THURSDAY, 13 MAY 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi, kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní, mo tataki ange 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-e-'Otua, 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū, ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'aló pē 'e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ka ko homau fakamo'uí, 'Emeni.





BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thursday, 20 May will be Budget day. The Minister of Finance will deliver the Budget speech, followed by speeches from party leaders. I have given notice to the Business Committee that I then intend to move urgency. Earlier in the week, legislation to be considered will include the first readings of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) and the Plant Variety Rights Bill, the second reading of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, the committee stage of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House. I was wondering if he could go away and perhaps give some thought to the scrutiny that could be exercised by the House's select committees in relation to COVID-19, particularly in light of the Speaker's remarks in the last sitting period of the Parliament and in light of the Health Committee's determinations yesterday in relation to scrutiny of officials and also Ministers.
SPEAKER: That's not something that is a matter of the responsibility of the Government or the Leader of the House.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can I speak to it, though?
SPEAKER: As long as the member assures me he's not going to cause trouble.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): No, no, Mr Speaker. It is a matter that I consider regularly as the Minister for COVID-19 Response, and I can say I sat in the House for an hour last week waiting to get a single question on COVID-19 as part of the annual review debate and didn't get one.
SPEAKER: And at that point, I won't comment. Question No. 1 is in the name of Shanan Halbert—oh, sorry, we have general business.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: No papers have been represented. No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK: Petition of Anu Kaloti, requesting that the House urge the Government to create pathways to residency for normally resident migrant workers who have made New Zealand their home.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the inquiry into student accommodation; andReport of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Point-of-care Tests) Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border, Isolation and Quarantine, and Required Testing) Amendment Order 2021, and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021.
SPEAKER: The reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—COVID-19 Response
1. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What progress has been made on the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccination programme?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I'm very pleased to report that over the last week, we've ticked off a number of additional milestones in our vaccine roll-out. As of midnight last night, we have delivered 404,208 doses of the vaccine across New Zealand, an increase of 84,320 on this time last week. More than 125,000 people have now received their second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, meaning that they are receiving the maximum protection through their vaccinations. Just yesterday, we delivered 14,694 doses nationally, and overall we are tracking ahead of plan. Based on these statistics, we're expecting to hit the half-million mark within the next fortnight.
Shanan Halbert: How are DHBs currently tracking towards meeting their planned deliveries for vaccination?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The good news is DHBs are overall well ahead on their planned deliveries. We're seeing particularly strong performances from a number of DHBs. I want to acknowledge and extend a special word of thanks to Bay of Plenty, MidCentral, Capital and Coast, Hutt Valley, and Southern, who are currently leading the pack when it comes to delivery of the vaccine. My thanks go to all of the DHBs right up and down the country for the hard work that they're putting in. I know that some people are working very long hours in the vaccination programme, and they are delivering very good results.
Shanan Halbert: What vaccination sites have recently opened in Northcote and the wider Auckland region?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On Monday, we saw the opening of Auckland's fourth large community vaccination centre in the Birkenhead mall. That centre will have the capacity to vaccinate up to a thousand people a day, and it's in addition to similar large sites in Mount Wellington, Highbrook, and Henderson. On Tuesday, Auckland's first primary care provider, Waiheke Medical Centre, began its vaccination programme—they'll be doing up to 90 vaccinations a day—and yesterday, Auckland DHB's second Pacific-led site, at the Westgate Shopping Centre in West Auckland, opened its doors. That site's being run in partnership with the Fono healthcare and Pacific collective, and they'll be vaccinating up to 300 people a day.




Question No. 2—Environment
2. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Will the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management be updated to include a bottom line for dissolved inorganic nitrogen before becoming part of the National Planning Framework through the resource management system reform?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Last year, the Government agreed to "reconsider the possibility of a DIN bottom line of 1 mg/l (likely with exceptions)" and, in doing so, to revisit the environmental and economic implications. When I take a recommendation on a dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) bottom line to Cabinet, I will be considering the current requirements of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM) 2020 and advice of the scientific and technical advisory group. I'd also like to make the point that the periphyton attribute carried over into the NPSFM already, effectively, provides for a DIN level below 1 milligram for gravel-bottomed rivers. The outstanding issue is muddy-bottomed rivers. I would say that we have to be careful that we don't want a DIN of 1 milligram to, effectively, become a weaker target for gravel-bottomed rivers.
Hon Eugenie Sage: What advice, if any, has the Minister received on establishing a bottom line for dissolved inorganic nitrogen for fresh water when, in May 2020, the Government said that a 12-month delay would allow for a thorough review of its environmental and economic implications?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The advice I have is that this has to be taken into account with other measures relating to nitrogen contamination. There are already rules that prevent the decline of water quality or ecosystem health. There are rules to manage nitrate toxicity by directly requiring nitrogen concentrations in rivers to reduce to 2.4 milligrams per litre. There are rules to manage direct nitrogen concentrations in lakes, which has implications for upstream environments; targets to manage DIN in rivers to ensure bottom lines for ecosystem health like the macroinvertebrate index and periphyton are achieved; and rules to require that DIN levels are managed to ensure the health of environments downstream, like estuaries and wetlands. I think all of those things have to be taken into account, together with advice from the scientific advisory group.
Hon Eugenie Sage: When does he expect to be able to take to Cabinet a decision as to whether to establish a bottom line for dissolved inorganic nitrogen for fresh water?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I expect to be taking further advice for guidance from Cabinet this year.
Hon Eugenie Sage: If a bottom line for dissolved inorganic nitrogen is not included promptly in the national policy statement for fresh water, how will we achieve stronger regulation to protect water quality and the climate caused by pollution from intensive stocking and overuse of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, in addition to the long list of measures that I've already outlined, we also have a cap on the amount of synthetic fertiliser that can be applied to any hectare of pastoral land in any year. It's a limit of 190 kilograms per hectare per annum, which knocks off the top of that application bell curve. But sometimes I had reports that over 300 kilograms of nitrogenous synthetic fertiliser was being applied per hectare per annum, and that was unnecessarily high.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree that Aotearoa New Zealand needs to reduce the extent of extensive dairying and shift to more sustainable forms of agriculture to better protect water quality, soil quality, and our climate?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly agree that in areas where waterways are degraded through the excessive eutrophication caused by high nitrogen levels, we need to do better.




Question No. 3—Children
3. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister for Children: Does he stand by his statement that "The report from the Waitangi Tribunal aligns very closely with the direction I have given Oranga Tamariki"; if so, what, if any, are the outcome measures for success for that direction?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister for Children: Yes. The direction I have given Oranga Tamariki is that they must focus on enhancing relationships with whānau and Māori, embedding professional social work practices, developing a positive culture, and starting to entrust funding and decision making to Māori and to people on the ground in our regions. I expect that once I receive the report from my independent ministerial advisory board, we will have time to fully consider the recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal, we will put in place a plan based on my direction, and I intend that plan to include measures for success.
Dr Shane Reti: Is he committed to establishing a Māori transition authority for the protection of children, as recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I have committed to consider all the recommendations in the Waitangi Tribunal report. In regards to a transition authority, I believe support for the transition will need to be required, but think there is a better way to provide that support than the entity suggested in that report. 
Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree that the State has an obligation to remove children from harmful environments, albeit as a last resort, and will his direction change that?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On behalf of the Minister, I believe the Government has a responsibility to care for and protect our most vulnerable children, and the very serious responsibility which is removing a child from their family is one the Government must retain.
Dr Shane Reti: To what degree will any Māori transition authority be required to account for the needs of non-Māori children in State care?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That will be a decision that's made once the work of the ministerial advisory board has been received, and decisions will be made from that point.
Dr Shane Reti: When he said he was considering compensating parents who had had their children removed by Oranga Tamariki, what criteria is he considering for compensating those parents?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I don't have that information to hand. If the member would like to put that in writing, I will ensure the office gets back to him with an answer.
Dr Shane Reti: What is one measurable outcome of success for any Māori transition authority that the Government will hold itself accountable for in the first year of establishment?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While we're waiting for the advisory board to make its recommendations to this Government, can I say one thing: that any uplift, any child in danger, is a failure of our system to protect that child and that this Government will do everything it can to improve the situation at Oranga Tamariki, a situation that was started—Oranga Tamariki cannot be in the same condition as the previous Government has left it in.




Question No. 4—Disability Issues
4. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made about supporting New Zealand Sign Language?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): [Uses New Zealand Sign Language] Good afternoon, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I joined the Deaf and hard of hearing community to launch New Zealand Sign Language Week. This week is an opportunity to not only underline and lift the status of New Zealand Sign Language but to also celebrate and affirm the diversity of our Deaf and hard of hearing community. We're recognised as a world leader for our commitment to maintaining and furthering the use of sign language, and this is something we should take pride in this week.
Terisa Ngobi: What progress has been made to support New Zealand Sign Language?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This year marks 15 years since New Zealand Sign Language became the third official language of New Zealand, championed by the former Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Ruth Dyson. I'm pleased to continue the work of the former Minister as well as the progress we're making. We've increased funding to the New Zealand Sign Language Board. We're now investing $1.6 million each year to support them to promote and maintain New Zealand Sign Language. During COVID-19, an all-of-Government accessible communications group was stood up to make COVID information accessible through the provision of interpreters, and we've invested in inclusive and accessible spaces for the Deaf and hard of hearing community through our Creatives in Schools programme, for example.
Terisa Ngobi: Why is it important that we continue to celebrate, affirm, and recognise New Zealand Sign Language as an official language in New Zealand?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are approximately 20,000 people in New Zealand who use sign language as a form of communication and, of this, approximately 4,600 are Deaf or hard of hearing. While this week is New Zealand Sign Language Week, every week we must take steps forward towards improving accessibility, raising awareness, and building inclusivity for our Deaf and hard of hearing community. I'm pleased that New Zealand Sign Language continues to evolve and thrive as an official language of New Zealand.




Question No. 5—Corrections
5. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: Will he set a target for reducing the number of corrections staff that are assaulted in corrections facilities; if not, why not? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: I have zero tolerance for violence in our prisons, but I do not believe that setting targets will do anything to actually reduce assaults. We are working on an action plan alongside the Public Service Association and the Corrections Association that will be far more meaningful. 
Toni Severin: How many times has he met with the Corrections Association about assaults on corrections staff, and what actions did he take following these meetings to address any concerns raised? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question, the Government is working with the Public Service Association and the Corrections Association to develop an action plan in order to ensure that we deal with the issue of assaults in prisons. No assault in prison is OK. In answer to the first part of the question, I don't have a list of all of the Minister's appointments. 
Toni Severin: The policies that you were talking about to introduce—will these be introduced this year, so that we will see a reduction of assaults on corrections staff? 
SPEAKER: I'm just going to note that I'm not introducing anything—
Toni Severin: Yep—oh, sorry. 
SPEAKER: —and I'm happy to do some more advice to people about asking questions. But I think we've got the gist of it, rather than go over it again. 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The length of time it takes to put in place the actions in the action plan will, of course, depend on what those actions are, and I wouldn't pre-empt that. 
Simeon Brown: What does he say to the corrections officer who said, "I really hope this gets resolved fast, because I love my job and some days wonder if I will see my children again.", and why did he only request monthly briefings on this issue in February this year? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say to that corrections officer that they should be entitled to go to work without the fear of being assaulted in prison, and the Government is absolutely committed to working to address that issue. 




Question No. 6—Revenue
6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Revenue: Has he seen reports that tax relief has been included in Australia's Budget, delivered yesterday; if so, can hard-working New Zealanders expect similar tax relief in Budget 2021?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): All hard-working New Zealanders will be better off after Budget 2021, as well as Mr Bayly. I do not have ministerial responsibility for the Australian Federal Budget, but in terms of specific policy areas that may or may not be in New Zealand's Budget, the member will have to wait just seven more sleeps.
Andrew Bayly: Do hard-working small-business owners deserve tax relief measures in Budget 2021, as was provided in Australia's Budget delivered yesterday?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The problem with the National Party at the moment is that Tuesday's finance spokesperson asked us to keep a lid on debt; this day's finance spokesperson asks us to reduce revenue, which would increase debt. No wonder people are confused.
Andrew Bayly: Will Budget 2021 address the issue of hard-working New Zealanders paying more tax as a result of inflation pushing them into a higher tax bracket?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As has been said many times this week, the member will have to wait seven more sleeps.
Andrew Bayly: Will Budget 2021 provide tax relief for business owners purchasing new plant and equipment, as provided in the Australian Budget yesterday?
SPEAKER: Was it yesterday, or was it on Tuesday?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The same answer applies, but I would note that considerable support is being given to small businesses throughout New Zealand as a part of COVID. It is actually the main reason why debt has grown—[Interruption]—the enormous amount of support that was given to businesses generally, including small businesses, to provide wage support to their employees, and for the benefit of Mr Woodhouse, those payments were all made to businesses, not to individuals.
Andrew Bayly: Will Budget 2021 deliver any new tax incentives to encourage innovation and to create maximum value from intellectual property created by smart New Zealanders, as was provided in Australia's Budget delivered yesterday?
Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in the answer to my first question, all hard-working New Zealanders will be better off after next week's Budget.
Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out the Government passing the new interest deductibility rules under urgency as part of Budget 2021 so that mum and dad investors can have their say as part of a democratic process?
Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect to the first part of the question, yes. We don't intend to pass that legislation under urgency as part of the Budget. There is a round of consultation coming on some of the details.




Question No. 7—Internal Affairs
7. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What progress has she seen on New Zealand Libraries Partnership Programme?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I'm pleased to report that as part of the Government's COVID-19 recovery package, $58.8 million was allocated to New Zealand's public library system to deliver jobs, support the role of librarians in our communities, and provide free Wi-Fi access in public libraries. So far, 161 librarians have already been employed out of the 198 jobs made available through this funding. This targeted funding has not only kept librarians in jobs, it has also upskilled them to provide extra assistance to job seekers and to people wanting to improve their reading and digital literacy skills.
Anna Lorck: Why was Government investment needed in this area?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Libraries play a vital role as community hubs. They can be places where people can get real, practical help and stay connected, especially during tough economic times. This Government recognises the role that librarians play in communities and that local councils are facing funding pressures. The package also includes—
Hon Simon Bridges: Librarians' votes are very important.
Hon JAN TINETTI: —$13.3 million to support national library support to schools. This programme—
Hon Simon Bridges: Turn up the thermostat. 
Hon JAN TINETTI: —provides targeted services to children and young people in high-needs communities, including rural and isolated communities to help with literacy, learning—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know that the interjection was a very easy and obvious one to make following Mr Bridges' own interjections, but I think we'll just—
Chris Bishop: Well, thanks for the gratuitous commentary. 
SPEAKER: Sorry? I'm on my feet. What I would like—[Interruption]—no, it wasn't the member. It was the member on his right who interjected while I was on my feet. I think having that sort of interchange about forthcoming publications is not appropriate, even during this question.
Hon JAN TINETTI: This programme provides targeted services to children and young people in high-needs communities, including rural and isolated communities to help with literacy, learning, and the joy of reading.
Anna Lorck: What impact is this programme having in communities?
Hon JAN TINETTI: I have heard great reports from communities across the country of how this Government has not only supported jobs and community services during one of our toughest economic times but also enabled our libraries to lead greater digital innovation and enrichment of te reo Māori in our communities. For example, in the Central Hawke's Bay, the funding has resulted in the employment of two new roles: a digital inclusion programme coordinator to ensure all members of the community have access to digital services and are digitally connected, and a He Kura Kāinga coordinator focusing on mātauranga Māori collections and supporting learners and speakers with their te reo Māori.




Question No. 8—Health
8. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that as of 16 April none of the $25 million fund for tertiary student mental health support announced 10 months ago had been spent on front-line mental health services, and no additional students have accessed mental health services as a result of this funding?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I don't know why the member confines himself to the date of 16 April 2021—$25 million was appropriated in 2020 for a four-year period. For this financial year, $2 million was allocated; for the next financial year, $5 million was allocated; for the following financial year, $8 million; and in the final of the four years, $10 million. Because of the equity issues we have sought to address, a decision was made to start by funding services at Te Pūkenga and the three wānanga. The Ministry of Health and Te Pūkenga have signed the contract for $3.2 million for the period covering 19 April 2021 through to 20 December 2022. The $1.6 million allocated for their learners this year will be transferred in full to them this financial year. The remaining $400,000 of that $2 million allocation will go to the wānanga, who are still talking to the Ministry of Health about how they will manage it. So although the $2 million available this financial year out of the $25 million available for the four years from 1 July last year was not committed as at 16 April this year, it has been since 19 April this year. 
Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question on notice, so I'd like the second leg of the question answered, please. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Come on, "Sir Humphrey".
SPEAKER: It's not very helpful having that sort of support from Mr Brownlee, but I will ask the Minister to address the second part of the question.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In relation to specific services made to students, I cannot confirm that services have been made available, as the agreement was signed for commencement on 19 April this year.
Matt Doocey: How can the public have confidence in the level of spend when the New Zealand Union of Students' Association president said, "It's extremely disappointing that since this funding was announced, it has been trickled out by the ministry … it hasn't been allocated to services—it's not getting to the students who need it."?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can say of my successor in that role that I would have checked about the funding profile for the appropriation that was made. It was very clear that $2 million is available for spending this year, and it would not make sense to spend $2 million in the early part of the financial year and then have to discontinue services for students who need those services and need them on a continuous basis.
Matt Doocey: What is his response to a mental health provider who said in relation to the Government's cancelled tender process for this funding, "We are concerned about the process. It isn't transparent. No RFP means nepotism and no chance for a fair process."?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I would say to that mental health professional to read a few more newspapers, listen to the media a little bit more, because they will know it was fully transparent that the ministry was engaging with Te Pūkenga and the three wānanga to negotiate the provision of services to their students, who have a higher profile of Māori and Pacific students, where the gap has been greatest. So the approach that has been taken is a greater equity approach than would otherwise have been the case. 
Matt Doocey: Why did this Government announce it would "expand and accelerate front-line mental health and wellbeing services" to students, and then fail to help a single additional student for the following 10 months?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am genuinely trying to help that member. Look, I know it's hard—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! I don't know who made that comment, but it shouldn't have been made.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I will help the member again by pointing out the funding profile that goes with the $25 million allocation over a four-year period: $2 million was allocated for the current financial year, and it goes up sort of incrementally from there, so it was always expected that the services that would be purchased with that allocation from that appropriation would be at the back end of the financial year. I know members opposite are struggling to understand how this sort of thing works, but that is what sensible management of this appropriation calls for, and we are doing it.
SPEAKER: Order! I will say to the Minister, it's not his responsibility to point out matters to do with the Opposition in that manner.
Matt Doocey: How can the public have trust in any future mental health promises he makes when he can't even deliver on a vital promise made to students 10 months ago?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am very proud to say we are fully delivering on the promise that was made in an appropriation that allowed for $2 million to be spent—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. We're not going to continue if he's going to be shouted down in this area.




Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety
9. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How is the recent increase in the minimum wage helping working New Zealanders?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Working New Zealanders on the minimum wage have now had over a month of receiving the new minimum wage rate of $20 per hour, which means at least a couple of pay packets in which they are receiving up to $44 additional per week for themselves and their families. Investing in our people is a key part of our economic recovery plan, and this measure is lifting the incomes of over 175,000 of our lowest-paid New Zealanders.
Ibrahim Omer: Why was an increase in the minimum wage important?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Having a good minimum wage is actually one of the most important things that we can do to stimulate local economic activity because it gives the New Zealanders most likely to spend it more money to spend in local businesses. At the same time as we've increased the minimum wage, we've seen our unemployment rate drop to 4.7 percent, which shows that the more that we support our lowest-paid workers, the more that we can support our local businesses and our economy.
Ibrahim Omer: What are the flow-on effects of the minimum wage rise?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The increase to a $20 per hour minimum wage is boosting wages across the economy by around about $216 million. There are many Kiwis who earn the minimum wage who have gone above and beyond in our fight against COVID-19, and I think that those Kiwis—the cleaners, the supermarket checkout workers, and the drivers who have served our country so well—deserve decent, fair, and just pay to live in dignity.
Hon Scott Simpson: On what basis did he reject Treasury advice given to him to postpone increasing the minimum wage increase to at least October of this year, and then to do so by limiting it to just $19.75 an hour in order to protect existing jobs?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That advice was considered, and I came to a different conclusion for the same reason that I come to a different conclusion whenever that member and that side of the House say that we need to hold down the wages of the poorest New Zealanders. We have shown that the reverse is true—that we can deliver a good minimum wage for working New Zealanders at the same time as having one of the fastest-growing economies and the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world.




Question No. 10—Immigration
10. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes. This Government's priorities include keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. The Government has taken a tough decision to keep the border closed to protect New Zealand from a global pandemic. Closing our border was critical to keep COVID-19 out and keep our economy open and keep New Zealanders safe. We acknowledge that these decisions have caused difficulties for people, but they've also enabled us to get through the pandemic without large outbreaks, which continue to be experienced overseas. There is one statement I made in Tuesday night's annual review debate about the dependent children of residency visa applicants who are turning 18. For clarification, if a person in this situation applied for a student visa, they would need to pay international fees. However, they would be eligible for a work visa. But what I absolutely stand by is this Government's management of the border. Our border settings have saved lives, kept our economy strong, and are keeping everyone in New Zealand safe.
Erica Stanford: Could the Minister explain what visa an 18-year-old with no experience or qualifications would get that would put them on a pathway to residence?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: There are a number of options available to someone in that situation. As I mentioned in the annual review debate on Tuesday, I clarified that situation. Someone in that situation could apply for a work visa if they separated their application from the residency application of their parents.
Erica Stanford: Which exact work visa could an 18-year-old with no experience and no skill apply for that would put them on a pathway to residence?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I'm not sure precisely what visa they would go for. I'm sure there are many options available to them. But what I would say is that the situation with the processing of visas is a difficult one in terms of the skilled migrant category (SMC) at the moment, and I will acknowledge the fact that the demand in the SMC category has increased. The processing of those applications are not rubber-stamps; they are involved processes, and they should be. Also in terms of skilled migrant category processing, we have had an enormous amount of increased demand as opposed to forecast.
Erica Stanford: Will he now admit that by separating from their parents' residence application, those children over 18 would have no pathway to residence and no option but to return home and be split from their families?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member is referring to the issue that I raised in my answer to the primary question, I did not say at that time that they had a path to residency, and I have clarified that issue in answer to the primary question.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Would granting residency visas to the many migrants who currently cannot participate fully in society not be a useful way to ensuring they can be safe from any resurgence of the pandemic?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That is an approach that the Government has not decided to take. What approach we have decided to take is that for those who are on temporary visas for the likes of working holiday visas or supplementary seasonal employment visas is managing to be able to extend those visas in order for those people to stay in New Zealand.
Erica Stanford: Now that the Minister has admitted that there is no pathway to residence or ability to undertake domestic study, will he grant work visas to the dependent children of migrants who have finished school, but are unable to work, study, or volunteer because of the unprecedented delays in processing their families' resident visas?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I have addressed the issue around the processing delays for SMCs.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I will reiterate that the demand there—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Was that you, Dr Smith?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it was. I simply said, "Answer the question."
SPEAKER: The member knows, because I've told him at least 10 times in the past four years, that the responsibility for deciding whether a Minister is answering a question is mine. That interjection has been ruled out by a number of Speakers before me, and I just ask the member to learn. He is the father of the House, and I think that every now and again, it would be good if he could set a good example.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I have outlined that there are delays to processing for the SMC category. It does come down to increased demand and also the fact that some of the capacity of Immigration New Zealand that would normally process those applications is actually taken up by assessing applications for border exceptions. As to the question, that option is not under consideration.
Erica Stanford: Has the Minister directed Government MPs and their staff to not intervene in any immigration cases, and, if so, why?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No.




Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
11. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made about reducing merchant service fees for New Zealand businesses and consumers? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yesterday, I was pleased to announce the Government's next steps to reduce merchant service fees. It's more good news. Merchant service fees are the fees that banks charge businesses when customers use a credit or debit card to pay. A retail payment systems bill will be introduced later this year that will, among other things, require reductions in the interchange component of these fees as soon as possible. These proposed changes are estimated to save New Zealand businesses approximately $74 million each year and will have a positive flow-on effect to shoppers.
Jamie Strange: How do New Zealand's merchant service fees currently compare with that of overseas jurisdictions?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Currently, unregulated New Zealand's merchant service fees are almost double what they are in Australia. Looking further afield, UK merchants pay, roughly, a third of what they do here. These fees add significant overheads for retailers, who often pass the costs on to consumers through higher prices and surcharges. We will cap interchange fees for credit card transactions at 0.8 percent, which is in line with our trans-Tasman counterparts. We're also capping the interchange fees charged for online debit card transactions at 0.6 percent, and contactless debit card interchange fees will be capped at the current average rate of 0.2 percent. For swipe and inserted debit, it will stay at zero percent.
Jamie Strange: What feedback has he seen following his announcement?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I've seen a range of positive feedback following my announcement from retailers, banks, and the business community. Greg Harford from Retail New Zealand said, "For far too long New Zealanders have been paying high merchant [service] fees and it is fantastic news that the government is finally moving to bring us in line with other countries that pay significantly less". Tim Deane of ASB said, "ASB has been a supporter of regulatory intervention to help get the balance right for businesses paying merchant service fees, recognising that card payment networks are a complex ecosystem involving multiple payment and financial services parties." Matt Cowley from the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce said, "It is a great announcement as it complements the government's focus on making it easier for businesses to do more business online." Good news all round.




Question No. 12—Agriculture
12. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions, if any, will the Government take in response to the findings in its Our land 2021 report that intensive agriculture and urban expansion can degrade the quality and health of soil and increase pollution in freshwater and marine environments? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Our land 2021 confirmed that intensification of farming and urban expansion can impact on soil quality, freshwater quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and water availability. These pressures have been well reported previously. The Government's vision for the primary sector, Fit for a Better World, acknowledges the need for sustainable systems and improving environmental management across all of these areas. We're co-funding multiple projects to this end, while boosting economic growth and sustainability. Through the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund, we're contributing $10 million to trial and develop 12 farm nutrient technologies over five years. Through Jobs for Nature, we've invested $10 million in five catchment group projects to help farmers and growers in land restoration. The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment are developing options to implement certified freshwater farm plans aimed at better controlling the adverse effects of farming on fresh water and freshwater ecosystems. We are developing a national policy statement for indigenous biodiversity, one for urban development, and one for productive soils. We are doing a lot to move forward in this area. 
Teanau Tuiono: Is the Government's decision to delay restrictions on intensive winter grazing for a year likely to make soil health and water quality better or worse this winter? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There is a lot depending on the climate and the conditions through winter that does affect on-farm management, but what we have clearly said for animal welfare purposes and for freshwater quality purposes is that we want farmers to acknowledge the challenge to put in place best practice and, where necessary, mitigate any of the adverse effects of intensive winter grazing in all areas of New Zealand. 
Teanau Tuiono: Is he comfortable with the environmental impacts of the 600 percent increase in the use of synthetic fertiliser and the 86 percent increase in the number of cows on intensive dairy farms in Aotearoa since 1990? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Actually, over recent years we've seen a decrease in the area of farmland and the number of dairy cows and in the use of phosphorous fertilisers. What we have seen is an increase in nitrogen fertilisers, and that's one area of concern. There is now a cap per hectare on that to try and reduce the need for it, and, in fact, good farm practice doesn't need that amount of nitrogen fertiliser. So we're doing a lot in this area to ensure that farming can indeed be sustainable and that we've put in place best farm practice. 
Hon David Parker: Does the national environment standard (NES) now in force stop inappropriate increases in the area of intensive winter grazing by providing that those significant increases are no longer a permitted activity? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The NES does do this, and it encourages farmers to look at alternative practices to intensive winter management and caring for animals through the winter period. We don't want to see animals starving or having insufficient feed, but we do want to protect soil quality and water quality, and ensure that the images of our farming systems offshore are the best in the world. 
Teanau Tuiono: Does he agree that cheap supplementary feeds like palm kernel expeller (PKE) enable dairy farming to be more intensive than the land can naturally handle, and, if so, what will he do to reduce PKE imports? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: When the door was first opened to PKE importation, it was because we were going through a severe drought, and there will be times of the year and in different years when there is an acute shortage of feed. We need to make sure that animals do get sufficient feed. There has been an over-reliance on PKE, and the initial 40,000 tonnes that was allowed into the country has now expanded out to be 2 million tonnes per year. I personally would like to see a reduction in that and I think that both Fonterra, through its limits, and many farmers, through good, wise management, have been reducing the reliance on PKE, and that's a good thing. 
Hon David Bennett: Does the Minister stand by his comments in the annual review debate that it would be a subjective test that "images of water pollution and ill-cared-for animals would be sufficient for him to determine that there has not been adequate process"?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I hope I don't see any new photos; there'll be lots of old photos that might be bandied around of mistakes of the past. I'm hoping that we see no photos of what we'd call adverse or unfortunate farm practice. We're working with farmers in all parts of New Zealand, and particularly in Southland, to get alongside them to make sure that crops are planted in the right place, that we don't have too many animals in the paddock at one time in an adverse event, and that we do everything possible to mitigate any possible images of bad farming practice in New Zealand that might go out around the world. 
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. 
 





REPORTS
Interim Report of the Petitions Committee Related to COVID-19 Immigration and Border Policies
SPEAKER: Members, we now come to the debate on the Interim report of the Petitions Committee related to COVID-19 immigration and border policies. I call on the Chairperson of the Petitions Committee to move that the House take note of this report.





Hon Jacqui Dean (Chairperson of the Petitions Committee): I so move, That the House take note of the interim report of the Petitions Committee related to COVID-19 immigration and border policies. 
It is a wonderful opportunity for myself as the chair of the Petitions Committee to introduce the work we have been doing which has led to this debate in the House today. In so doing, I wish to acknowledge and welcome those many people in the gallery today who are caught in an immigration system which seems not to meet their needs.
Today I want to, first of all, introduce our work, the petitions, but to focus, as will my colleagues, on the human cost of this Government's policies on individuals, their families, and their whānau, not only for those here in New Zealand but for those who are overseas and where families find themselves, due to this Government's policies, far, far away from their loved ones and with no apparent end in sight for that separation. 
Before I outline, as the chair, the petitions which are contained in our report to the House, I just want to give a very brief anecdote of a family member of mine who was—in my wider family—separated from her new husband, who was caught in the United Kingdom, in England. My family member was here in New Zealand, and for eight months she was literally heartbroken, because they had just got married a few months before, heartbroken because there was no way to bring her husband to join her in New Zealand, even though he had the required entitlement and eligibility. 
So how must it be all these months later for the many, many people both here in New Zealand and overseas who are still waiting for some movement, some recognition through our immigration system of their personal circumstances. I want to acknowledge those people—not only those who petitioned our committee but also those who are here today and wider in New Zealand and across the globe who are waiting for this Government to act. 
The Petitions Committee received such a number of petitions from people, individuals who were stuck in the immigration system, that it occurred to my colleague Tim van de Molen that there would be an opportunity for the Petitions Committee to write to the Business Committee of Parliament and request a special debate. So I want to acknowledge Tim van de Molen for his foresight and his acknowledgment of the human pain that was occurring around New Zealand and wider, and for seeking a remedy that just moved this issue forward a little bit for those people. If we can do that for those people, for those people in the gallery, if we can do that through this debate, if we can move things along just a little bit, then I think that will be something that we would be very pleased to do. As chair of the committee, I'm going to run through those 12 initial petitions and the people behind them. There are more, but I will confine myself and just give a little flavour of the circumstances. 
The first category I want to touch on are families who are affected by the border closure. We heard from four petitioners who want—sorry, I might just go through my notes and start there—to be able to come to New Zealand to be reunited with their families. These people include temporary visa holders, their families, and family members of New Zealanders.
Natasha James came to work in New Zealand in January 2020 as a critical health worker, but her partner and children are still overseas. Xiaosong Lan has a similar request in his petition. He wants the Government to grant border exemptions and managed isolation and quarantine spaces to all overseas partners of New Zealand citizens, resident, and temporary visa holders. Polina Chernyshova's petition—and I do apologise if I'm not getting the pronunciation of all these names correct today; I am sorry—says, and I quote, "being separated from our families is affecting our mental health, efficiency and ability to focus on the research, the critical research we are undertaking." Marianna Tomarelli's petition says, "it is harder for families in non-visa-waiver countries to gain entry to New Zealand.", and she submits to us "that the entry process should be the same from both types of country."
We have petitions from workers and students who are currently overseas—seven petitions. Tincy Mary Philip is really "frustrated that the border is closed to students who were granted study visas before entry restrictions began," and she "describes their financial and mental health problems as a result of not being allowed to enter." We can see a theme coming through here. Nandita Alexander, her husband, and their toddler "were living and working in New Zealand but got stranded overseas while visiting relatives at the start of the lockdown.", and they just want to come back. Yu Ting Mak seeks to "extend the exemptions to all migrants who still have work in New Zealand." Mandeep Singh asks that the following people be allowed entry into New Zealand: "people with work or study visas who had been living long-term in New Zealand … offshore partners who were issued a visa to join their partner in New Zealand before the borders [were] closed." Julie South is very concerned about a shortage of veterinarians, and I read in the media that there is now a critical shortage of veterinarians, which is applying considerable pressure on those vets who are working in New Zealand. Belen Macchiavello asks "that the Government allow migrants with current New Zealand visas who are stuck offshore to re-enter New Zealand."
And then we had requests to extend the work visas of people already in New Zealand. Marie Louisa Bock simply wants "a plan for what will happen when working holiday visas expire at the end of June [this year]." Cait Guyette requests "temporary flexibility of visa conditions for wine industry workers so that there will be enough staff for the 2021 vintage." I do hope, now that the vintage is complete, that there are enough workers to get on with the thinning, which is now under way. Carlos Madureira is "frustrated that the Government has paused its processing of expressions of interest for the Skilled Migrant Category". And Artur Khasanov is frustrated about the length of time—simply the length of time—taken by Immigration New Zealand "to process Skilled Migrant Category residence applications." He simply wants a decision.
These people simply want a decision from Immigration New Zealand, from this Government, so that they can move on with their lives. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.





Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Can I begin with something which is potentially out of order and acknowledge the participants in the rally this afternoon out the front of Parliament. I think, diplomatically, I received a mixed welcome, but I do want to acknowledge the fact that it was good to hear their stories on the front forecourt of Parliament, and I thank them for doing that.
When the Government did close the border over a year ago, we were very clear about our priority, and that was to protect lives. In the year before we closed the border, nearly 7 million people came across it; in the year following the closure, that number was 226,000—in other words: arrivals into New Zealand were 2 percent of what they were before the border closed. We made the decision to close the borders to everyone but New Zealand citizens and residents in order to keep COVID-19 out, keep New Zealand safe, and also to keep our economy open. It was a decision based on science and strong public health advice. And, also, that has enabled New Zealand to avoid the worst of a global pandemic. Entry to New Zealand from all countries remains strictly controlled to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Our priority has always been to enable New Zealanders, New Zealand permanent residents, to enter New Zealand, and this has meant we have had difficult choices to make about who else can come to New Zealand within the constraints of the managed isolation and quarantine capacity that we have here in New Zealand.
The Government understands that the border closure has caused some temporary visa holders difficulties. While the border closure has meant we can keep our economy going, it has also meant the loss of customers for some sectors of the economy—like international education and the likes of tourism and hospitality—while others have faced labour shortages. It has also affected temporary migrants and their families directly, including those who were caught offshore at the time of the border closing, those migrants who are here in New Zealand but whose family members are overseas, and those who had made arrangements to move to New Zealand but have been unable to do so. At this stage, because of the pandemic outside of New Zealand and because we are just ramping up our vaccine programme, there is difficulty providing certainty of when visa holders who do not meet the current border exception criteria may be able to enter the country, and their current visa expiry remains in place. We recognise the difficulties faced by individuals and families whose plans have been disrupted or have been unable to reunite with their families. Some families have taken the tough decision to reunify in their home country because of this. This is why the Government will continue to be mindful of their situations as we open back up to the world.
While tight border restrictions continue to be a key part of the Government's strategy to protect New Zealand against COVID-19, over the past year the Government has made an ongoing series of changes to enable more people to enter into New Zealand to support New Zealand's recovery and unite families as we have been able to do so and as it has been safe. Under these settings, around 2,000 partners and dependent children of New Zealand - based work or student visa holders who normally live in New Zealand have been granted a border exception, and 3,000 family members of critical workers have entered to date, and we have progressively made other changes so that more families could reunite. Last month, we made changes to the border settings to enable partners and children of onshore temporary work visa holders to travel to New Zealand to be reunited—these included the partners and dependent children of temporary visa holders in New Zealand who hold visas but had not yet arrived here when the border closed, the families of healthcare workers in New Zealand, and a number of other highly skilled workers in other sectors who are currently in New Zealand. Immigration New Zealand has also resumed processing offshore relationship-based visa applications for partners of dependent children of New Zealand residents and citizens, from September 2020.
We have also made changes so that more businesses can get the skills they need. Since August, 1,300 normally resident temporary work visa holders, who had jobs, family, and homes in New Zealand, but were unable to return due to border restrictions, have returned to New Zealand as part of a border exception. The Government has extended some employer-assisted and working holiday visas so that people can continue to work for industries needing their skills, and we are currently assessing what else we can do in this space. A number of groups of workers have been provided a class exception to the border closure; the largest to date was the exception for the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme—or RSE scheme.
The Government has been considering class border exceptions as circumstances permit, taking into account the benefits to New Zealand's economic, social, and humanitarian objectives and the impacts on managed isolation and quarantine capacity. Further to the decisions and changes made affecting those who are offshore, we have made a number of pragmatic decisions for those migrants who are onshore, including a number of visa extensions, including for workers, visitors and working holiday makers, and making it easier for people to stay onshore in their jobs and remain lawful. 
The bar for entry, while the global pandemic remains high—we have seen some managed isolation capacity free up since the creation of the trans-Tasman bubble, and we'll consider where we can make changes to take the pressure off people and businesses. But our priority will always be maintaining the strength of the border settings that have kept COVID-19 out of our communities. This means that employers will continue to need to look primarily onshore for talent and skills, and there are existing residence pathways for those who are currently in New Zealand on temporary work visas but wanted to stay long term. The Skilled Migrant Category (SMC), in particular, may be an option for those skilled workers who will contribute to New Zealand's long-term economic and social goals. 
The Government has also signalled a review of the Skilled Migrant Category resident visa to assess whether it remains fit for purpose to meet New Zealand's skills needs in the longer term. In the meantime, Immigration New Zealand is working on ways that it can reduce the wait times of Skilled Migrant Category residence applications, and I'm expecting to announce the restart of the SMC expression of interest soon.
The Government is also turning its mind to what a reopening of the border might look like, and I have signalled a reset of our immigration settings. How fast we reopen our borders, and to whom, are questions we don't yet have the answers to but are considering in great detail. Steps to open the border will be taken only as and when we are able to do safely. The quarantine-less travel with Australia and the Cook Islands—as of Monday—are examples of our commitment to this.
Petitions have been submitted to this House to express people's views on our immigration and border policy settings, and the unifying theme in all of them is people's desire for things to return to normal—this is an understandable sentiment. As I said to the group outside this afternoon, at this stage we cannot provide absolute certainty to these people about when our border protections will be able to be relaxed. However, as I have outlined, the Government will continue to be mindful of different and difficult situations that these people are facing and finding themselves in as we look to open back up to the world.





RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise with great pain to this House to speak to the many petitions that have been presented on the issue of immigration. I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery who are joining us today who come from our migrant communities, who shared with us their pain. I want to acknowledge, as well, the Minister for being present during the time that they were sharing their stories. 
The petitions that were presented, and that we're discussing today, do not call for us to not take a public health approach. If anything, I doubt many migrants want us to have a resurgence of COVID-19. In fact, most of our migrant communities have supported the public health approach taken by the Government so that we are all safe. None the less, what the petitions are asking is for kindness and for justice, and for the rights of our migrant communities to be upheld. In fact, many of the issues raised in these petitions have to do with the rights of our onshore migrant communities who have been failed by our broken immigration system. I want to make it clear that our immigration system was already pretty broken since before the pandemic, and the pandemic has only made the policy failures worse. 
I want to touch on, for example, the petition of Ryann Lourenco, who called for pathways to residency for our migrant communities, acknowledging that migrant communities who are onshore are some of the most vulnerable to a resurgence of COVID-19. When you cannot access assistance through the welfare State, when your future isn't certain, when you cannot go to school, you are far more vulnerable to the pandemic, and the right thing to do right now is to also tautoko the contributions that our migrants have made during the pandemic and ensure that they can fully participate in society. I think it's nothing close to gaslighting to imply that what migrants are asking is for us to open our borders to COVID-19. For our migrant communities offshore, the petitioners have asked for certainty and for clarity, simply for a pathway of knowing when they'll come back. Some people do not mind waiting, but they just want to know that they'll be able to be reunited with their families. Post-study work visa holders simply want to know that they'll have a visa once the borders reopen and it is safe. They're not asking for our lives to be put at risk; they are simply asking for there to be a pathway and for there to be certainty.
Other petitioners, like Polina Chernyshova, have asked for some equity in the ability for migrants to be reunited with their families, for post-graduate students to be able to apply for the exemptions—and they know that once they apply for the exemptions and apply for visas, they still have to wait to get access to managed isolation and quarantine. Our communities know that, and they're OK with that, but it's about that equity within the process. The fact that our community in India doesn't even have that pathway to apply for the border exemptions, just because of their country of origin, is absolutely not fair, and has been also highlighted by the petitions. 
The Green Party stands behind many of the calls of these petitioners. We stand for pathways to residency, we stand for the extension of visas for our communities offshore, and we call on the Government to hear the voices of these petitioners and fix our immigration system, so that our migrant communities can have some certainty that they can fully participate in society and that they can be part of our recovery from COVID-19. Because what we have seen is that the recovery from COVID-19 is not equal. There have been groups that have been left behind as we recover from the pandemic, either in our unemployment statistics or in their ability to access income support. The emergency benefit provided to our migrant communities has not been successful. It has under-delivered, and I wish that our migrant communities would be able to access residency so that if they were to move back to alert level 3 or 4, or were to lose employment, they can be fully supported and participate in our recovery.
So the Green Party hears the voices of the many petitioners. We will not stop campaigning and working productively with the Labour Party to ensure that we fix our broken immigration system. Now, the key thing here as well is that we end visa delays. This is nothing to do with our border rules. This is about the communities here who have been waiting for months—some, for years—for their visas to be processed, because our immigration system is run as a business as opposed to a core public service. We call for broad systemic changes that ensure that our migrants' dignity is upheld. Kia ora.





Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I want to start by thanking those who have come into the gallery today. This debate is an opportunity for you to hear directly from the Minister of Immigration, who has the power to significantly alleviate your families' suffering, though I imagine you are feeling very frustrated right now. I also thank the petitioners, as their efforts have led us to this debate.
The big questions are: how has Immigration New Zealand (INZ) stuffed up so badly on these issues and what is the Minister going to do about it? The first question seems to be a lack of empathy at Immigration New Zealand, an attitude problem, a policy innovation failure, poor decision-making at the application level, and the inability of officials to foresee a raft of so-called unintended consequences. One strategy that demonstrates the attitude problem is the way in which visa extensions have been granted under the powers. They are last-minute, which, as far as I can tell, is some sort of device to force migrants to have to give up and leave the country. It is highly cynical and unfair. Another good example was very recently when INZ was told off by the Ombudsman for allocating Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) applications unfairly based on informal policy.
A number of petitions focus on the state of the Skilled Migrant Category, and, fair enough, it is a total disaster. INZ has brought the processing of the Skilled Migrant Category to a standstill, which is supposed to be their flagship visa for attracting and retaining the skills that we desperately need in New Zealand. It pales in comparison to the schemes they have in other countries. Not only has the Skilled Migrant Category stalled, with absurdly long processing times, but INZ has shot themselves in the foot, yet again, by having an expression of interest (EOI) queue that is still open for submissions but they're not drawing on it. It's now over 9,000, we hear today—unbelievable.
I think the Minister should have an honest conversation about the Skilled Migrant Category, because, in reality, there is no real residency system in this country any more. We're telling people that we want them to commit their lives and skills here, but the walls are closing in on many pathways. So my answer to the issues raised by the petitioners on the SMC and the EOI selections is that INZ should wipe the slate clean and offer an efficient transitional pathway to residency for all temporary visa holders stuck in those queues.
Petitions also seek travel exemptions for partners and children of temporary visa holders. I agree with this; it's well overdue. And while he's at it, the Minister should address the impossibly stupid "fetch your partner" requirements, forcing people to leave New Zealand, go into areas with many active cases of COVID-19, and then return here with their partner, which increases the border risk and utilises resources at managed isolation and quarantine facilities. It's just insanely stupid. What's happening in reality is that people are being stranded overseas for a variety of legitimate reasons, which, again, I'm guessing is actually the real objective here: they want them gone.
Keeping families apart, including very young children, is a shameful practice that INZ should have resolved long ago. I know that members receive correspondence about the terrible situations that migrants are in and the lack of compassion that INZ has shown towards them. One example is a highly skilled clinical psychologist, who got in touch with me very recently. She is employed in a Government agency that deals with very difficult cases. Her husband has been stranded overseas for longer than a year without possessions or family there, unable to return to New Zealand. She's now at a point where she's about to walk away from New Zealand. I can assure this House that the agency that employs her will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fill her role if she leaves. All they need is a simple border exemption.
One petition addresses international students. Again, I agree with this. Existing students, or, at least, those who have valid visas in 2020, should be given the chance to return to New Zealand. They are in enormous debt, and many of them are still paying bills and rent here, for God's sake.
I've also received many complaints about decision making at the case officer level. This is where things just get ridiculous—countless examples of getting basic policy and immigration directions wrong, which is why something like 50 percent of the applications to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal are successful. Anyone can go on to the Justice website on a weekly basis and read about the latest mistakes, daft mistakes, that have been made.
The problems raised in these petitions run deep at INZ, but are not unsolvable. So we have to ask ourselves: how do we want to act as a country, what do we owe the people in the gallery here today and outside Parliament, and, finally, how are we going to repair the damage that has been done to our international reputation as an ideal destination for work and study?
There's actually another petition that is currently open on the parliamentary website, entitled "Remove the Hon Kris Faafoi as immigration Minister" [Applause from gallery]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order!
Dr JAMES McDOWALL: And in the words of the late Margaret Thatcher in her final appearance as Prime Minister, "What a good idea!"





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise in light of the fact that the Māori Party's chosen not to speak on this matter, but simply, really, to affirm the comments of the Minister that these are very difficult times, and they are situations in which families have been separated, and it's important that we recognise that. But these are times in which we must put the health of New Zealanders first, and that has led to some very difficult decisions. But the Minister has made some very difficult decisions, and the result of that is a New Zealand where we are safe and the economy remains strong, and I absolutely stand behind the decisions of the Minister in that regard. Thank you.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this matter. It would be really hard for anyone not to be moved by the many stories that we do hear from our migrant communities, and, especially, just a couple of hours ago when we heard from so many on the forecourt of Parliament. We heard many, many moving stories. But I was proud to stand with our Minister of Immigration, and I know it was appreciated that he was there at the rally and that he was listening to everyone's concerns.
As the Minister already said in his speech, the strategy our Government developed to eliminate COVID-19 from our communities and to keep New Zealanders safe meant that we had to take that unprecedented action of closing our borders. As the Minister said in his speech, that meant making difficult choices. These were tough decisions. The only people at the time being able to enter New Zealand were citizens, residents, their partners and children, and others who had been given an exception to the border closure. Tight border restrictions were then, and are now, a key part of the Government strategy to protect New Zealand against COVID. Our closed border is the first and best defence in keeping COVID out of our communities. This is a very careful approach we had to take.
We have been able to reunite families, support key industries, restart our refugee settlement, and keep our critical public services running during what was, and is, a global pandemic. You only need to look internationally to see how different countries responded to the pandemic and how much New Zealand stands out. But I do acknowledge that this has had a large impact on many people, causing difficulties for families trying to reunite, for our offshore non-resident partners of New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, for workers and students stuck overseas, and others, as is evident from the many petitions we have received and from the many stories that we heard from you and you shared with us also today. The consequences of the actions taken to keep New Zealand safe, the decision to close the borders and to protect New Zealand communities from COVID-19, caused real difficulty and heartache for people. But there is a lot of work being done to get people into New Zealand and through managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), as well as the many thousands of border exceptions that are being worked through.
Over the past year, several border exceptions supporting the reunification of split families have been introduced as circumstances allowed. Work on those new border exceptions is continuing. We've heard from the Minister that around 13,000 family members of New Zealand citizens and residents have been granted border exceptions. A border exception was established for partners and dependent children of New Zealand -based work or student visa holders who normally live in New Zealand, and that was around 2,000 who have been granted an exception. Critical workers who are entering New Zealand through a border exception are able to have their family accompany them. More than 2,500 members of critical workers have been able to enter to date.
In August last year, the Government approved a new exception category that was targeted at those temporary work visa holders who had jobs, families, and homes in New Zealand but were unable to return back due to those border restrictions put in place. This has enabled, to date, 1,300 temporary visa holders and their families who normally live here and were overseas when the borders closed to return to New Zealand. To date, 135,000 residents and citizens have returned to New Zealand and gone through the MIQ system, with approximately 10 percent of those coming through the exceptions.
And the work continues. It was only on 19 April that our Government announced changes to border settings to enable partners and children of temporary work visa holders who are currently working and residing in New Zealand to travel to New Zealand to be reunited. So while these latest border exceptions can't help every migrant family caught in last year's border closures, the Government will continue to review options across a range of border entry demands.
We had a very successful response to COVID-19 in New Zealand, and sometimes it's easy to forget that while our domestic situation has increased and improved since the borders closed, there is still a worldwide pandemic raging, which is infecting and killing large numbers of people. We are not immune to what happens around the world, and we have seen that last year very much. But we absolutely acknowledge—and we heard from many of you today that there will still be people having difficulties because of those borders. But as the Minister said in his speech, a review of border exceptions will continue and further adjustments will be made as and when they are possible so we can safely open up again to the world.
This is an issue we need to debate. It would be great if we could take the politics out of it and actually show you that we care for you, our migrant families. Thank you very much.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start by acknowledging the people in the gallery who came here today. Can I acknowledge the speaker who just sat down—the chair of the committee that the Labour MPs sat on that rejected your calls for an inquiry into split migrant families and into effects on migrants of the border closures.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I remind the member not to bring me into her speech.
ERICA STANFORD: You would—sorry. Those members in the gallery wouldn't need to be here today if we had that inquiry. They would have been able to come to the select committee and tell us about their struggles. That was the vehicle. They didn't need to be here today, but here we are, back again, having to go through the same steps, day after day. 
Iresha Wijetunga went on the news last night, crying over the children she hasn't seen in a year, because she's a construction worker—watching 300 more construction workers come in with their families over the next six months. It's the migrant nurse anomaly all over again. The member who just took her seat talks about the achievements of this Government in reuniting split migrant families. Well, that announcement a month ago, as I expected it would be, was a very small proportion of the total of those migrant families. They lauded it as some wonderful policy—that they'd done their job. But, in fact, most of those migrant families are still sitting, waiting for a road map for reunification for their families. They continue to wait. 
We have been calling on this Government for months and months for a road map for reunification for every single split migrant family so that they have some light at the end of the tunnel. As my other colleagues on this side of the House have said, no one has said that they want to see their family tomorrow. They all understand that there will be delays. They just want to know that it will happen. There are 1,800 rooms right now in managed isolation and quarantine—and have been for the last few weeks—empty. We could have reunited 1,700 split migrant families in the last two weeks, and we did nothing. That is atrocious. 
Why are we here? We are here because there were so many petitions that were lodged about this broken immigration system that we had to have our very first special debate triggered by this new Petitions Committee on immigration. We have it because we've got a Minister who spent the good part of a year failing to act to reunite split migrant families; Labour MPs shutting down a select committee inquiry; and a Government who, through their own policy settings, have caused the longest residency queue in our nation's history. That started well before COVID ever hit. 
We have highly skilled migrants who are sitting in a queue that, at best, will take two years for them and at worst is going absolutely nowhere and is completely frozen. If their children turn 18, they can't work, they can't study—they can't even go out and volunteer at their local hospital, otherwise they won't be dependent and they won't get residency with their family's application. We have been calling on the Government to at least let those children study. Some of them are going back and doing year 13 again. Can anyone in this House imagine how bad that is for the mental health of a young person? There is no fair-minded Kiwi in this nation that thinks it's OK to leave an 18-year-old to rot for two, three, four years, wasting their potential because of the residency queues caused by poor Government policy.
These skilled migrants are highly stressed, highly anxious. They're living in limbo, with no certainty, no surety that the country they moved to and made their home, the country that they work hard for, will still be their home at the end of what is a traumatic immigration experience. While it's terrible for those migrants who are sitting up there in the gallery, it's terrible for us, because we need them here. They are our teachers. They are our nurses. They are our doctors, our IT workers. We need them here.
I just want to finish by saying that on the weekend was Mother's Day, and I didn't post about Mother's Day because I couldn't. The day before Mother's Day, on Saturday, I went to Christchurch. I did a public meeting and I spoke to women afterwards who stood there crying with me—at me—because they hadn't seen their children in a year. How could I, in good conscience, post about Mother's Day and how wonderful it is to be with my children, when these women haven't seen their children in a year because of this Government's utter incompetence? It is not good enough, and they have to do something about it.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Can I please remind all of the people in the gallery—most of you may be here for the first time—we have a Speaker's ruling that contributions from the gallery, including clapping, is only allowed with the Speaker's permission prior to being in the gallery.





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): I rise to take this short call on this very pressing issue. I just heard Erica and other MPs from the other side of the House just shouting and shouting. We've heard a lot of emotional pleas. A few years ago, when the world was having the worst ever refugee crisis—71 million displaced refugees—we rallied and rallied and rallied and cried. I was one of the people who rallied to the steps of Parliament, talking and pleading to the Government to increase the quota by a few hundred. Guess what? None of them even came out and addressed us.
But in saying that, I'm not saying this to take away from the migrant issues. Today, we have heard from migrants, from the speakers and from families who have been separated, and the stories are heartbreaking. No one can deny that—no one can dispute that. But I just want to say anyone in doubt of this Government's commitment towards migrants' and refugees' plights and issues is utterly wrong, because the track record speaks for itself. My colleagues and myself in our select committee, every day we discuss this with our Minister, who is actually working hard to make a difference, to change things.
In March 2020, we needed to go into the lockdown—hard lockdown—with one thing in mind: that we were just saving lives; nothing more, nothing less. Because of those measures and steps, we are today living like humans. The fact that my brothers and sisters from migrant communities can come and that the protests and sit-downs are here today is because of those steps and decisions that we made. Last year this time, March 2020, the number of infections and deaths all over the world was about a few hundred thousand; a year on today, as of today, 160 million infections, 3.3 million deaths. Just in the last 24 hours, 742,000 infections and 13,500 deaths. We all know that the actual number is higher than this; it's just a lot of countries don't have proper testing kits. This is the sombre reality of this virus. It's still out there. It's killing people; it's infecting people.
The measures that we have taken are the only thing that's keeping us safe and also keeping our health system from being overwhelmed—and that is our borders. This is how, at the end of the day, there is the light at the end of the tunnel. We have seen the Minister speaking about opening to refugees, reuniting families. As we speak today, in the next few months, there are going to be about 750 to 1,000 refugees who will be coming to this country. Since March 2020, no single refugee came into this country. Some of them—a lot of them, actually—being accepted by New Zealand are in war zones—women, vulnerable children. But the reality with this virus meant that none of those people could come to this country.
I've heard from the speakers talking about how they are unappreciated, they are unliked—that no one wants them in this country, that this Government doesn't want them in this country. I just want to tell you that's not true. You are loved, you are valued, you are appreciated. You are a big part of our recovery plan that we are setting out. Please, please don't listen to people there who are politicising this issue. This is not about politics. These are real people's lives. We should not play with their emotions. We should not play with their hearts. These are real lives, real people. I will just leave it there, Madam Speaker, and thank you.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Greg O'Connor says that members of this side are using the people in the gallery.
Greg O'Connor: And another one stands up to do the same thing.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Let's let Chris Bishop give his speech, please.
CHRIS BISHOP: He says we're using the people in this gallery who have come to Parliament twice now—
Greg O'Connor: Yes, you are.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can I remind the member not to bring me into the debate.
CHRIS BISHOP: People have turned up to this Parliament twice now in good faith to ask for the Government to have a heart and do the right thing and sort out their immigration status—an immigration status that, through no fault of their own, because of the impact of COVID-19, has been negatively affected. I want to pay tribute to those in the gallery. We in the Opposition, led by Erica Stanford, our immigration spokesperson—
Greg O'Connor: Are leveraging this to the maximum degree.
CHRIS BISHOP: You might just want to reflect on your behaviour, Greg. There are people watching in the gallery and on TV, and I don't think they'll be very impressed by it. We are doing the right thing and representing those who have come to Parliament and asked the Government for action.
Greg O'Connor: Playing politics.
CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the thing about immigration—and this was going to be my next point—the thing about Parliament is it's political. It's an amazing thing. We're all elected here. We're sent here to Parliament to do a job. Let's be very clear: immigration is political. It's political because Government policy is decided by politicians. It's Government policy to not act on split migrant families. That makes it political. Managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) resourcing is political because it's the Government that decides how many beds are available in MIQ and how they'll be allocated. Just yesterday, we had the Minister announcing that we're going to have Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers coming in, construction workers coming in. We welcome that on this side of the House, but the failure to act on the split migrants is political. Immigration funding is political because it's the Government that decides how much money goes to the immigration department, and that decides how many immigration staff there are, and that decides how quickly they process residence applications. That's why we have, as Miss Stanford pointed out, the longest backlog in New Zealand history. That's political. That's what Parliament is for. That's why we're having this debate. It's to interrogate those issues. That's the whole point of a democracy. So that is, of course, why immigration policy and actions are political, and that's, of course, why we are interested in it. Marja Lubeck says, "Let's not politicise this." Immigration policy is political. Miss Stanford is doing the right thing.
There are very few things that you come across in Parliament that I think are indefensible, but the situation with the split migrant families that has been brought to the House's attention through these petitions and through the protests on the forecourt today and in the past is indefensible. Cameron Conradie moved here in good faith as a teacher at Hutt Valley High School, in the Hutt, teaching maths. He moved here in good faith; he was paid to come here. The Government incentivised him to move to New Zealand, and he did so in good faith. He came here in January 2020, and his family were to follow. The story has been told on a few occasions. They packed up their belongings, they liquidated their assets, and then COVID happened. And no one's saying that that wasn't unfortunate and that there didn't have to be a response. But in May 2021, he is saying—and we agree, and a lot of people agree with us—"Let's reunite my family." And he looks at the MIQ numbers—1,800 beds available last week on average each night—and says, "I have moved to New Zealand, I want my family to come. Why can they not come?" And there are no excuses from the Government—there are no excuses, and the Government has not been able to point to any. And it is completely unreasonable. Our position and the position of Mr Conradie and the split migrants who are here in the gallery and on the forecourt is: either allow us to come to New Zealand and reunite our families or, at the very least, let's have a road map. And from the Minister today in his speech and at the forecourt, we didn't even get that. It is political, but it's also indefensible. That's why we're having the debate and that's why the gallery is full.





ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I firstly want to acknowledge those in the gallery. I just want to acknowledge your participation, in good faith, in our democratic processes, with not only bringing petitions to this House but, despite what my fellow member of the select committee says, we have actually heard many of your heartbreaking stories, because you have brought them to select committee. We heard you. We saw you. So we have had the opportunity to receive your participation, in good faith, in that democratic process. I just need to note the hard work that continues to happen.
The range of petitions that have been brought to this House—clear evidence that the impact of border closures is not just hard but incredibly complex. I just want to reflect at this moment on the impact that the border closures have had on our rural communities. It is clear that our primary industries, our rural communities, have carried our economy through COVID-19, and the significant challenges and pressures that border closures have placed on our rural communities have been reflected in at least two of our petitions.
As you go through the petitions, you think about how the situations have changed and evolved and how border settings that have adjusted in response to the issues that have been very bravely raised have been significant. Changes to immigration settings have happened, and they continue to happen. New opportunities to revise settings continue to arise. Decisions have been made to extend visas, vary visa conditions, and waive some application requirements across entire visa categories. Some work visas were extended to allow workers to stay and remain in current roles to help maximise the available onshore workforce when the border closed. The most recent extension was made in December for workers with visas expiring from 1 January to 30 June. We hear about decisions being made at the last minute—but better to be nimble than not be able to make a decision at all. 
Where there has been additional capacity in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), we have been able to let limited numbers of people through: extending 7,800 working holiday visas and easing conditions to allow holders to work in industries like horticulture, to take some of the burden off of our rural communities who want to make sure that they can continue with their livelihoods; provide an exemption for about 5,500 recognised seasonal employers (RSEs)—recognised seasonal workers—and that's a recognition of the value that we place on those workers. They are highly skilled and incredibly vital to bring that harvest in—for example, in Blenheim.
The trans-Tasman bubble has freed up more rooms and it has allowed us to allocate more places in managed isolation—for example, for critical workers. We're able to bring them in to support the economy. The New Zealand Winegrowers association was really pleased because workers will arrive in time for winter pruning, a skilled role in which they excel, and it will benefit the workers, their families, and our rural communities. This additional labour supply is absolutely necessary to meet seasonal peak demands, and it will set the industry up. It gives them some certainty as they go through their annual preparations for next year's harvest, the pruning.
So this is just one example of how, just like with the petitions, the issues are raised. And when it is possible to respond and still keep all of us who are here safe, we do so. 
COVID risks keep shifting. MIQ capacities keep changing, but you have heard, on the forecourt, in select committee, and here in this House that there is a clear commitment to continue to adjust immigration settings, for not just economic reasons but humanitarian ones as well.
Motion agreed to.





OVERSEAS INVESTMENT AMENDMENT BILL (NO 3)
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 11 May. 
BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). The ACT Party opposed this bill at the first reading, and we will continue to oppose the bill because none of the problems were solved in select committee. It's this—it's quite simple. This is about amending the Overseas Investment Act. It's supposed to simplify the Act, but, in fact, in looking for more simplicity, the Government has somehow made it even more complicated and harder to invest in New Zealand. 
That's a real issue, because overseas investment would lead to more productivity in New Zealand, and we cannot continue to live, as a country, for ever believing that we should be isolated from the world, because that is what the Overseas Investment Act does. It stops foreign investment and capital coming into this country and lifting productivity, which would lead to our having more money for pharmaceuticals in this country and allow people to have higher wages and better jobs, jobs with more technology. This Act stops that. 
If I look at a couple of the changes that they have tried to have made, they've made it harder to invest. They are things like "embedding a higher threshold for acquiring farm land", making it harder for New Zealanders to sell their own property. There's also here a change "enabling decision-makers to consider the effects on sustainability of investments that involve water bottling or bulk water extraction". The Resource Management Act is supposed to deal with those issues, so if we've got a problem there, why on earth are we making a different problem, again, in the foreign investment space? It's ridiculous. 
If we look at it, and we look at the real, simple aspects of this bill, it is a tinker—that's all it does—and what is the point? It's been here for months, and this is all the Government can come up with. 
Well, the ACT Party, yesterday, came out with our alternative Budget. We made it very, very clear that we actually want to see productivity and wage growth in the New Zealand economy, and so what have we suggested? An exemption for OECD countries, so that people can send their capital to New Zealand. We want to be a country where people want to send money. We want to be a country where people want to invest and where we can have people aspiring to come here. 
I think it's atrocious, really, that this is all that we've ended up with. And, in fact, we used to believe that we wanted to be one of the highest and most productive countries in the OECD, but our productivity has been slipping, and it's been slipping for 30 years. This goes no way to alleviating that problem. 
We need to be seeing more foreign, direct investment in New Zealand and more productivity. That's what the ACT Party stands for. It is not what this Labour Government stands for. So, it's quite simple: we're opposing this bill. Thank you. 





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). In doing so, I'm very pleased to say that this is the third time I've risen and spoken, in a row, where the Opposition, National, have also been supporting the bill that I've been speaking on. It shows that this is the type of work we are doing in select committee. It shows that in select committee, where the work is done, we are prepared to work together to create better laws. We had 46 submissions on this bill.
New Zealand continues to be open for business. Productive foreign investment continues to be central to our economic wellbeing now and into the future. This bill, combined with all our other changes to improve New Zealand's economic settings, achieves the balance. The balance between welcoming investment and the need to protect our most sensitive assets. They will, together, set us up to make the most of the coming decades of economic change and transformation.
This bill is about improving the efficiency of the overseas investment regime while ensuring New Zealand assets are protected, particularly farmland. Over nine years, the National Government made the overseas investment regime more and more complicated, while taking a lax approach to protecting valuable New Zealand assets, like farmland, from foreign ownership. We are now incorporating a bill that will ensure we do both. Now, this bill is an accumulation of the Government's work to reform New Zealand's overseas investment regime and to ensure that we continue to attract the productive, sustainable investment we need to both boost economic growth, grow jobs, and protect New Zealand's assets. 
Now I want to talk about what this bill also does to simplify the approval process for most transactions, to ensure that the limited resources are dedicated to reviewing transactions most likely to pose risk. Under the national interest test, it will be better targeted so no longer automatically applying to investments by State-linked pension funds similar in nature to the New Zealand Super Fund that operate at an arm's length from the Government. In addition to lifting the requirements for overseas investment in farmland, the bill better ensures that New Zealanders have a regime of opportunity to purchase it by requiring that it is publicly advertised before an overseas person can enter into an agreement to buy it, unlike the status quo, where this often occurs after the deal has been signed. By doing this, it makes sure that everybody knows when this land is up for sale.
I'd also like to talk about the purpose of the Overseas Investment Act, which the deputy chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Barbara Edmonds, spoke at length about in her speech earlier in the week. The purpose of the Overseas Investment Act recognises that we are, in fact, the land of milk and honey; where we grow, cultivate, and harvest our food, where our land is productive and our fisheries, forestry, and natural and physical resources are a rare privilege that is worthy of protection. It seeks to protect the privilege we have here in New Zealand. This bill endeavours—again, I reiterate—to balance the protection of our important assets while still being attractive to productive foreign investment. These are the reasons that I'm standing to support this bill. We must make sure, absolutely, that we continue to further cut red tape, but we must always, always do what we can to protect our land, which is what we have in our country of milk and honey. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Nicola Willis.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): National is supporting this bill at second reading, and we do so because we acknowledge what we heard from submitter after submitter at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. And that was that the overseas investment regime that Labour had introduced had created significant regulatory burden, huge amounts of red tape, huge amounts of administration that wasn't actually furthering any of the goals of the Act, which is to ensure that investment supports the needs of New Zealanders and that it can be managed effectively. So this bill takes steps that are practical to reduce that regulatory burden, and I want to acknowledge the expertise of the submitters that we had before the committee, because we did have people who understand the practical way that this legislation needs to be interpreted, and they took great efforts to inform the members of what the legal changes would mean in practice, and I think, by helping us to understand, this bill is better for it. So I want to acknowledge my fellow committee members in that effort as well.
One example of this that is important to me, and is a part of the law that I will be watching closely to see how it actually impacts, was restrictions around farmland, because the restrictions of overseas investment in farmland had the potential to actually restrict investment in potential housing. So the changes that we made at committee loosened the arrangements so that unproductive farmland that isn't actually ever going to be used for productive agriculture, and is more likely to be repurposed for residential or commercial use, doesn't face the huge burden that productive farmland faces.
Overall, National's position is that we support the role that foreign investment plays in supporting New Zealand to develop and to create jobs. We see a role for bringing money into this country to support the livelihood of New Zealanders. We acknowledge the need to be very careful about that investment and for there to be controls around it, but we don't want this to be the country that is the hardest in the world to actually put your money into. We want to be a place where people want to help us invest in innovation, new projects, new ideas, and where we can attract money to get those things going. So I just want to make sure that that is on the record.
I also want to turn now to a very important issue that is not dealt with in this bill that we could have dealt with in this bill and that submitters raised with us, and that I think it is potentially an issue that New Zealanders will become very concerned about in the coming years, and that is the way we deal with foreign investment in forestry in New Zealand.
Now, I was in the Wairarapa earlier this week and, I tell you what, people in the Wairarapa are very concerned about the changing face of their communities. Because what Labour did was they said, basically, "We're not that interested in foreign investment but if you want to put your money into converting a farm into forest, fill your boots, go for it. You can use foreign money to buy up to 999 hectares of forestry rights within a calendar year—go for it." And the results across New Zealand have been stark. Because, if you say to investors, "You're not allowed to really put your money into much in New Zealand but you can go hard on forestry.", what do they do? They've gone hard on forestry, and up and down this country we have seen productive farms that for decades, if not more than a hundred years, have supported the livelihoods of communities, of individuals, and of families, that have produced food and exported it to the world, are now pine trees.
The results are really real. I'll tell you about the guy who came up to me at the pub and said, "Nicola, I know you're an MP. I want you to know this: my town doesn't have a rugby team anymore, because there are not people working on the farms. It's all trees." So this is a very real issue. We have a Government that has tilted the field towards forestry. It is having a massive economic and social effect, and it's National's view that this needs to be looked at, and it's disappointing that Labour didn't take the opportunity in this bill to remedy that imbalance.





Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to rise and stand on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). I would have really been interested to hear from that member on the other side of the House some of the other provisions in this bill that actually look to extend some of the protection rights and the rights of mana whenua and tangata whenua in this country. As we look towards land that has been sold off to foreign investors and the impact it's had on cultural ambitions of tribes here in Aotearoa, on the cultural ambitions and historic values that this country hold dear to their heart, I wonder what the other side of the House makes of some of those partnerships as we look towards strengthening that particular right of tangata whenua in a bill like this. It is really important as we look towards protecting our land. It's been made quite clear, not just by this Government but by experts in this country, that, actually, we must look to tangata whenua practices to ensure that the land is sustainable, is protected, and is cared for, for future generations, for our young people. 
That also raises the point about how we get investment into this country. It's really important that we want to encourage investment into this country, but not at the cost of losing our land and our valuable assets to foreign ownership, to foreign hands. It's quite clear to us that in order for this country to make sure they protect their natural resources and their whenua for future generations, we must have a bill like this to ensure that. In the absence of the Māori Party, which I'm quite surprised about—not speaking on such an important matter is really actually quite concerning, given the fact that this side of the House take our relationships and our partnerships, you know, to heart and actually want to make them impactful and meaningful into the future with iwi, with iwi chairs, because, as we look towards the way iwi have invested into making sure that primary products and the primary products industry here in Aotearoa are supported, iwi have stood up to the mark and delivered. 
Now, I want to address, just finally, one of the comments by the previous speaker, Nicola Willis, about the rugby team in Wairarapa. From where I come from in Te Tai Tokerau, actually, forestry's a big part of where we are and our rugby team is booming. In fact, this weekend, Moerewa is playing Horohoro—both clubs dear to my heart—and I'm looking forward, hopefully, to seeing a good result this weekend.
Hon Member: Who's going to win?
Hon PEENI HENARE: I'm not going to put my money on a particular team but say this—say this. The support for forestry actually in a place like Moerewa has been really good and the way that we look towards growing the emissions trading scheme system here in Aotearoa means that we've got to be quite careful in the way we manage our resources into the future, the way we invest. Sure, farming has been one of those parts of our economy into the past, and I have no doubt it will be there into the future. Forestry, too, will play a particular part. The resources like water and whenua will always be there and it's our job, and the serious job of this Government, to ensure they're protected for future generations. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.





HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). I want to first comment on the contribution by ACT today. It is actually something which brings home the difference in the values between parties when I hear a statement which is so resolute and in support of foreign investment, without any kind of nuance or control, and, actually, without taking note of the lessons that have had to be learnt by successive Governments in this country.
The bill that we are looking at today is one that comes from the first Act in 2005, which required a control over sensitive assets. In 2018, the Government commissioned a two-phase reform that sought to strike a balance. It isn't a situation where this Government does not care or encourage investment by foreigners; that is something that I think both of the major parties in support of this bill have acknowledged is a good thing. No one wants to stop good investment into this country.
I was recently attending a Zoom conference of some of our greatest innovators in New Zealand. It was called Mission Economics, and it was a conference where there were people participating from all around the world, and they were talking about how, in COVID, one of the things that's happened is that we have had a shrinking of the geographical gap. We will have so many people and so many investors interested in being part of the New Zealand economy. What we have to do as a Government, what we have to lead, is we actually have to make sure that those investments are in the right places, that they're stimulating, that they're making our New Zealand a better place, and that they're actually contributing to the wealth and health of New Zealanders.
And so the first objective of that review in 2018 was to make sure that those investments were encouraged, and this bill will do that, but it will do it in an appropriate way, because it's balanced by the second objective, which is the controlling of investment where it might cause a risk, where it might undermine the New Zealand way of life. We need to make sure that we're controlling foreign entities in the sensitive assets in this country, and that is things like our farmland, that is our fishing quotas, that is assets that are important to our cultural wellbeing, and that includes our taonga.
I want to talk about what happened next, because we had a very difficult year last year where we were faced with a pandemic. This Government noticed the vulnerability that was present, and it acted proactively when it brought in urgent measures that sought to make sure that overseas investment didn't happen in the wrong way—and that would have been if we had had a terrible downturn; luckily, we were able to avoid the worst of that. But, basically, they made sure that the law was fit for purpose at a time of crisis so that there wasn't a fire sale and so we didn't lose our assets to overseas companies, when, actually, we needed to make sure that we kept them safe and that we had a long-term view. If there had been people who were at the brink of bankruptcy in their investments here, and they had sought the highest bidder, it probably would have been overseas. So it was a very important, urgent measure that took place.
But then the Government has had the sense to go back and look at the reforms it made at that time, and actually make sure that people during the select committee process were able to look at what had happened, review it, and take a more measured and nuanced response. We did that. At the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we had submissions where we learnt lessons. So this bill is very much a product of that learning curve, because some of those measures were probably a little blunt, and we've been able to just actually rein things in and make them as long term and fit for purpose as we possibly could.
So I think it's probably worth going through some of those changes. The first is that we have narrowed the national interest test. So we had something that was a little bit broad, and we've made sure that it's narrowed. We've also brought in call-in powers—so we've kept those, and, again, we have looked at being able to block and impose conditions on the acquisition of assets which actually put New Zealanders at significant vulnerability if they are sold overseas.
So, for example, the ports: if somebody wanted to buy the ports, that might be something that we would look at and think, "Actually, owning the ports overseas would actually cause difficulties for New Zealanders." The same is true for things like the EFTPOS system, I suspect, and electricity—those things that we really rely on as New Zealanders. We need constraints, and we've kept the capacity to act very urgently and to keep those constraints. We have actually kept and tightened constraints on farmland, and that is something that I think we have learnt the lessons of over a long period of time. I was very distressed to see the sale of farmland, without very much thought to the fact that this is an incredibly important industry in the country, but it's also important to what New Zealanders are—it's part of our culture. This is a farming country; this is our main asset.
So to do that is a really important thing. Then we also learnt that there were parts of that land that were, perhaps, unproductive, that were moving, and we didn't, basically, cut off our nose to spite our face. We did things like made sure that land which was not as important for farmland any more—maybe unproductive—was something that we might be able to encourage investment in, where appropriate. So, for example, we had a submitter come and talk about rent-to-buys, and they are a big international entity that wants to pour money into building houses for New Zealanders, because they do this all around the world. They will be able to source land that was maybe once farmland but is not productive any more, and they would be encouraged to invest in those things by this legislation.
The other part of this is, actually, that we looked at the whole idea of foreign control versus passive investment. So there's really a much more sensitive approach to that. Where there is actual foreign control implicated in an investment—perhaps from a foreign Government or, you know, serious amounts of control—then that is looked at quite differently from passive investment; so, investments that might be a super fund, which might be somewhere else. Those are the investments that we still want and need.
So this is actually a bill which is the sum total of three. It's a very good piece of legislation; it's come in in a steady and controlled way. It is a very different ideology from that that ACT supported. It's actually something that is very much part of a consensus between the parties that have governed this country for some time, because it is something that I think we all agree on, it is something that will support a value system that's become common to New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think this is a debate that clearly illustrates that there are two parties in this Parliament that don't fear foreign investment and there are three parties in this Parliament that do. Certainly, the National Party is one party that welcomes foreign investment in a sensible, managed, and ultimately productive way for New Zealand that improves our lot economically, socially, and culturally and doesn't harm it. The difference between my party and the ACT Party, who also support foreign investment—and disappointingly, in my view, in the context of this bill—is that, if I interpret what Brooke van Velden said in her third reading speech was, because this bill is only incrementally making improvements to the Overseas Investment Act and doesn't completely liberalise overseas investment, then they shouldn't support it. We take a different view. We think that because this is an improvement, albeit not as far as we would go, we should still improve it, and improve it we did through the select committee process.
But I think we should be really measured in the degree to which we think this is going to make material improvements, and on that I do agree with Miss van Velden. The definition of "overseas persons", the improvements in the 25 percent control, the unproductive farmland, and one or two other amendments, I think—the removing of the requirement for certain existing overseas owners, and particularly when they're selling one overseas owner to another overseas owner, not materially affecting the degree of foreign ownership in this country. All good stuff, but I've got to say, I did choke on my water a bit when I heard the Labour member Anna Lorck talking about how this is going to be protecting farmland from foreign ownership. Well, if the Labour Party really wanted to protect farmland from foreign ownership, they shouldn't have agreed to the sop to New Zealand First to have the carve-out for very highly productive farmland to be converted into forestry, an industry that itself is already owned—70 percent, I think—by overseas owners.
Now, thankfully, they can cut it down and take it away, but they can't take the land away, and for that reason, I'm completely ambivalent about that, except to the degree that the change that was made in the previous Parliament that enables foreign buyers not to jump through high hoops when they're buying farmland so that they can convert it to farmland is incredibly concerning to me and to the National Party, and despite our efforts we couldn't fix that. That remains a significant irritant in our overseas investment framework, and for Peeni Henare to talk about the rights of tangata whenua and looking to tangata whenua to care for the land for our young—"We have a bill that does just that.", he said. Well, actually, it doesn't—doesn't do that at all, doesn't improve things from the significant backtrack that we took in terms of what he described as protecting the land for our young. His rugby team might be booming in Moeroa, I think he said it was—
Hon Aupito William Sio: Moerewa.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —thank you—but it isn't because of forestry. Anybody who goes into a forest, particularly when it's harvested, might be lucky to see five people, because of the mechanisation technologies that removed a huge amount of labour need from that industry. Yes, there is planting; yes, there is pruning over a 30-year life cycle of a forest, but let's not pretend that that's propping up the premier rugby clubs around the Bay of Plenty and Northland, because it's not. Actually—[Interruption] I'm not sure what she said, but I don't think it was probably going to improve the dialogue any. I sometimes am grateful for the fact that I'm profoundly deaf in one ear.
We will continue to support this bill, but, I stress, let's not get too ahead of ourselves in terms of what this is going to mean. I think there is still much more we can do to show the world that New Zealand is open for business and it's open for investment, for the benefit of New Zealand. We believe in free trade. We believe in the free movement of capital. We believe in a reasonably free movement of people—although we're probably backsliding in that regard, given the Minister of Immigration's approach over the last few months. So we shouldn't be too terribly worried about the free movement of investment in this country, because they're not stealing anything. Every time an overseas company invests in this country, that frees capital up for New Zealanders to invest in other things. That's how the economy works, and to be scared of that is to put the shutters up and close for business.
Hon Member: Fortress New Zealand.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Exactly. There is no fortress. There might be a very large moat around the islands, but it is hardly "Fortress New Zealand", and long may that be the case.
So with those caveats, and with the very material disappointment that I have that we are not fixing a major irritant in the overseas investment framework, we support the bill.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Just before I go into the actual bill, I would just like to take issue with something that the previous speaker, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, said. Yes, we do need overseas investment in New Zealand. But he was saying that it actually frees up capital in New Zealand if an overseas investor buys off a New Zealander. However, I wonder what happens when an overseas investor buys off an overseas investor; an investor in Hong Kong buys off an investor in London. I just wonder where the benefit to New Zealand arises, because that is subsequent to what happens.
I've heard, during the debate, people talking about how ownership of land is not strategic—well, have a look at my surname. My surname is O'Connor. My ancestors were Irish. They left the Ireland in the 1840s, as did the ancestors of many people in this House, and they left because they lost control of their land. At the time, there was a potato famine and they were starving, there was very productive land down the middle of Ireland, Ireland was a net exporter of food while its people were starving—but they had strategically lost control; they didn't own the land any more. So those who suddenly think that ownership of land means nothing in an economic world, I would just ask them to have a little look at their history to ensure that doesn't happen.
Saying that, I agree with the previous speaker, it is absolutely necessary that we actually do have foreign investment, foreign capital, coming into this country, because failure to do so—we only have to look at a country like North Korea, where they stopped any foreign capital coming in, and we saw the subsequent effect. So what we are really seeking to do all the time is to get that balance.
Now, this bill, when you look through it, it's not major. It addresses things and it is given context by things that have happened before it. But, actually, what it is is secondary to a piece of legislation that we passed last year: the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Act. You might remember, during COVID, when it looked like there may be some seriously distressed assets in New Zealand—and, again, all parties, and, I believe, from memory, even the ACT Party, agreed with this—it was necessary to have a piece of legislation to ensure that at that time we didn't lose strategic assets because they were so distressed. That was actually dealt with. I think everyone agreed that the last thing we wanted to do at that particular time, when this big mix of hedge funds or particularly funds where foreign Governments had a major part of the investment—that we didn't actually lose that.
So it is very important to keep context to this discussion that we as New Zealanders, wherever we come from, understand getting that balance right, that, yes, we are part of a world where the flow of capital is an important part. We saw what happened in 2008, in the global financial crisis, when the flow of capital throughout the globe was threatened—that threatened us all. So getting that balance right, New Zealand, it is important that we are part of that.
So the bill has come out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I was lucky enough to be on the select committee. Again, it was one of these things that comes through the select committee, where one comes out of it much more aware of issues that are important to our land than perhaps one did when we went in there. So making sure that issues like overseas investors coming in who already were existing investors who owned large parcels, whether they should have to go through the same process again, when they could show that the land that they were buying, they didn't need the same level of scrutiny; they'd already been through that should we require them to do that again. So, I think, a very sensible solution—I wouldn't even say a compromise—reached here that where that land can be shown that it is, again, not of separate strategic importance, a piece of land that is additional that may be even runoff land or land, that winter overstock, that, yes, you can purchase that land and don't have to go through the same system again. And that, through this bill, has made things very sensible.
So, again, this bill has gone through select committee. I, once again, congratulate my fellow select committee. I think we had some very good submitters there that, again, drew our attention to things that perhaps, on the surface, we may not have been aware of. And if you look at the recommendations, I have been through the recommendations: they will go, there will be some amendments when we get to the committee of the whole House, but they will be ones that, I think, on the recommendation of the select committee, will make this bill better and will ensure that New Zealanders can be secure, that we can welcome overseas investment, that that investment comes in, is the right investment, and that it's not one that, ultimately, is going to threaten our strategic importance at some stage and say, "Who let them in? Why was that mob, why was that company, why was that foreign Government allowed to own this strategic part of our business?"
Interestingly enough, I see a member opposite, who often stands in this House, talking about his background with Fonterra. I'm sure he would be the first person to stand up in this House and say that it would not be a good strategy for New Zealand to lose control of Fonterra and its suppliers. I'm sure that were anyone to suggest any regime that might result in that happening, he would be the first that would stand up and say, "Boy, we had better not make that happen."
So this bill continues its way through the House, thoroughly improved, I believe, from its select committee process. I recommend it to the House.





DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendments agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (RCEP) LEGISLATION BILL
First Reading
INTERNATIONAL TREATY EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): I present a legislative statement on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I move, That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House four months and one day after it has its first reading.
It's a pleasure to speak in support of the RCEP amendment bill. This first reading is also, in effect, the debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, on RCEP. So allow me to thank the committee for their examination of the treaty which this bill implements. The committee met earlier this year to consider the treaty, including calling for and hearing from a range of public submissions. This is an important role that the committee performs and I'd like to thank the members of the committee for their work, as well as the members of the public who submitted on the treaty. I will address some of the points that they raised in the report, throughout my speech.
Multilateralism has taken a bit of a hammering in recent years. The rise of nationalism, right-wing populism, and great power rivalries have all corroded the will of nations to come together in multilateral institutions, and together tackle the great challenges of our time. But the COVID pandemic has brought home to us the importance of continuing to invest in cooperative multilateral approaches in dealing with the great international issues of the day. It's also shown us how we all suffer when nations reject this approach, and we've seen that in disturbing instances of what have been dubbed in recent times as "vaccine nationalism".
More broadly, the very uncertain strategic outlook and the spilling over of political disputes into the trade arena have reinforced the need for nations to have diverse and robust trade relationships and to look more closely at the resilience of supply chains. It also means, more than ever, that multilateralism needs champions—countries who are willing to be leaders and to strongly and enthusiastically uphold the institutions, the norms, and the rules that make up the international order that all countries, but particularly small states like New Zealand, rely on to get things done, and to avoid situations where a destructive might-is-right ethos undermines what we're trying to achieve generally, but particularly in times of crisis, like those we've seen over the last year during the COVID pandemic. 
At one point during the pandemic, nearly 80 World Trade Organization (WTO) members imposed more than a hundred new restrictions and trade barriers. This is on top of the protectionist policies we've seen implemented in various major economies in recent years. The direction of travel is worrying, and it's why, as a Government, we have prioritised both a response to the initial crisis through, for example, initiatives to increase the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and vaccines, and maintaining supply chains for our exports, but also through redoubling our efforts to build the trade architecture that will assist ours and others' economic recovery. 
So that is why agreements like RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, represent more than the sum of their parts, more than the reduction and removal of tariffs, more than new investment flows, and more than just new markets for our exporters. The 15 countries and 31 negotiating rounds represent a commitment to cooperation and trade. They show that Governments can come together, make compromises, and strike deals that will lift each other up, even in times when it feels like the mood for this kind of cooperation is at a low ebb. 
It's no coincidence that, of all New Zealand's free-trade agreements to date, they're all in the Asia-Pacific region. We've invested in the region with successive agreements—first, the Agreement Between New Zealand and Singapore on a Closer Economic Partnership; the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (P4 agreement); the Hong Kong partnership; the China free-trading agreement (FTA); agreements with Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, and, more recently, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). RCEP was, in its genesis, an Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) initiative. And, of course, South-east Asia is a region that New Zealand has a long and important trade relationship with. Indeed, ASEAN has risen to become New Zealand's fourth-largest trading bloc. 
But this deal also includes a number of countries with which ASEAN has free-trade agreements with: Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and, of course, New Zealand. The 15 countries that RCEP covers are home to almost a third of the world's population, including seven of our top trading partners, taking over half New Zealand's total exports and providing more than half our direct foreign investment. In the year ending December 2019, New Zealand exported more than $36 billion worth of goods to RCEP countries and nearly $12 billion of services. 
India was initially part of the negotiations for RCEP, and their withdrawal in late 2019 was a disappointment. However, the RCEP countries have put in place a fast-track accession process for India should it wish to rejoin in the future. I want to say today, on behalf of the Government, that we value our relationship with India and we will continue with pursuing our aspirations to broaden and deepen the political, cultural, and trade links that we enjoy with India. 
Given New Zealand's existing free-trade agreements with RCEP nations, tariff reductions are not where the action is at. It's not where we will see most of the benefit from this agreement. Though, in saying that, exporters of sheep meat, beef, fish, milk, cheese, honey, and avocados to Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world, will see tariffs eliminated on their products above and beyond the current arrangements. 
The areas of services and investment are where the big gains will be made, as well as the lifting of non-tariff barriers with China and the largest ASEAN countries, having made investment market access commitments to New Zealand for the very first time. On non-tariff barriers, RCEP creates an expectation that customs authorities will, for example, release perishable goods, such as seafood, within six hours of arrival, including the release of such goods outside normal business hours, which should reduce spoilage and save exporters money. That might seem like a very small practical benefit, but I'll say this: for our seafood exporters, who are an important part of our export industries, that will be a very significant benefit. 
From recent experience, speaking to exporters like our $155 million a year onion exporting industry, just the other day, I know how frustrating these non-tariff barriers can be and what a real impediment they are, getting goods to market. Another key benefit is the establishment of a single rule book covering all 15 markets within RCEP. This represents a significant reduction in cost and complexity for exporters, meaning they can spend more time selling their products and less time filling out paperwork. 
Over time, the economic benefit to New Zealand of these changes will be considerable. Independent modelling predicts that once RCEP is fully in effect, New Zealand's annual GDP will be between 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent larger as a result. That amounts to $1.5 billion to $3.2 billion in annual GDP. 
These expected benefits show why trade has been a central part of the Government's plan to recover from COVID-19. Our trade recovery strategy has three main pillars: re-tooling support for exporters, refreshing the international trade architecture, and re-energising and refocusing our key trade relationships. It's not just about more and better trade links, but actually helping our exporters make the most of the opportunities in overseas markets. I'm proud to be part of a Government that in turbulent times is leading the way in ensuring that New Zealanders are responsible, proactive, and engaged global citizens. It's also a Government, however, that does not pursue trade cooperation simply for its own sake. It is a means to an end, because done properly, we know that trade can lift the living standards of New Zealanders and secure the future prosperity of our nation. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to and that the House note the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.










TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's great to be able to stand up this Thursday afternoon and outline National's support for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill here at its first reading, and to reflect on both the content of the select committee report and this legislation but also the content, initially, of Minister Twyford's observations.
One thought that struck me, listening to the Minister's pretty fair assessment of the benefits that this bill and this legislation will have for the country, is his complete omission over the history of this and where it started back in 2012 under the guidance of Tim Groser. This is a trend that I think is very disappointing. For a number of decades, the Labour Party and the National Party, regardless of who was in Government, had very much a shoulder-to-shoulder approach to trade, because we both could see that regardless of our political perspectives, it actually is in New Zealand's interest for trade deals to be negotiated, negotiated well, and to have the support of the country. In my view, there was a split from this tradition when we were seeking to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and it split the party and indeed the Labour Party—indeed, the Hons David Shearer and Phil Goff split away because they were disappointed, in their own words, with the politicisation of the TPP process. 
You see it here a little bit today with the complete omission of the fact that the genesis of the RCEP concept was heavily driven by the Hon Tim Groser, and they're completely silent on the fact that, actually, most of the heavy lifting occurred under the previous National Government. They, quite rightly, have taken it forward. I think that's a missed opportunity to remind the country about the importance of trade, the importance of actually having a degree of bipartisanship around the execution of trade strategy. So my door is open, but, of course, I don't hold out much hope that this Minister will return us to the sensible bipartisan approach that existed when we were last in Government.
To the bill itself, a couple of observations. RCEP in its genesis was an attempt by particularly the ASEAN countries who were not part of the TPP negotiations to be able to engage with countries from the wider Pacific Rim who had fair-trade agreements, particularly with China—to be able to have them, China in particular, as part of the framework. It did have India in as well, and, actually, when you look at the opportunity that would have presented for New Zealand exporters, having India as part of the RCEP agreement would have been quite a substantial step forward and, in my view, would have elevated this legislation and this trade deal to the level of TPP. 
Alas, that wasn't the case. We were very disappointed on this side when India pulled out. We had seen Todd McClay, actually, pull some remarkable rabbits out of the hat when TPP looked like it would fall over with the United States pulling out, and had hoped that that same energy and effort and focus would have been present in our New Zealand Minister to try and keep India at the table. I have my own view that we were a little bit too passive in those negotiations, lacking in innovation, lacking in thinking of ways that we can keep them in the tent. That is disappointing for us, that that wasn't the case. 
The Minister stepped through the benefits—not huge, but, you know, a benefit between $1.5 and $3.5 billion by 2030 is not to be sneezed at. It really is around the ease of doing business that is implicit in the detail of this legislation, particularly in terms of the reduction of non-tariff barriers, particularly, of course, for some of the horticultural, seafood, and agriculture businesses that get greater tariff relief getting into Indonesia. But, essentially, it reinforces for our part of the world a collective commitment to multi-party, rules-based frameworks to enable trade in goods and services to continue unabated and to be amplified over time. That is only good for New Zealand—it is only good for New Zealand exporters, and it is only good for the New Zealand workers and wider community, and should be embraced and supported in that context. 
A couple of chapters that were perhaps missing and caused us some concern when we reflected on it at a committee earlier—there wasn't an environmental chapter. Sometimes, you know, on our side of politics, when we hear "environmental chapters", we see that as potential challenges. Certainly I am keeping a very close eye on where the New Zealand - EU and New Zealand - UK negotiations end up in this space. But because we produce the most emissions-efficient animal protein in the world, we should embrace environmental chapters if they are negotiated and written in a way that amplifies our competitive strengths. So we shouldn't have a view that any environmental chapter is bad. We should say that if it gives our exporters, who already are the best in the world in this space, the opportunity to amplify their competitive advantage, we should grab it. The fact that this was completely silent I think was a missed opportunity, and it's a shame that we couldn't, in this multi-party negotiation, get it there. 
I've already touched on the loss of India. We need to ensure that we keep very, very close to that country, to that fine country, which—this House, and I know I can speak for all of us, watched the dreadful scenes in that remarkable country at the moment. Our heart goes out to them. We hope that they can get through the tragedy of COVID. They are remarkable people with great innovation and great energy, and they are going to be a big part of the Asian century that sits in front of us. It's really important for this country and this House to strengthen our relationships, not only people-to-people but also business-to-business. It is the National Party's fervent hope that we stay very connected with India, both at a Minister-to-Minister level but definitely officials and business-to-business, to get them into this agreement in time. 
We are concerned about the increasing development of geographical indicators. It didn't get progressed too significantly as a concept, but we are seeing this being built into negotiated trade agreements, and we've signalled that we are concerned that both the UK and the EU might build on what's here in a way that actually provides impediment for our exporters as opposed to opportunity. 
But, overall, we'll support this. It is a step in the right direction. It connects us with our Asian trading partners that we already have deep trading relationships with—amplifies it; allows the ASEAN countries to feel connected with Australia, New Zealand, China, and others. That works for their evolving economies, and it works for us. Of course, there are a number of consequential amendments that we will need to make to the Tariff Act and the custom and duties Act. We will work through that. They are not particularly consequential. They are, in a sense, required to enable what has been negotiated. 
But my final message is that trade is critical for all of us in this House, for the wider country, and it does deserve the best of us in terms of our negotiating strategy and our political perspectives and contribution. I do feel that opportunity and value is being left on the table with the fact that the experience that sits on this side of the House in terms of trade and commercial export arrangements—not only in my context but many other of my colleagues—is simply not being used in a way that benefits "New Zealand Inc.". When we were the Government, we reached out to David Parker, we reached out to Phil Goff, we reached out to David Shearer, when they each had time in the trade spokesman role, to ensure that they were well-briefed, shoulder-to-shoulder with the Government, so we could present a "New Zealand Inc." face. What I'm seeing back is too defensive, not engaging at the level that should be occurring, and, actually, I don't think that works in New Zealand's interests, and it certainly doesn't work in our communities' interests, who want the best of our thinking brought to negotiations. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Fḁiåk se'ea, Mr Speaker, I stand as somebody in a party that also highly values trade, and it's a great pleasure to speak on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. As we have heard this afternoon, the bill is worth ultimately about $1.5 to $3.2 billion dollars, or 0.3 to 0.6 percent of our GDP growth, and in a Government that has a wellbeing approach, we do recognise, of course, the GDP as one of the really important indicators amongst many indicators that make up the wellbeing of New Zealanders. 
This bill really broadens and deepens the trade and investment links of New Zealand. As has been mentioned, it's an omnibus bill which gives legislative effect to the RCEP treaty. Like my friend on the opposite side of the House, I won't go into the technical elements, because, really, what I'd like to address today is the broadening of those trade links. The treaty covers 15 countries, seven of our top trading partners, and includes five countries that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has free-trade agreements with, including Australia. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee enjoyed a really rich discussion with Her Excellency Patricia Forsythe today, on matters of common interest around trade and regional security, a very valuable discussion. It also links us back again with China, our largest trading nation, and that relationship that has been so aptly described by our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, as a relationship between a dragon and a taniwha. But also Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN, of course, have a free-trade agreement with New Zealand. I think we're all in agreement that ASEAN has become increasingly more robust over the years, and is, indeed, an increasingly important trading bloc.
The countries represented in the agreement make up one-third of the population globally—that's 15 countries that take over half of our New Zealand total exports—and it's taken nine years and 31 negotiating rounds to get to the agreement. So I commend the officials for the work that they have done. Look, I've had the privilege of working across 13 of those RCEP countries, except for Brunei and Laos, when I was the regional communication director for the British Council. So I was up in that region about every six weeks for a period of two years. In that role I saw the importance of the strategic regional alliances for a small, independent, highly developed country such as New Zealand. I think it's fair to say, I had a bit of a window into how New Zealand was viewed by both those countries and also by the United Kingdom. The words that come to mind are things like "independent". Certainly, that was shaped in our nuclear moment under David Lange. But, also, I recall sitting in a lunchtime business speech in Auckland, hearing the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Murray McCully talk about our independence. So it has been through successive Governments, and I do think that should be acknowledged as a response to my friend Todd Muller, on the other side of the House. We're also seen as very connected despite our isolation, progressive on many issues including climate and human rights, and respected for our rules-based approach.
I think that this treaty enables us to continue that global brand proposition. So it's about respecting and maintaining relationships with our traditional trade relationships, while also enabling us to engage in a multilateral way to diversify our export base and to have more nuanced relationships within the many partnerships that we have as a trading nation. I think it futureproofs us from a trend of nationalism that the Hon Phil Twyford said saw 80 world trade organisations have more than 100 new restrictions or barriers in place recently. So the RCEP promotes economic integration, but it does also bring us into a rules-based book—a rule book—and it reduces complexity and therefore the compliance cost for New Zealand exporters. It injects us into supply chains and it ensures that we remain there.
As has been mentioned by the Minister, our exports remained remarkably resilient in COVID. The virus situation is not going to resolve for a long time, and I acknowledge Todd Muller for recognising that. It has been the exports and keeping our borders safe that have worked for us so far and that will continue to be critical for our recovery. So the RCEP is an important part of that. To those who are nervous about trade agreements, may I assure you that most of the obligations contained in the bill we've actually already met. There are no investor-State dispute mechanisms, and those can be problematic in terms of a chilling effect that they can have on domestic policy. 
So for those who don't know what investor-State dispute settlements are, they're really mechanisms that enable foreign investors to resolve disputes with the Government of a country through independent arbitration, and although they are seen as neutral, they can have a chilling effect on trade. So this agreement doesn't have that. 
Nor does it have any commitment to extend the intellectual property provisions, and that's increasingly important when we think about technological innovation, digital innovation, cultural intellectual property, which is really important, particularly for Māori business, and also bio-innovation. It also protects and upholds the Treaty of Waitangi provision, although, personally—and I'm speaking personally here—I'm keen to learn more from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about how they're strengthening processes around engagement with Māori on Treaty matters, and I understand that is happening especially in relation to biodiversity.
Just looking at where this trade agreement sits, it fits really nicely into our trade recovery strategy. We had $216 million of the 2020 Budget allocation, which was to support exporters and international businesses, and that was support from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. We've given more help for exporters facing trade barriers and we're trying to build investment capacity in New Zealand. Securing new trade investment opportunities really complements that recovery strategy.
So, in summary, I think that this agreement aligns with the priorities from the Speech from the Throne. It's leveraging off our COVID-safe environment to position New Zealand as a safe and secure place to trade with—one that, hopefully, will also be safe to visit openly. It meets our trade policy limbs in terms of improving wellbeing for New Zealanders and it safeguards our tino rangatiratanga. 
It does preserve the possibility for India to opt in when it can, and I know it was expressed with great enthusiasm from the submission from Federated Farmers to see India opt in. I echo the words of Todd Muller that that is something that this side of the House feels will really strengthen the trade agreement. But I also see that this is a way of securing trade as part of a rules-based order. It's so important to have multilateral relationships, to honour the old relationships that we've had but also to forge new ones. We are moving into a time when the combined GDP of autocracies outstrip the GDP of democratic countries. That's really interesting, because we can only influence values-based trade—or trade for a purpose, as it could be called—and we can only mitigate against the potential for the weaponising of trade if we are actually connected globally, if we have rules-based trading relationships, and if we are in supply chains ourselves so that we know how those supply chains operate. 
The RCEP treaty helps us to achieve that. It keeps the door open for us to bring India into the picture. It keeps us at a very important table, and it also, of course, brings economic benefit to New Zealanders through the enhanced GDP that will result over time from us being part of this multilateral agreement. So I commend both the bill and also the treaty to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I look forward, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, to considering the bill, that I think will get widespread support for its progress in the House today. As my colleague Todd Muller mentioned, the genesis of this agreement, from a New Zealand perspective, started in the time of the Hon Tim Groser and was carried on through the time of the Hon Todd McClay, and I have to make the comment that it is a shame that some of the bipartisan arrangements that were in place around this sort of arrangement for New Zealand do seem to have fallen to one side. I note too that this is the second trade agreement that the current Government has brought to the House, or its predecessor, the coalition Government. So to only have two trade agreements come through in four years—two trade agreements that were started by the previous Government and substantially taken down the track by the previous Government—and then for that bipartisan approach to fall aside, it is a bit of an indication that trade is not high on the agenda of the current Government, despite what they might say.
What people in New Zealand, I think, increasingly understand is that we enjoy a lifestyle here far in advance of what a domestic economy alone can provide for us. We've seen a little bit over the last 12 months, where the COVID-19 virus has affected so many workplaces and so many business opportunities, what it requires from a Government just to hold that domestic economy together, and that's represented by the billions of dollars—billions of dollars, if not tens of billions of dollars—that will have been borrowed and notified to the New Zealand public in the Budget next Thursday. So to get ahead of that, to be a nation that isn't burdened by debt, we do need to constantly look for more and better trading opportunities.
This agreement started out of our involvement with ASEAN. ASEAN is a group of Asian countries, and they have dialogue partners, of which New Zealand is one. That's how we come to be at the table. The invitation certainly was there for India to be part of that. India is going to be one of the world's great big economies in the years ahead. While we do extend our deepest sympathies to the people living in India who are dealing with the COVID-19 fallout at the moment, we should recognise that in a population of a billion people, there are many, many entrepreneurs who are growing businesses by the day, who are reaching out to the rest of the world, and who are going to have quite an effect on the international economy in the years to come. So leaving the door open, recognising that at the moment there are pressures for the Indian Government to deal with that don't let them sign up to an agreement like this—leaving that door open for the future with no recriminations and, in fact, a very welcoming hand extended for them to consider their future joining of the organisation or the trade group I think is totally the right thing.
We've talked about the value that this might bring to the New Zealand economy, saying that the information we've got is about $186 billion added to the New Zealand economy over a period of time, or it's been expressed as 0.6 of our GDP—0.6 of our GDP is not inconsiderable, but this is not the end game. Imagine if we were every year attaining that sort of growth inside our export economy, if our GDP was able to expand by that or even more. That would help us enormously to protect the purchasing power of New Zealanders' dollars against the huge debt load that we now have sitting over the heads of all of us. So trade is something that should be pursued with a great deal of earnestness.
I do notice that two of the countries that are listed in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are China, which is a country we have very good trading relations with, a country that is our biggest trading partner and an extremely important trading partner to us—a country that we should respect for the achievements of lifting so many people from total and abject poverty over the last 40 years, while recognising that they still have that challenge ahead of them despite the size of their economy. We will be able to have our disagreements, as this House expressed last week, concerned about human rights issues, and there'll be other issues too that we will have disagreement on, but that doesn't mean that we shut the door on one another and that we close off the trading opportunities that do assist in lifting people from the abject poverty that has afflicted so many in past generations in that country. I notice, too, that Myanmar is here. We don't have a huge amount of trade at the moment with Myanmar, but it is a country that has enormous potential. It's a country that we've also had a lot to say about in recent times, because New Zealand's style of government does not fit with the dictatorship, the military junta, that currently runs Myanmar.
So the importance of trade groups is that the benefit that comes from trade for individuals, for the citizens of these countries, can be advanced while there can be, at that political level, great discord about the direction of any particular country. From our perspective, we're a country that is rules-based. We're a country that says law, internationally applied, is of little value if it doesn't respect the rules that are the basis of government in our type of country. So there's always going to be some conflict around that, but when it comes down to the issue of trade, a lot of that can be segmented away and the opportunities that come from that trade can be enjoyed by parties on both sides of any agreement.
Simon Bridges and I visited India early last year prior to the COVID-19 lockdown, and we got a very, very clear picture of why India were reluctant to embrace RCEP. I'm not going to go into those right now because we don't have that time available to us, but what I can say is that those are issues that will resolve over time, and once they get through this particularly difficult time for them, I'm very pleased—and I state again, because of its importance—that the door remains open to them.
This is a good agreement. I hope that we see a lot more of them. I hope some of the attitude of the Government to getting that bipartisan support across the House does change and that there can be a faster pace applied to some of the trade opportunities that do exist for New Zealand and that should be on the table in these very interesting and sometimes difficult times. The select committee, I think, will do a good job and report back to the House in due course.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May 2021. Kia ora mai tātou.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 5.02 p.m.