill, along with companion bills, the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill and the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill, is going to sort out. We had thousands of vehicles which had to be recalled because their warrants of fitness were issued by organisations that weren't up to scratch, and those warrants of fitness were virtually meaningless. We had the late William Bell, who died because he was killed in a vehicle which had been certified by an inspecting organisation where the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) had significant concerns about that but failed to take action on.
There was a major review of the NZTA, which concluded that there were significant issues because of the NZTA's lack of a strong regulatory role and the lack of a single regulatory voice in the agency. And if I could just read from the regulatory impact statement, that review—which Martin Jenkins conducted, and I quote—"concluded that since the NZTA's establishment, significant deficiencies in its regulatory capability have developed over time, resulting in regulatory failure. The absence of a single and clear point of accountability for regulatory decision-making in the NZTA (contrary to many other regulatory agencies), and lack of established principles of good governance, have been significant contributors to the regulatory failure." That is what we inherited from the last National Government. This bill is part of the fix to that, because this Government wants to ensure that people are safe on our roads. That means ensuring that those organisations providing warrants of fitness do so properly. It means ensuring that the police and others have the powers to detain vehicles after crashes to ensure that the causes of those crashes are properly identified, and this bill provides a power there.
National, with its "regulatory bonfire", its approach to laissez-faire government, does not hold the safety of the citizens of New Zealand as the highest priority—this Government does. That is what is informing the whole response to COVID-19, and that is what is also at the heart of this bill as part of two other measures to actually improve the regulatory system in transport. So the Green Party supports the bill because it is providing those changes that are much needed, and the National Party, by always wanting to undercut regulation, fails to recognise that the Government has a major responsibility for safety. The provisions to increase the number of members on the board are to ensure that there is proper oversight of the NZTA. It is a big organisation; it has got potentially conflicting roles with investment and infrastructure provision, and also being a regulator. We are fixing the regulatory system; that is a priority in the same way that this Government is focusing on investing in road safety—those changes that will ensure that human error doesn't lead to crashes. That's because we're concerned about the safety of New Zealanders, and this bill fixes the problems that we inherited from the last Government. Kia ora.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a shame that the Green Party has to drop to those sorts of lows, to make those sorts of ridiculous claims, that a former Government doesn't care about the safety of the public—what a disgusting statement to say. Surely they can do better—it's an embarrassment.
Now, this bill is tidying up some of the relatively minor aspects, making a few changes to the regulatory systems transport space, tidying up regulations, and removing unnecessary compliance costs. We absolutely support that sort of approach. Anything we can do to reduce compliance costs is always a good thing, but actually especially more so now with the additional pressure that our businesses, that our public, are facing as a result of this COVID-19 virus.
We've heard, actually, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges, has made it very clear that regulations and reducing regulations is a significant focus for us, should we have the opportunity to govern after the next election. Indeed, getting rid of a hundred regulations in the first six months, under a bonfire of regulations, and every new regulation being a replacement for two others—these are some of these priorities that we have in terms of trying to make business easier for people, to reduce that cost, the time, the hassle, often, for people to participate. Of course, you've got to balance that with having the right rules and regulations in place, but actually, at times, I think we have—and clearly we have—gone a bit far with some of that stuff.
One I wanted to touch on in relation to this proposed bill, at its first reading, is around the exemption and revocation powers that are being provided to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), and Maritime New Zealand, and how that will actually play out in a practical perspective. I'm looking forward to seeing some submissions in relation to that—in particular, to understand better how we might tweak that, if need be, to ensure that practical application is as streamlined as possible.
We've seen and heard from previous members on this side as well, and others, around the increasing number of board members. Well, on the face of it, that's relatively benign, I suppose; the question will be what additional value do you obtain from having additional board members brought into each of those three organisations—CAA, NZTA, and Maritime NZ? If they bring in additional skills and expertise that can improve the ability to deliver the right outcomes for those organisations, well then that's OK, but we do have to be mindful that we're not just adding additional bureaucracy for the sake of it. And indeed, we've seen a strong focus throughout this on a number of those tweaks when actually, as Mr Brown pointed out earlier, we should have seen a much stronger focus from this Government on other areas of transport.
A key one in my electorate of the Waikato is extending the Waikato Expressway down to Piarere. It's a very dangerous piece of road and was missed under the last announcement by this Government when they came out saying, "Well, we're going to do all this additional infrastructure, and it's $900 million for the Waikato - Bay of Plenty." Well, actually, only $58 million of that is for the Waikato; the rest is all in the Bay of Plenty. And it's great to see the Tauranga Northern Link there finally being put back on the table after this Government foolishly cancelled it. It was ready to go under the last Government; still, it's been delayed two years for no reason. So, understandably, residents there are disappointed. But in the Waikato we've missed out on a crucial transport link there. The fantastic work that's been done under the previous Government in building that Waikato Expressway was great, and transport needs to remain a focus for any Government. So this regulatory systems bill, yep, makes some good tweaks, but actually the greater focus for transport under this Government should be on building those expressway projects in critical areas.
Vital safety improvements and economic benefits—those are the two key areas that come out of those projects and the delivery of them. So that's something, especially with the uncertainty of COVID-19 hanging over us. There are going to be jobs lost. There already have been some and there will be more. Anything the Government can do to provide additional impetus is welcome, and I'd commend them on a number of the facets they came out with in their recent announcement in terms of the wages, etc., to support that. But we need to see more investment in infrastructure as well, in these crucial projects that are ready to go. Roading is going to provide a huge opportunity, and I'd really encourage this Government to pick up some of those projects that the previous Government had done so much work on, scheduled, had in the pipeline, ready to go for a period of time over a number of years, and encourage them to crack on, get the work done, and create some jobs. 
So in relation to this specific Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill: some good aspects to it, some that we're going to need some clarity around—particularly those exemption revocation powers—but overall we're supporting it at this stage, and I look forward to having it come through the select committee.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, it's a real pleasure to rise and talk to the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. First and foremost, I have to congratulate the Hon Phil Twyford, who is obviously super busy with all of the amazing infrastructure work that he's doing currently on roads to actually bring a bill which is going to take care of some of the small but important issues that are overhanging and left over from not being completed by a previous Government. He's still got time to do those things while focusing on the fact—and we have had it raised, $993 million in my region for roads in the last announcement that's come out.
Kiritapu Allan: Massive announcement.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: We're looking—massive announcement. And in fact, just announced $54 billion—$54 billion in the next 10 years in this area.
So it is extremely important. It is extremely important that we look at the small things that are attached to this. So I think it's a lot of common sense, a lot of updating, modernising. And, you know, we are not putting a bonfire to regulations, because these things are important. They cut through the red tape; they do the sensible things. So I'm really pleased that this bill is coming to the House. 
And I'd also like to just take one quick moment to acknowledge the member from Rongotai, the mighty member who supports the Chatham Islands, and tautoko him in his comments about the fact that the Chatham Islands should be included under the definition of "regional" in the regional councils. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Maureen Pugh—five minutes.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I, too, stand in support of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill today in its first reading.
Now, I hadn't had anything to do with regulatory systems bills before, so the first thing I did was go away and find out a little bit about them. I did find that regulatory systems bills are a way of ensuring that the regulatory systems that we have in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment remain efficient and effective but also keep up with the modern world and do not become outdated, and, of course, that would reduce the chances of system failure within the organisation. Regulatory systems bills deal with complex amendments, as long as they don't involve significant law changes. That is in contrast to the statutes amendment bills that we often deal to, which are usually just minor tweaks within bills and don't have any significant policy changes related to them. But the best of all of these regulatory systems bills is that they do have, as one of their objectives, to create efficiencies, and that in turn relieves the burden of cost when we are dealing with some of these agencies and trying to do business with them. 
As my colleague Tim van de Molen mentioned before, the National Party supports anything that does eliminate some of that regulatory burden. And as a consequence, the National Party is supporting this bill.
Now, the regulatory system as we know it here in New Zealand does encompass three main modes of transport: there is land transport, maritime transport, and aviation, and we have authorities that administer all three modes of those transport models. But it was clear in the departmental disclosure statement that some of the powers within the Land Transport Act and the Maritime Transport Act and the Civil Aviation Act needed to be modernised, and this bill sets about to do exactly that. One of the discrepancies that was found was around the Transport Agency, the NZTA board. While with the aviation and the maritime boards the responsibilities and powers resided with the individual board members, with NZTA that resided with the board as an entity, and this bill will set about to make an alteration to that so that there is consistency among those three entities.
Now, the regulatory function is a very important role for NZTA, because it is a huge ticket item here in this country and it really is a matter of concern that over the past two years we have seen very little investment in the roading network in this country, so I am very relieved to see some of that starting to roll out just as we head into a campaign. But the scope, of course, includes the safety and the operations and revenue of NZTA. But one of the things that I did note in the reading material was that in order for some of the entities that do business with the NZTA, it means that for the likes of, say, issuing certificates of fitness or warrants of fitness or even driver's licences, we could actually see the bar being lifted for those entities, which would in turn mean that their costs are going to increase. So it would be a sad day if we saw that the regulatory functions are going to be streamlined to save cost, but on the other hand, we're going to see increased cost and some of the compliance that will in turn be passed on to the users of those activities.
We've got a raft of other Acts that are impacted in secondary legislation by this bill—what are we calling it?—the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. We hope that it will have a smooth passage through the select committee and I commend it to the House. 





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Thank you for this opportunity to speak briefly on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. I have sat through the entire debate while on duty and I just wanted to first respond to a couple of the criticisms of this Government in those early speeches. It was mentioned that amongst the challenges that we're facing with COVID-19, is this the most important piece of legislation that we could be debating? Well, National failed to lodge an urgent debate request on COVID-19 today. That would have been an excellent opportunity for us to be able to do that. So I do just want to make that point—[Interruption] I just want to make that point that there was an opportunity to do that today.
But this bill is important because it, too, is also about the safety of New Zealanders—the safety of New Zealanders on our roads. I know that there is support from the other side of the House on that, after having a dig about the importance of it, amongst other things, at the moment. So the purpose of this bill is that safety is a priority. It's about the smooth running of our regulatory system and that the regulatory system is fit for purpose. And what we know is that in the past it has been very ad hoc. 
So what this bill proposes to do is introduce a range of measures to ensure that it avoids any duplication, fixes any gaps, errors, and inconsistencies so that it is efficient and there are no inconsistencies in being able to roll out the regulatory measures proposed under this bill.
In particular, I just wanted to mention that I'm really pleased to see the amendment to the Railways Act 2005, and with the Government's announcement of $1 billion into rail—
Dr Duncan Webb: How much?
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —$1 billion into rail—and getting rail back on track, ensuring that the regulation powers are efficient and consistent is really important, particularly for Northland, where rail is getting back on track. And so with that, I commend this bill to the House and I wish the select committee all the best in their deliberations.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): I'm going to lift the tone of this debate up again, because I think the last thing that New Zealanders want to see from us all right now is bickering across the House. Of course, National supports this bill, so there is support on both sides of the Chamber for this bill. National supports this bill because fundamentally and at a principled level we support regulatory efficiency. We think wherever regulation is getting in the way of good decision-making, good investment, or progress for New Zealanders, we should be prepared to remove it or simplify it, and this is a case where that appears justified.
In its substance, this bill seeks to address regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistency. That is a good thing. The bill ensures that regulators have new tools that are effective for keeping the system up to date into the future, so that we're not just looking at the regulations for today but making sure that they continue to be efficient in the future, and it removes unnecessary compliance costs. All of these are objectives that we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support and actually think should be applied more broadly across our statutes. 
Finally, we acknowledge that this bill does have implications that require thorough examination and consideration. For example, the idea of increasing board membership of transport bodies could be a good thing if those appointments do ensure a better spread of expertise and knowledge. But equally—like, I'm sure, members on the other side of the House—we are wary of extra bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. So we think it's important the select committee examines this bill carefully, takes submissions from experts, and ensures it achieves what it sets out to achieve. 
I also want to acknowledge that our transport spokesperson, Chris Bishop, isn't here today, and I'm sure that he laments the opportunity to speak on this bill. So I will mention him at this juncture. National supports this bill. Thank you.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I just want to very briefly talk about this bill, and, in particular, just the important work it does in tidying up these regulations. I really emphasise the point that we absolutely need good regulation to manage people's behaviour and to ensure that the tools are there to respond effectively. Really, as opposed to the legislative work that we do here, the existence of regulations are there to be nimble, to be detailed, and to be responsive. Just noting clause 8, which deals with exemptions—that is to say, the powers of the director to exclude the applicability of certain regulations in certain cases—it is another level of detail, but when it actually comes to be applied, it is very, very important, and that's been clarified here. The fact that exemptions don't have to be given necessarily person by person, but they can be given across an entire class. So that means that we can do things like say that people in certain circumstances can drive outside of their licence conditions and things like that. It is very important work, highly detailed, but absolutely is the oil in the cogs that makes our transport systems work. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.





ORGANIC PRODUCTS BILL
First Reading
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I move, That the Organic Products Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. 
This is a significant bill for New Zealand's organic producers. Demand for organic products is high in New Zealand and overseas. The global market is worth $116 billion and, as of 2017, the size of the organic industry in New Zealand had reached approximately $600 million, an increase of 30 percent from 2015. A robust and practical framework is required to help facilitate and secure the ongoing growth of New Zealand's organic sector. The Government is committed to seeing the primary sector succeed and move away from a focus on volume to a focus on value. 
The purpose of the Organic Products Bill is to increase consumer confidence in purchasing organic products, increase certainty for businesses making organic claims, and facilitate international trade in organic products. The bill achieves this by enabling the development of mandatory organic standards and ways to check that businesses selling organic products are complying with that standard. 
The bill will apply to businesses who describe their product as organic, either through labelling or advertising, and where a standard for that product is in place. It creates a consistent and common approach to producing organic products, an approach that will ensure the integrity of organic producers, retain and enhance consumer confidence, and support trade. The bill is modelled in part on current practice in the domestic organic food and beverage sector, as well as international practices. 
The bill also increases certainty for businesses, whether by investing and innovating in the growing sector or by meeting a common, specified set of requirements. Presently, it's unclear which practices are acceptable and what evidence is required to demonstrate compliance in the organics industry. The bill enables a national mandatory organic standard that would provide clarity and, in turn, help businesses be confident in making organic claims. 
This bill will facilitate international trade and help us expand to new markets as it will make us more aligned with international practice. We'll be able to negotiate better, more secure market access. While the current trade arrangements for organic products have been sufficient to access foreign markets to date, they will not meet the demands of our key trading partners in the future. This bill is designed to be a flexible, enduring piece of legislation. It could apply to any type of organic product from food and drinks to cosmetics, textiles, and more. 
The bill enables any New Zealand ministry to become responsible for the regulation of organic products relevant to its mandate, including the development of organic production standards and administration, monitoring, and enforcement of associated requirements. This is important given the diverse and expanding range of organic products. 
The bill is flexible to allow requirements to be scaled depending on an organic business's risk, size, complexity, etc. This ensures that businesses are not unreasonably burdened with compliance requirements. To make use of the sector's knowledge and expertise, third party agencies, known as recognised entities in the bill, will carry out key functions under the bill, such as evaluation and verification of organic businesses. 
As with allowing requirements to be scaled for organic businesses, the bill also includes flexibility to reduce costs in administration of recognised entities—that's all I have on this speech. It says I'm supposed to have another page, but none the less, I'm happy to move that for the House to consider. 





TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): The National Opposition is happy to second that speech, and we'll support it through to first reading. Before I get to the substantive bill, can I just acknowledge the fact that our rural communities certainly are doing it tough at the moment with both drought and some real ongoing challenges with respect to the evolving COVID-19 situation, both in terms of market access and, in particular, actually, the ability to harvest crops and, one hopes, still to manufacture our key products to the world. We certainly expect the position globally to get more difficult rather than less difficult, and it is our view that we should look across the House at ways to be able to work together on issues relating to rural New Zealand to advance their cause at this pretty critical time. Any farmer listening to this will know that when the Government puts good ideas in place with respect to responding to rural issues and rural needs, the Opposition will be supportive of them. 
This bill, the Organics Products Bill, has had a very long gestation. It has been around as a concept for almost 10 years. In fact, one of my mentors when I was a much younger man and had hair and was in the kiwifruit industry was Doug Voss, who—I'm sure Kiri Allan knows well—is a big organic grower. He does lots of organic kiwifruit, and, of course, he not only was the chair of Zespri but then became the chair of Organics Aotearoa in a kiwifruit context, and then Organics in a horticultural products context, and for many years has been advocating for a framework that provides a discipline for all those exporters who have organic as part of their provenance to be able to align their quality product to. I'm sure we'll hear in the various speeches around the twists and turns of that journey, but I do want to acknowledge our Primary Production Committee chair, David Bennett, who was the Minister that started this process, and, of course, I acknowledge Damien O'Connor as the Minister that is concluding it. 
As I said, we support it. The organic category, in a total context, is $650 million and $400 million of that is export product, and, at this time, we need all the export product we can get. As we all know, our primary industries will be one of the key drivers ultimately of our ability as a country and a community to get out of the situation that we find ourselves in. So anything that we can do in this House to be able to support the efforts of, in this case, our organic producers to be able to have a framework, we support. 
There is an issue that we would like to signal, as the Opposition, which is that the framework looks solid. It clearly has been, as I say, a function of many years of effort and conversations of stakeholders, exporters, and successive Governments. But the standards themselves, which will be a creature of regulation, are very important, because they ultimately will be what underpins the provenance of that organic certification in time. So we think, as we reflect as a select committee on the framework that this bill enables, we should also have line of sight on the proposed regulations with respect to the standards so we can get a sense, actually, that the sector and the participants within the organic sector have comfort in them, see the merit of them, and want them to be put in place and endure. So as long as we can see that—and I have every confidence that we will be able to get a sense of that through our conversations as a select committee—I am confident that, ultimately, all the way through this process the National Party will support this legislation. 
I'll leave it there. I think I've framed up our position, and I'm sure our team will add to that as we do the speeches this afternoon.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It's a delight to be able to speak on this bill this afternoon. I just want to thank Todd Muller, the member who just spoke, for bringing Doug's name into the Chamber, because he has absolutely been a stalwart—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Can you give the full name?
KIRITAPU ALLAN: Doug Voss—Dougie Voss. The first time I met Doug was when we were having a good old debate. It was a horticultural industry event, and, my oh my, he spoke with such passion about the need for—
Todd Muller: Could you get a word in?
KIRITAPU ALLAN: I barely got a word in, but we won the debate, so that was good. But, you know, he and many others, as the spokesperson for the Opposition just mentioned, have really had their hand on the tiller in terms of being stewards to bring this bill into the House this afternoon. So first, can I commend the Minister who has played a leadership role in, I guess, galvanising and working alongside all the industry groups, the sector groups, in making sure that this legislation comes before us this afternoon, and, no doubt, in the Primary Production Committee we will enjoy some good discussions to ensure that the bill does strike the balance in terms of getting the regulations right. But I just want to acknowledge it has been a long road to get to this place today.
It was also really exciting that when the Minister made the announcement, he went up into my little patch of the world—Ōpōtiki—and met with Catriona and Mark White to make the announcement, and said that this bill would be introduced into this House. We have had the privilege in the Primary Production Committee of hearing from Catriona and Mark about the significance of the organics industry to our national economy and to our brand: Brand New Zealand. 
I too want to echo the comments of my colleague across the Chamber. In the interesting times that we are in at the moment, it is our food producers, who have an exceptional reputation, who will be a constant source—as they always are. But they will be a constant that we will draw upon for their skills, their leadership, and their expertise. So whilst we are living in a relatively uncertain time, I want to, in advance, thank them for their leadership, which I know will be an incredible contribution as we weather the storms that flow from COVID-19. It is the likes of Mark and Catriona and Doug and many others. 
I want to acknowledge the work too of Horticulture New Zealand and Mike Chapman and all of the team there, who since day one—since I was put into the position on the side of the House—have been championing the introduction of these regulations. What it means is that for the term "organics" there will be codified, regulated criteria that those who choose to use that term must adhere to. What that does for our food producers who export our products, we believe—and the feedback that we've had—is that that will secure their brand. It will add value to their brand as they market product in the international environment. 
My colleagues from both sides of the House will have the opportunity to hear from the leaders within the organics industries, both exporters and shop fronts right through to food producers, and I know it's a dynamic and discussion that's occurring within the organics industry now about all the various roles that they each play alongside each other. So I'm looking forward to that debate and those discussions. I'm looking forward to gaining their input as we undertake the task of ensuring that the regulations that we do introduce are fit for purpose.
Again, I just recognise the comments that my colleague who spoke just prior made in respect of red-flagging what some of the issues may be for the Opposition. I think that we can share in our collective sense that those are concerns that will be delicately held by both sides of this House, and I trust that the way that we have tended to work in the Primary Production Committee will mean that we'll get to a suitable resolve where we're proud of the bill that enters into this House on its third reading. 
So I won't take too much of the House's time, but I just acknowledge all of those that have fought for so long to ensure that the organics industry in New Zealand does become regulated. This afternoon is a proud day for all of them.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to follow the other previous speakers and just congratulate the Minister for bringing this forward, and also those like Doug Voss that have been advocates for reform in this area for many, many years and will be able to see that coming to fruition now. That's great news for them. 
When I was the Minister for Food Safety, we had this issue arise. The nuts and bolts of it is that basically in New Zealand, we don't have an international organic standard where you can say if it's organic food or organically produced food, and could actually verify that and say, "You can have confidence as a consumer in that product as being organic to that level." Now, that's not saying that organic produce food isn't done under organic mechanisms. 
There is a lot of auditing and procedure that goes into place. I've got an organic dairy farm, so we go through that auditing process each year, and that's a long process as well. But it actually is part of what is needed, actually, across the whole sector to give confidence in overseas markets that everything coming out of New Zealand will have the necessary strength to it so that people can rely on their purchasing decisions. This is sort of driven out of what's been happening overseas as well. New Zealand isn't a leader in this space at all. This has been something that has happened in many other countries as they worked towards a more consistent approach. New Zealand was slow, I guess, to follow in that area, and that's why it is good to see this bill coming through to tidy that up so that New Zealand is up to speed with other countries in giving some uniformity to the organic sector. 
Organics is not easy. We had Landcorp come to our Primary Production Committee and they indicated that they'd had probably a 30 percent reduction in production on those farms that were organic and they were transferring them through, and they're getting better results now as the technology and their understanding of it gets better. But, you know, this is not an easy process for anybody to go through, and it's a very delicate process as well for organic farming in the sense that if you have a shock to the system like a drought, it can often mean that people lose that organic status because they have to break those rules of organic farming. So it is a very difficult area. 
It's easy for the people in this House and in the wider community to say that we should all become organic farmers, and that's the future of New Zealand agriculture. But the reality is somewhat more difficult when you look at the scale you have to do that on for production, and also the risk that is involved in that enterprise compared with traditional farming methods. In saying that, though, we all recognise that New Zealand has to go further up the value chain, and this is part of that process to make sure that we have that support there for people to make those kinds of transitions in their businesses, to actually take advantage of potential opportunity. But that's another risk in that you might not actually get paid that much more, if anything. So it is a difficult area.
The bill itself is looking particularly good, apart from it has a large requirement that the Minister dictates the approval mechanisms for organic certification effectively. There are a couple of parts in the bill where that happens, and the National Party will be looking at that during the select committee process. We don't want to make sure that the Minister has too much power in that authorisation role. I think that it is better to devolve to the industries and to industry-type bodies. If you look at one of the major industry-type bodies you've got out there at the moment, it would be AsureQuality, a New Zealand State-owned enterprise. It does a fantastic job in New Zealand and is a very profitable business, as we saw come through the select committee. 
I would challenge something like AsureQuality to actually have a role in facilitating the transfer of farmers into organics, or whatever they have to do to meet more environmentally conscious requirements. That auditing process that's going to be on every farm needs to be in a cost-effective manner so that we can encourage people to actually take those transitional changes. I think if we just use AsureQuality as a profit-making business, as it has been in the past, it could have a delaying effect on the transfer of skills and the development of our rural economies. I think there's another role for Government: rather than just this legislation but also for it to look at how that legislation is actually enforced and the mechanism to do that, to make it possible for people to make those transitions and to meet the higher environmental obligations that will no doubt come on all producers over time. 
So this is a good start. I congratulate the Minister for getting it to the House. You know, it puts us on a somewhat similar footing with overseas approaches, but we are not a world leader in any sense of the imagination. We're behind the eight ball in this, and that was something that was good to see actually coming through. But we also need to be very mindful that we don't give too much power to the Minister in the direction of it, and we enable enterprise business and organisations that will develop a much stronger mechanism and take into account what can be done in the best interests of farming, to take a more active role than the Minister's role in this bill as it stands. So we look forward to some changes in that area as we go through the committee stage, but in the essence of getting New Zealand into the 21st century, I guess this is a good start.





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to offer, actually, a strong endorsement of this Organic Products Bill. But before I start that, I'd just like to echo the words of Todd Muller in terms of our farmers out there at the moment. We know there are significant issues with drought and uncertainty with the emergence of the COVID-19 situation. This is a critical time: it's peak kill in the meat industry and peak picking season for our produce. I see the first kiwifruit boat went away, and we need to keep those supply chains open. We will be doing absolutely everything we can within this House and, I'm sure, as offered, with cross-party support to make sure that we support our farmers in every way that we can during this situation. 
In terms of this bill, in New Zealand First we absolutely support this bill. I think to standardise the organic certification is, as I said at the start, a long-overdue and necessary step. We're one of only two out of the top 25 OECD countries that does not have a standardised system. For a country that absolutely prides itself on leading the world, particularly in our primary industries of agriculture, and horticulture, that is just not acceptable. It's a $600 million industry as it stands, and worldwide it's $116 billion and growing significantly. So it is an important part of our economy, but we need to give it the foundation stone and framework to reach an even higher potential. Of course, as we look to expand our free-trade deals around the world—the EU and the UK are very close to being on the table, hopefully—we look at things like non-tariff barriers and the hurdles that could be thrown in our road. This is an anomaly that needs to be fixed up so it's not an own goal of sorts as we look to work our way through those very complex negotiations. 
Of course, it is part of the wider efforts for a value over volume strategy, and I guess organics is almost the exemplar of that. As David Bennett recently pointed out, you can be 30 percent less production but you can get up to a 50 percent premium. So it's all about the premium: you've got to be able to get the premium because you are trading off production. So this standardised organic certification will help with that, making sure that we're underpinning that premium that is available in the market place. 
Actually, one of the proudest things I've done since I've been in this House is taking a very keen interest in mānuka honey and protecting the term "mānuka" for our honey producers so that only New Zealand mānuka honey can claim that term. The Provincial Growth Fund put in about $5 million there, and I think this is along similar lines. It's a framework. It's something we as a Government can do to underpin the commercial sector as they seek to add value for New Zealand. 
There's also, of course, the regenerative farmers. There's also potential, and maybe they could look to a standard. I'm not sure that that's something that is before us or in its gestation period, but it's something that we could look to do over time as well. But we have to, as a fundamental, get the organic standard sorted out first. 
There is, I think it's fair to say, a little bit of farmer angst over this. I think in the submission or consultation period there was quite a majority—about three-quarters—of farmers who were quite supportive of this move. But there are different entities that do the classifications at the moment, and so there are different qualifying regimes. I think that we will hear through the select committee process that in some of those regimes with shorter qualifying times, there may be a hole that some of their members fall into where they are organic and then, all of a sudden, they're not, and then they need to get to the new standard. So that's something that the select committee will have to look at and I'm sure will come forward through the submission process. 
So it's not universally popular, but I think as we work through the select committee we can make sure they get a fair hearing and make sure we land it in the right place. Of course, it's different standards. If you're exporting into the EU or the US, they have different import standards, so the different entities that are classifying at the moment can tailor their package to wherever their end market maybe is. By bringing it under one umbrella, so to speak—under one standard—we will help simplify that system for our overseas markets and our overseas consumers that need to have a good deal of confidence in our system back here.
Of course, it's not just food we're talking about; there are drinks, textiles, and cosmetics. One of the questions I'll have through the select committee process is I see that the standards will be overseen by the relevant ministry—not just the Ministry for Primary Industries and not just the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; it could be one of many. I just wonder whether that's the right way to go about it or whether we should have one ministerial oversight. But that will come through, as I say, in the select committee process. 
It does allow some flexibility. We will be looking for some flexibility in this in compliance costs, because I note that while we're probably focusing on the Doug Vosses of the world—the big end of town—there's also a lot of very small producers that produce to the local market, right down to roadside stalls. How are we going to bring in a standard that maybe can still reflect their organic standard without having to go through the necessity of a vast compliance process? So that'll be something that we will work through.
In terms of what the actual regulations look like, I go back to the country-of-origin food labelling that we did probably about 12 months ago, and that got very complex very quickly. I think Todd Muller alluded to that in his contribution. That'll be something that we as a select committee will have to make sure that we don't allow to get too convoluted. 
But I have a great deal of confidence. The Primary Production Committee—as painful as it is to me to admit—under David Bennett's chairmanship has actually been working extremely well. I think the Farm Debt Mediation Bill and the dairy industry restructuring legislation that's about to be reported back were examples, actually, of what I think the public would expect our select committee process to be like. They've been very constructive and, given the support from the Opposition for this bill, I see it being no different this time. So New Zealand First looks forward to that select committee process and supporting this bill further through the House. Thank you.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I thought it was worth going back a little bit in history to outline the background to this bill, because if you go back a few years, you could drive down the road in my part of the world and you could pick an organic farm a mile away because that's what they looked like—they were so different. That just shows how far the industry has come in that time, because it's now a massive part of the New Zealand agricultural sector and a very important part. 
I also want to go back a little bit in the history of this business in this Parliament, because it's been around as long as I've been in Parliament. I suppose my first education in organics came from a very well-known former colleague of ours in Steffan Browning, who, of course, had an organic vegetable garden on the window sill of his Bowen House office, he was so obsessed with it.
Hon Member: What was he growing?
IAN McKELVIE: Well—no, vegetables. I think that that just shows how obsessed he was with the organic sector, and, of course, he was the originator of one or two other bills that came into the House and one that successfully passed that Mr Patterson just talked about. But it's a very interesting sector, and it has grown a lot in those years. 
I wanted to comment, as a couple of other speakers have, on Doug Voss and Brendan Hoare, who put together Organics Aotearoa New Zealand in about 2012, I imagine—somewhere around there—and then spent the next six or seven years in Parliament pretty much every month, telling us what a great sector it was and how it needed to have this bill put in place that's finally got to Parliament. The reason it needed to have this bill put in place was because there were really no standards around the organic sector. There were standards, but they were everywhere and they weren't consistent and they were not consistent with world markets, and that's why this bill has come to the House. It did take a long time for them to convince the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministers that in fact this needed to happen, and David Bennett finally picked it up in 2017 and started some serious work on it.
It's a very important piece of work, and, of course, over the years the organic brand has been gamed by a number of people, and the most particular cases have been in the egg industry, where we've had a number of cases taken against the industry because they, in fact, weren't true to the brand they were using. That's quite a challenging issue for New Zealand, and this bill will put a stop to some of that, I guess, gaming of the organic sector, because it's most important that we have consistency in the sector. The big challenge for the organic industry has been in the international market place, because we haven't had a standard that's been accepted internationally whereas many of our competitors have, and they, consequently, have gained the market advantages as a result of that.
I'm not going to comment any more on the bill because I think it's been well commented on by our previous two speakers, and certainly by the other speakers that have taken part in this debate today. But I think it's a very interesting thing, and, as I said, I know how excited Doug Voss and Brendan Hoare will be to see this thing finally get to the House. I imagine they'll be hoping it gets through the House, because not everything does. But it is a good bill, and I'll look forward to seeing where the select committee gets to with it, because there'll be some challenges as they go along the way. I just commend it to the House. Madam Speaker, thank you.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Can I thank the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, for reminding us of the bill's history. In speaking for the Greens, I am delighted that the Organic Products Bill is being introduced and having its first reading because, as Ian McKelvie noted, there has been an awful lot of work by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ), Brendan Hoare, Doug Voss, and many others in the sector to get this bill to the place it is today, going through the Parliament. 
I think Ian McKelvie hosted one of the Organics market reports that OANZ has, I think, done several of now—at least four of them—to highlight to politicians, to Government, and to the media the value of the organic sector in terms of both the export industry and the major growth there, growing to have a value of about $600 million for the whole sector. It has been the work of OANZ to highlight that it is not just a small number of growers but an important part of our agricultural sector, from growing wine to horticulture, flowers, and all sorts of fruit and vegetables, and the contribution that that makes both to the domestic market and to our export markets. So I really acknowledge the work of OANZ; the work of Sue Kedgley, a former Green MP; the work of Steffan Browning in promoting national organic standards; and also the work more recently of the former primary industries spokesperson for the Greens, Gareth Hughes. 
We are in a situation where New Zealand is unusual in not having a domestic standard. We are one of only two countries, I think, in that situation, and the only one without a mandatory export standard. I know that that is creating issues in terms of organic produce getting into the United States, where it commands a significant premium of anything around 53 percent on conventional produce—and their Department of Agriculture having difficulty with the fact that there was no Government-backed mandatory standard, and, similarly, the EU requiring, from 2026, countries to have organic certification that's very similar to their own rules or that is recognised as an EU equivalent. So we have been constraining the ability of exporters to grow without this mandatory standard. 
As Mark Patterson mentioned, the bill is a solid piece of legislation because it allows different agencies to set organic mandatory standards for their sectors. The certification in the requirements around organic cosmetics would be very different from those around organic fruit and vegetables, for example. So that's really sensible. 
I would also like to pay tribute to BioGro, Demeter, and all of those involved in the existing voluntary standards and the work that they have done to develop those and the work that they have done in terms of the certification processes, which can help provide the basis for the organic standards that will be the mandatory standard that will be developed under this legislation.
So, given the support across the House, I hope that it proceeds through the Primary Production Committee with any adjustments in response to submissions but that it makes rapid progress, because it has been too long without a mandatory standard. I really acknowledge all of those who've put so much work into getting the bill and commend the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O'Connor, for actually bringing legislation to the House. It will benefit businesses and it will benefit consumers, as others have said, by giving them the assurance that where they are paying a premium for organic produce, it has been produced in that way. I think the diversity of the organic sector will increase, and this bill is providing, through that mandatory standard, opportunities for business and also for our consumers. So I do commend the bill.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would say that this is a bill which the time has come for, and it's a bill that's been quite a while in the making. I do want to commend the Minister of Agriculture, Damien O'Connor, for bringing it to the House, but I would also like to make mention of the Hon David Bennett, who started the process when he was a Minister. 
Now, Ian McKelvie spoke a few minutes ago about people's perceptions of what an organic farmer actually looked like, and that perception has changed over the years. Let me just ask you today, do we know what an organic farmer looks like—because, actually, in the House this afternoon, you're looking at one who's standing up, speaking. I can't take the credit for the organic transition, but I can give the credit to our daughter, Rachel, and her husband, Kenneth, who have led this process. So in declaring my conflict of interest in speaking to this bill, it is that I do have quite a strong interest in it. 
But what's interesting for me also is the process that we've gone through. We've always run a pasture-based system, and the system itself hasn't changed, but we just have a whole new set of products. I have to say the organic industry has come a very long way in a short period of time, and I do see the excited look on our daughter's face when new products are certified for organics. The time has really come when there is no place for people calling products organic when they are not certified organic. 
Now, Mark Patterson spoke before about the compliance cost, and with any piece of legislation there is always the worry about compliance cost. I am probably less worried, although we have to be mindful of it, but right now the compliance that our farm has to go through is compliance to the US, compliance to the EU, compliance to Korea, and compliance to wherever the product is going to, and as the country of New Zealand, she has that many compliance audits. I think it's time that we had a New Zealand standard that built into these other countries' compliance. There would be less compliance for exporting organic farmers than what they currently have now, and it would be a great alignment. I also think that the time has come to build the pride in the New Zealand product. It's one thing to say that we're an organic farming business, but if we could say we were a New Zealand - certified organic farming business, the pride in that would be so much greater than what it is now. 
So I'm really pleased to say that National supports this piece of legislation. It's a good piece of legislation, and I commend the team. I know there's been a lot of work gone into getting it to this point, because I've had a number of conversations with people. So I'm not going to speak any further this afternoon, because I think it's important that this first reading gets passed so that we can start working on the next part of the process. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: So this is a split call. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that if one stands in this House, one will see everything. I notice that my cousin the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O'Connor, brought in this bill, and the previous speaker was talking about compliance. I know that his father had probably one of the least compliant cowsheds on the West Coast, and I know that my own father had probably one of the second-least compliant. There were many yellow stickers. 
It's a great irony that we see Mark Patterson and Ian McKelvie standing here waxing lyrical about organic farming. Things do progress. 
So as I read through this, I actually have to say that I didn't realise that we didn't have a national organic—certainly, every time I've picked up organic products, I've looked for the certification. So it will be great news to many New Zealanders watching to see that we will now have faith that we are now going to what clearly is an idea that has its day. To know how overdue it is, the fact that we can see some of the people who are agreeing with this just gives some idea of how overdue it is. I commend this bill to the House. 





Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Just before I comment on the Organic Products Bill that we've got in front of us this afternoon, I just want to acknowledge that this week we've been talking a lot about COVID-19. I just want to take just a small moment to acknowledge the people in my electorate who, right now, in Kāpiti and Horowhenua are quite worried about it. I've got mates in the supermarket business up there on the coast, and they tell me that the shelves are being hit pretty hard. So I guess my message through to my constituents is to keep calm, as much as they can. The Government has announced a package, and there's a lot of resources available. I guess we need to stand, within reason, shoulder to shoulder—it might be a metre or two apart nowadays—but try and support one another to get through this. 
That brings me on to my next comment, which is when we think about COVID-19 and we think about this organics bill that we are debating this afternoon, it comes back to the fundamental, which is what is New Zealand's economy based on, and that's food. We are a great producer of food, whether it's organic food or not, and one thing that is going to be significant through this period of recession that we now find ourselves in is that farmers are going to drag this economy forward and out of recession. It is going to be very, very important for the Government and for this Parliament to acknowledge that food is vitally important to the New Zealand economy. 
We can feed about 40 million people around the world, whether that's organic food or other food. But, fundamentally, our farmers and growers are going to be the ones that pay the bills for this Government and for the New Zealand economy through this. They won't be able to get us out of recession, but I just want to spend a moment and acknowledge the good work that our farmers and growers do. 
What is important about this bill is that it's been around for a while. David Bennett kicked it off in 2017. I want to acknowledge him. I want to acknowledge Damien O'Connor, as well, for bringing this bill into the Parliament today and for the work that he and his officials have done. 
I was thinking back that it was not that long ago that we were debating the country-of-origin bill. That took a while to get through. The Primary Production Committee worked across the Parliament, through that select committee, to get that bill through, and I think, listening to the speeches this afternoon, there is widespread support for this bill. 
So I won't spend a lot of time talking about it, but I do have a little bit of an anecdote that's worthwhile telling about one of our neighbours not too far away from our farm—a couple of kilometres away. One of the local tributary streams that flows into the Manawatū River burst its banks and overtopped, and his whole organic farm was under water, more or less. I thought, "Gosh, what on earth can I do to try and support this organic farmer?", who is a good neighbour. So I picked up the phone and said, "How can we help? I've got a whole lot of supplementary feed on hand. You can take all that." He said, "Unfortunately, it's not organic.", and I said, "Well, we can take some of your cows to help you out a bit." He said, "Unfortunately, you can't, or that'll mean our certification is ruined and we'll lose our licence to be a certified organic farmer." 
So those that make a commitment to move into organics, they make it knowingly, and they know that it takes a hell of a long time to get there. It takes, on average, three to five years to get to the point where you can get certification. Part of this bill is going to mean that there are regulations that are transparent. There's going to be an audit process and there's going to be an enforcement—having lived through the mānuka honey situation, where there were all sorts of fun and games going on in there, and indeed some of that product that was exported wasn't mānuka honey—so this bill is important. It's going to mean that we're going to move the food that we produce up the value chain. It's easy for politicians to talk about it, but quite hard to deliver. 
It's interesting. When we think back to COVID-19, you know, there's been a lot of talk about adding value. The Government talk about it in every speech. I've listened to the Minister. What's going to be interesting with COVID-19 is there'll be a whole lot of people around the world that just want to consume food from New Zealand, whether it's milk powder—which some say is not value-add. But they'll want to consume it because we produce some of the best and safest food in the world, and I support this bill. 





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. How lovely and refreshing on a Thursday afternoon it is to have the Greens and National both supporting the same bill—must be a great idea. So we're the last country among many of our trading partners who do not have a mandatory standard in terms of organic products, and the sooner that we can fix this, the sooner we can capitalise on those benefits. I think there is agreement in general about that.
One of the purposes of this bill is to give confidence to those businesses to invest in organic production. As already mentioned, the sooner this bill is passed, the sooner those organic businesses can make those decisions and make a valuable contribution to our economic resilience, and how important that is at a time right now when we face a high level of uncertainty in terms of those businesses.
So, currently, New Zealand's organic export products to the US must be certified to the US standard, and this means that if New Zealand organic businesses want to export a product to our two biggest organic markets, they would need to meet two different sets of rules. It's about time that we sorted that out. This is a good bill. It helps New Zealand businesses do what they're already good at doing in a more certain area, and I commend it to the House.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take the last call on behalf of the National Party on the Organic Products Bill. Before I delve into that, though, I also want to just make a couple of acknowledgments. We are in uncertain times, and certainly in the Waikato we've just had our first two cases of COVID-19. There's a lot of concern around where that might be and the implications of that, so my thoughts are with those constituents. But actually, on top of that, whilst this is terrible, there's still a drought as well. We haven't seen that so much in the media this week, but it is still very much impacting on farmers across the country, and I'd just like to remind the House and the public of that as well.
So this bill provides a good opportunity. When we think about the challenges ahead of us, agriculture has always underpinned the economy. I'm confident that it will continue to, and having a strong platform to operate from is crucial to minimising the depth of the recession that we end up in. This particular bill can help play a part in that in terms of having a more structured regulatory environment that's consistent across the board for all organic operators in New Zealand to meet those same criteria so that everyone's on the same page. It helps in terms of market access internationally, which is going to be vital for us when we're looking at maximising our return for the economy. But actually, from a domestic perspective, it helps encourage people to perhaps look at getting into organic farming, if they hadn't considered it previously.
Having a more consistent framework will support that but also it will give the banks a bit more confidence to lend to the sector. Banks are always cautious with lending decisions, and I spent a number of years in rural banking myself. When you think about our sector, that doesn't have a clear set of guidelines or a consistent framework across the country, of course the banks will exhibit a bit more caution when they come to considering lending decisions in relation to a business proposal for such a sector. So this will help in that regard as well.
But it is a growing market, and we've heard the numbers already: $116 billion internationally. That is a massive opportunity. We're only capturing $600 million of that so far in New Zealand, but with growing markets in organic wine as well as our standard dairy, meat, and wool products, and, of course, a whole range of other areas that are starting to come through now as well—we've got $140 million from fresh fruit and vegetables, which is leading the charge for us. 
So there are some good opportunities here, and I'd just like to acknowledge a little win in the horticulture space up in our area. Again, plan change 1 is going through at the moment, a bit of an easing for horticulture, some additional opportunities for them there—which is crucial, again, when we think about food production and the value and importance of that to our economy.
So look, I think, overall, this is good. It's great to see it here now. It's taken a few years to get to this point, but I'm encouraged by it, and I would encourage anyone with an interest in this area to submit on that and to get involved in the select committee process so that we can ensure this piece of legislation comes out in the best possible form to provide a most advantageous platform for our existing organic industry and those who may also wish to join it, to help us get through this impact of COVID-19.
I'd also just like to finish by encouraging the Government to consider the importance of the food production industries in New Zealand, and especially in relation to the impetus and support that might provide to the economy in these trying times and, therefore, what potential impositions or changes to regulations might be imposed on them over the coming months. Agriculture is going to stand up and support this country yet again, and this bill will help to play a little part in that. So I commend it to the House.





Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I felt a little disappointed that I wasn't able to introduce the bill. But I'm sure my ministerial colleague did a great job of introducing a bill that I have to say—thankfully—is supported, I think, by all parties in the House. It is wonderful after what has been a very challenging time for Parliament and for New Zealand, I guess, to bring to the House a piece of legislation that is supported by all.
Look, I'm not going to take too much time other than to say it wouldn't have always been like this. Organics were seen as a bit of a fringe thing for quite a long time, and we could probably go back 15 years, or even 20 years. 
I have to say, there are people I would like to acknowledge. When we came into Government in 1999, we initiated an inquiry into the organics industry and its potential, and we identified that. There were a couple of people who were—one was consistent, and that was Jeanette Fitzsimons. I'd like to acknowledge her. It's sad to see her passing, and I'm sure she would have enjoyed seeing the passage of this legislation. She was consistent in her advocacy for organics. The other person who was perhaps persistent was Steffan Browning. I think he's been acknowledged in this House. He did always, always push, push, push, and still does, and we welcome that kind of advocacy.
Of course, he has been followed by people like Brendan Hoare in the industry, who, I guess, have been knocking on our door saying that we desperately need this single standard to give consistency, to give certainty, and, ultimately, to give extra benefit to New Zealanders. We have—as I think Barbara Kuriger said—people in this House who are managing kind of organic farming systems. The vast majority of New Zealand farming systems, with a little bit of tweaking, could probably be called organic, and there is a premium in the market. I have to say that with COVID-19, there will be more focus on healthy food and safe food as we go forward. So we're ensuring that organic, which has been perceived as safer, has to be safer because of the production systems that we're going to use, and this is what this legislation's about. We did ask the question whether our export standards should be consistent with our domestic standards. The feedback was, "Yes, they should be.", and so we are pushing ahead with that one consistent standard.
So I'm not going to take any more time. I think members prior to me have said about the potential for organics to grow that it is consistently outstripping the growth of consumption in almost all other food markets around the world. So if we're going to seize the opportunity to get more from what farmers do—not ask them to do more—then we have to push ahead in niche markets like organics, which is growing. We don't have enough product to feed the people or supply that demand, so we've just got to get on and do what we can. We have, as a Government, a commitment to try and turn our farmers into the best farmers for the world, and having the organic standard that has integrity, that is consistent, and that backs up their efforts is one major step forward in the process to become not just the best farmers in the world but the best farmers for the world, and make sure that they have enduring and sustainable farming systems that give them the returns for their efforts, protect our environment, and ensure that we can do our part in feeding the world. Kia ora.
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.





CHILD SUPPORT AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 11 August 2020.
The Government wants to ensure that all New Zealanders have an equal opportunity to participate in and contribute to society. The child support scheme is intended as a back up when parents do not live together and are struggling to come to an arrangement. Ensuring that children continue to be financially supported by their parents, even when they don't live together, is critical to the outcome for children and their families. The scheme currently helps provide financial support to around about 185,000 New Zealand children. We have an obligation to those children to ensure that the child support system works as smoothly and efficiently as possible. The fundamentals of the scheme are sound, but how the rules are administered can be improved. That is why I'm proud to introduce this bill.
The bill will improve the administration of the scheme by introducing fairer and more efficient and effective penalty rules, compulsory deductions of child support from source deduction payments made by an employer for newly liable parents, a fairer definition of "income" used for child support purposes, and a four-year time bar on the reassessment of child support. The bill also includes a number of technical amendments to help Inland Revenue work better with customers, including those in unusual circumstances. Some of the proposals are aimed at helping the liable parent get it right from the start, and others are aimed at removing uncertainty for parents. All of the proposals will form part of the Government's simplification and modernisation of the tax and transfer system.
Inland Revenue has been progressively moving its various functions over from an old technology platform to a new one, and New Zealanders are enjoying the benefits of greater efficiency and simplicity. Next year, it will be the turn of child support, and that presents an opportunity to make legislative changes which will further improve the child support scheme.
For the benefit of members, I'll give you a quick run-through of the main features of this bill. Penalty rules: the child support scheme imposes penalties on parents who fail to meet their obligations—this is important. Avoiding the penalty by meeting your child support obligations is an incentive to pay, so the penalty must be substantial enough. There is a place for penalties but we need to impose them more astutely. At the moment, if a parent fails to pay their child support on time, an initial late-payment penalty is imposed. This is applied in two stages: immediately after the default at a rate of 2 percent, and then a follow-up penalty at 8 percent seven days later. There are further penalties known as incremental penalties, which are also added each month after the payment remains outstanding. The proposal is to shift that second stage of the initial late-payment period to 28 days after the due date rather than the current seven days after the due date. The intention is that once the liable parent has had the initial penalty, Inland Revenue would have time to work with that parent to get them back on track, with the objective of preventing the second-stage penalty being imposed. It proposes a grace period before penalties are changed for newly liable parents.
Compulsory deductions—members who have been watching the Government's Business Transformation will be aware that an earlier phase of the transformation introduced pay-day reporting. Pay-day reporting makes a more efficient and accurate PAYE deduction system, and it has been made possible by technological advances. This has allowed me to introduce provisions for compulsory deductions of child support by a newly liable parent's employer. This change will improve compliance and help liable parents get it right from the start.
The definition of "income": another way we can help make the scheme fairer is by looking at the definition of "income". When calculating how much child support is payable, the income of both parents is used, but the income from interest or dividends is not currently included in the calculations, simply because the amount of that income earned in a year is not known until the end of the tax year. That has changed now because of the Business Transformation, which I mentioned earlier, and now Inland Revenue has better access to more frequent information. We therefore propose widening the definition of "income" to include interest and dividends. That makes the scheme fairer as child support payments can reflect liable parents' true capacity to provide support.
The bill also addresses another issue of the "income" definition. Currently, it is possible for a parent's income to be lowered because of tax losses in the previous year, which reduces their current child support liability. One of the objectives of the child support system is that the level of child support payable is determined by the parent's relative capacity to provide support. Using losses to offset your income and reduce your child support liability is not fair, and so this bill proposes that the system operates using a net income rather than a taxable income basis for calculations.
The time bar: moving to another matter, at the moment no time bar exists for the child support scheme. That means that when reassessing a parent's income in order to calculate child support, Inland Revenue is obliged to go back all the way to the inception of this scheme in 1992; this is clearly inefficient and a waste of time and money, not to mention a source of uncertainty for the parents. The bill therefore proposes introducing a time bar for income reassessments, as currently exists for income tax. A four-year time bar would improve efficiency in administration and provide certainty for parents.
Technical proposals: the bill also includes a number of technical amendments which will also contribute to a better, more efficient child support scheme. These include proposals such as improvements to the estimation provisions to make them fairer. Normally, child support is assessed on a person's income from the previous year; however, people whose income has decreased by 15 percent or more can provide Inland Revenue with an estimate of their current year income to base their child support assessments on. If a person makes an assessment more than once a year, they could be assessed on income which is actually greater than what they earned in some periods, leading, of course, to an unfair outcome. So the bill proposes an amendment to the end-of-year square-up provisions to try and arrive at a more accurate reconciliation for such parents. 
There are also changes to the way child support is calculated in certain situations. For some households in the child support scheme there is a shared care arrangement, where one or more children live with one parent and one or more lives with the other parent. At present, there are special rules to try and allocate costs appropriately to each child according to their different ages; unfortunately, what this can sometimes result in is the household with the younger children being allocated some of the expenditure intended for the older child. So we are proposing to change these rules to ensure child support is allocated fairly to each child.
In conclusion, these are the main features of this bill. These changes will mean a better child support scheme, which means better outcomes for children and young people. If enacted, the proposals in this bill will form the final major part of the Government's transformation of Inland Revenue and the objective of the bill to support the Government's aspirations for the tax system, for the economy, and for our society. It is therefore with considerable pride that I recommend this bill to the House for its consideration. Thank you.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It's a pleasure to be talking on the Child Support Amendment Bill, first reading. I just wish the Minister of Revenue had talked with a little bit more enthusiasm doing that speech. It was informative, I must admit, but he just lacked a certain enthusiasm for this matter. I note that he said how he is pleased to be doing this—and he capped that off at the end of his speech as well. I am just so pleased he did too, because this bill came out as a result of a review undertaken by the previous Government in 2017. The big question I've got for him is: if this bill is so important—and I think it is; I think it is—why has it taken it so long to come to the House? Why are we just in the closing stages of Parliament—child support, something that is vital to families in New Zealand—and only at this stage does the Minister bring it forward to the House? I think there is a question to be asked there. 
The other thing I am disappointed about is I've heard that he is going to refer it to the Social Services and Community Committee. I am disappointed; the Finance and Expenditure Committee was looking forward to reviewing this bill. In fact, it has a rapacious appetite to be able to look at tax matters and assess them in the proper light of day, and I think it's unfortunate that the Minister has chosen to send it off to another committee, because tax matters should go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Anyway, I thought the Minister did a pretty good coverage about the key issues. This bill doesn't include radical policy changes to the whole issue of child support but it does have some very important elements. I think the first one is around the definition of "income". We have many situations where one parent is not paying their full due and, consequently, our children in those broken homes are in a situation where they're not getting the full financial benefit, and I think it's absolutely essential that the definition of "income" is appropriate and tidied up. As the Minister noted, what this piece of legislation does is clarify it—it brings in things like dividends and other income to make sure that when one partner is declaring their income and they have to come to an agreement on how much they're going to support the child, then it's important that the full range of income is taken into account, and any tax losses or those types of things. I think having absolute clarity around that is very, very important. I'm sure all of us here, all of us members who hold an electorate seat—and I must admit, most of those are held on the National side, so we see this more readily—have seen situations where one parent is not meeting their requirements. 
I think the other one is this issue around penalties. I think this is where the bill strikes a good balance, because what happens at the moment is, basically, there's a $5 surcharge or 2 percent levy. What it does is it gets rid of the $5 penalty and just says that if you're late, you initially pay a 2 percent penalty on the unpaid amount of child support, and that is appropriate. But where this is being pragmatic in the bill's approach is that it said under the previous stage, you had eight days to make a correction to get it right. In many cases, people are inadvertent about the way that they're doing that; not all parents don't fulfil the obligations. But what this 28-day clause does is it gives the time for both the parent and the IRD to recognise that there is an issue and to make good that issue before penalties start to apply, and I think that is a very good thing. 
There's also a built-in proposition around a grace period when parents initially have to start to pay their child support. There's been a lengthened time frame now to 60 days, basically two months, and, again, I think that's pragmatic. That recognises that when people are just in this situation where they're just starting to pay child support, they've been through all the trauma of that, all the heartache that goes with marriage break-ups or partner break-ups. This is, again, a pragmatic approach to that and one that, I think, is appropriate in the circumstances. 
The other one is around the reassessments, and the Minister spoke about it. I thought the previous rule was actually you could only go back five years—and the Minister talked about going back into the 1990s for one particular case. What this bill makes provision for is that there is a four-year period for going back retrospectively to make sure that if there are inappropriate or incorrectly calculated returns for child support, they can be retrospectively looked back over the past four years. You've got four years to make that application, but there are five exclusions, and that is the exceptions apply where information provided by a person in the child support assessment is fraudulent. The second one is where a person who's providing the child support has died. The third one is where a person should never have been made liable; there's been an incorrect allocation. Fourthly, amendment is required for the purpose of avoiding double liability, and sometimes that can happen. And, finally, a court order is received—that applies to an earlier period. I think, again, those exceptions create enough tolerance to reflect life—its circumstances—but also give adequate time for reassessments to take place. 
The final thing I think I just want to pick up on is this issue about recognising at what point child support is required and when it's not, and the bill makes the definition clearer. So a child cannot be deemed to be financially independent if they are under the age of 16. And the second thing is: if a child is still in school when they turn 18, there is a requirement to pay child support out to the end of that calendar year in which they have their 18th birthday. I think that'll be a bit of a discussion for the select committee, but I think this is a good bill to try to tidy up some of these very important matters. I know that many of the members of the House will face inquiries and concerns from constituents who have come in seeking clarification around that. And, on that basis, I think we will be supporting the bill. I'm just disappointed that we won't have the opportunity in the Finance and Expenditure Committee to be reviewing it in particular.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, was lambasting the Minister for his lack of enthusiasm, and he may well do; he's a man with the enthusiasm of a Jack Russell on methamphetamine often as he stands in this House, but it was a shame he didn't maintain that enthusiasm. He then turned to the perennial outrage of a Dr Nick Smith. So he does cover a range. But, Madam Speaker, perhaps back to the bill at this stage.
This, again, is a very sensible piece of legislation, and as I look through it, some of the main parts that will help—I think anyone who's ever been involved with, or had to assist, or had a family member who's been paying child support knows that what starts out as quite a simple process can very quickly, often through failure or through fault not necessarily of their own—all of a sudden, people get into arrears, and once people are in arrears, they get in real trouble. What I see here is something that will assist that—particularly those eight days. Once you're in arrears, normally the process would start after eight days. One would suggest that the very facts, the very situation, that put one into arrears are very hard to rectify in that short period, whereas going to 28 days certainly does make more sense. Certainly it gives the IRD time to maybe just find the person and alert them—alert them to what will happen if they don't resume payments.
The second part around Inland Revenue and the automatic payments, which currently exist—and, of course, with improved IT systems with Inland Revenue—is that becomes a much more streamlined system. However, what I do think is a good idea is that there will be those who want to have an alternative payment system for whatever reason, often privacy reasons—they may not want their employer to know they are in that situation. So, provided they can come to an arrangement with the IRD, they will be in a position to actually make such an arrangement—again, a very sensible provision. I do commend this bill to the House.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I've got a fairly diverse range of things to speak on this afternoon, from organics to this complicated bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill.
This, in my experience of it, is a minefield, and it's a minefield that Parliament has to be involved in. It certainly is a very contentious area in our society and has caused, I suppose, in my time in this business, a lot of inquiries to my office and a lot of complaints to my office. It is—as I said—a very difficult area for all of those people involved in it. And when you think that there are 164,000 parents liable for this—that's today; there's probably more tomorrow, liable to pay child support, and that involves 135,000 carers of whichever ilk they might be, and about 180,000 children—it's pretty amazing. It is, as I said, a very contentious area, and it's a minefield that the Government has to be involved in. It's a difficult area to get the legislation right on, and it will never please both parties—I'm not talking about the parties in the House—so whatever we do it can't really please those people involved in it. But, none the less, it is an important area, and I think that the changes that are made in this bill will improve it. They will make it a little simpler to implement, and I think the fact that the IRD transformation is taking place will certainly enable the calculations and the administration of the child support scheme to become much simpler and be much more successfully managed.
We certainly support the implementation of this bill, and a lot of the early work on the changes to this bill were undertaken during the National Government's time in office. It's taken a long time to get it to the House, and the reasons for that are pretty sound really because, as I've said, it is a very complicated piece of legislation. The problem with the system is that it's so easy to game the system. And one of the challenges, I think, for this bill really is to identify and make sure that it's equitable and fair. It's so easy—well, I don't suppose that it's easy, but frequently this piece of legislation has been gamed in the past, and it's very easy to change your income base. It's equally as easy not to work, and that is the most frustrating thing for the other partner. When one of the former partners—I guess I'm talking about one of the partners in paying the bill in this case—decides not to work, it becomes very complex and very frustrating for that piece of the family that's left wearing the bill.
So it is a difficult area to get involved in. I think that the changes that this bill proposes will be sound, they will make some progress, but none the less it will challenge the system as it goes along. There's a few frustrating things about this whole system, and one of them is for employers because, effectively, you've got to deal with the compulsory deductions—they then go through the system—and often an employer can end up with both parties involved in the same business as well. So you come front and centre of a battle from the sideline, and it's not always pleasant. But I do think that the bill, on the whole, will make changes that are worthwhile and, as I said, the Business Transformation scheme will make quite a difference to the ability of Inland Revenue to administer the scheme in a more equitable and fair manner.
It is a difficult area, but I do think that this bill will solve a lot of the problems in that area, and I commend it to the House, and I'm sure it will work its way through the process, probably with some difficulty and with some very interesting submissions along the way. There's no question the submissions will be contentious, to some extent, as well, because when you think of the stuff that comes through our offices on this topic, there will be so many and diverse opinions on how this should be implemented and how it should be put into law, and, when the law is finally established, on how it is put in place in a manner that is fair and cannot be gamed easily. So I commend it to the House, and I wish it every success as it goes through the select committee stage. It'll be interesting.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Child Support Amendment Bill, and, like has already been spoken tonight, I think this is an excellent bill for the fact that it makes stronger and fairer a system that already exists, and aims to provide a same home background for children while they might be going between two different houses—in trying to introduce that level of fairness. 
The difficulty in any legislation or system, or in such an area as child support, is tailoring it to such individual circumstances that—and, as members of Parliament, we will all no doubt be aware of individual cases, and trying to have a system that's flexible enough to meet the needs that are quite diverse for individual circumstances is a real challenge. So I look forward to the select committee process to hear, in person, from the members of the public to understand how we are able to improve the current system. 
This bill will improve the administration of the scheme by introducing a fairer and more effective penalty regime for rules. In addition to that, there are compulsory deductions of child support from source deduction payments made by an employer or for newly liable persons. Also, including in there a fairer definition of "income" is interesting. And I know that is a way I have seen people not providing child support when they probably should've—by having a more fair definition of that term "income" and what is included. There will also be, finally, a four-year time ban on the reassessment of child support. 
So I look forward to this bill going to select committee and I look forward to hearing from a wide range of submissions about how we can improve the existing system. I commend this bill to the House.





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I'm very happy to make a contribution on this, the first reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. It's probably good to acknowledge that when you come to talk about child support, there are real stories behind what's happened. And I think it's good that we can support a system, and streamline a system to provide better clarity for groups of people who—ultimately, at the end of the day, there's been some conflict, and there are children involved.
So I'm here to stand and say I really support the measures of some practical steps noted in this amendment, which ultimately will reflect some of the modern realities of this environment today. So clearly there are some good things here around enabling IRD to be able to provide a better system in processing this, and that's a good thing.
I note the numbers for New Zealand. We've got 164,000 parents that are liable to pay child support and 135,000 carers who are looking after 182,800 children. So there's a significant number of people in our community that will be affected by this bill and it's good that we can stand on both sides and support measures to make it a better, hopefully fairer, system for all parties involved.
I note some of the key changes in the bill around—they've already been mentioned by some colleagues—some definitions, which is good. The definition of income now includes dividends and interest. The other one, I think is really good to note, is the introduction of a grace period of 60 days where people who are new to paying child support won't be charged that penalty. Again, I think that's a good change. If you're new to paying child support, this is a very recent development in your life or in the life of that family, so I think it's good that this is acknowledged in this way, that there is some sort of a grace period as it's a transition for all parties going into the space of child support payments. 
The other change is that it requires a person new to paying child support to pay it by automatic deduction from their wages or salary by the employer. And I think that just helps to bring better certainty as well to some parties. So I think this is a good change, and I'm pleased to support this, and I'm pleased also to note the report-back date the Minister has indicated. I think you do need a good time to allow as many people, particularly in this time that we're facing at the moment, to be able to make a contribution in the select committee process. Actually, this is my select committee. I sit on the Social Services and Community Committee. So I look forward to this bill coming to the committee and to be able to get a good understanding of how people in the community, parents, Inland Revenue, and other parties feel about some of the changes and to get their feedback on that, too. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise, on behalf of the Green Party, in support of the Child Support Amendment Bill. A number of the previous speakers have alluded to how it would be very useful for this to go through at this particular moment, because this is a time when all New Zealanders are going to need a great deal of support, and, of course, those who are most at risk need the most support. So an improvement to the child support system which affects 185,000 children around New Zealand is most welcome. 
I just want to read something from the commentary on the bill. It says that there was a discussion document that circulated in 2017 which said the problems ranged from "unfairness [in the system]" to the need to address situations where "the person's circumstances are unusual or complex. Those problems can lead to dissatisfaction with the scheme and reduced compliance." I think that belies just the sheer frustration that people have with the current system. So I think, whilst most of it looks quite technical and so on, what it will lead to is a much simpler system that's easier for people to interact with, and I commend it to the House.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.