TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ā kāti rā, kia tau anō te rangimārie. Kia inoi tātou. E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.
[And so, may peace be with us. Let us pray. Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]





OBITUARIES
Hon Sir Michael Cullen KNZM
Taito Phillip Field
Jenny Kirk MNZM
John Murry Rose QSM
SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 19 August 2021 of the Hon Sir Michael Cullen KNZM, who represented the electorates of St Kilda and Dunedin South between 1981 and 1999 and continued to serve as a list member until 2009. Sir Michael was Deputy Prime Minister from 2002 to 2008. During his membership of this House, he held a number of ministerial positions, including Minister of Social Welfare, Minister of Finance, Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Minister of Tertiary Education, Attorney-General, as well as Leader of the House. 
I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.
Members stood as a mark of respect.





SPEAKER: Thank you, members. 
I further regret to inform the House of the death on 5 August 2021of John Murray Rose QSM, who represented the Otago Central electorate between 1969 and 1972.
I also regret to inform the House of the death on 23 September 2021 of Taito Phillip Field, who represented the Ōtara electorate between 1993 and 1996, and the electorate of Māngere between 1996 and 2008. He was New Zealand's first member of Parliament who was of Pacific Island descent. Taito Phillip Field was the Minister of State, Associate Minister of Justice, Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, and Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment from 2003 to 2005. He was awarded the 1990 Commemoration Medal for services to the community.
I also regret to inform the House of the death on 30 September 2021 of Jenny Kirk MNZM, who represented the Birkenhead electorate between 1987 and 1990. She was awarded the New Zealand Suffrage Centennial Medal in 1993. 
I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to their memories.
Members stood as a mark of respect.





OBITUARIES
Sir David Amess
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for a motion without notice or debate to be moved on the murder of British MP Sir David Amess.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process being followed? There appears to be none.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That this House express its sympathy to the family, friends, and colleagues of British member of Parliament Sir David Amess, who was attacked and killed as he went about his duties as a local MP on 15 October, and to pass its condolences to the Westminster Parliament.
Motion agreed to.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:Petition of Brian Mullane requesting that the House initiate an inquiry into the Chief Ombudsmanpetition of Catherine Overend requesting that the House pass legislation for New Zealand university-trained counsellors to be recognised as a professional mental health practitionerpetition of Robert Forsyth requesting that the House pass legislation mandating use of masks in secondary schools at COVID-19 alert level 2petition of James Boland requesting that the House pass legislation recognising the human right to a healthy environmentpetition of Patricia Fabish and the Sensible Sentencing Trust requesting that the House pass legislation to allow victims to present unedited victim impact statements in courtpetition of Emily Shute requesting that the House urge the Government to change the time frame of the cervical cancer self-testing roll-out to begin at the start of 2022petition of Rachel Swann requesting that the House urge the Government to expand the eligibility for the 2021 Resident Visa to all types of visa holderspetition of Eliana Darroch requesting that the House urge the Government to reinstate the emergency benefit for temporary visa holders for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemicpetition of Jay Shak requesting that the House urge the Government to stage a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:Annual reports for 2021 of:Public Trust Pike River Recovery AgencyEducation Review OfficeStatistics New ZealandGuardians of New Zealand SuperannuationMinistry for Pacific PeoplesReal Estate AuthorityEarthquake CommissionGovernment Superannuation Fund Government Superannuation Fund AuthorityMinistry for the Environment, andEnvironmental Protection Authorityannual reports for 2021 of the Treasury and the Minister of Finance's report on non-departmental appropriationsreports on:non-departmental appropriations 2020/21 for Vote Business, Science, and Innovation; Commerce and Consumer Affairs PortfolioVote Environment—Climate Change Portfolio and Vote Environment—Environment PortfolioErratum to the annual report for 2020/21 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealandstatements of performance expectations 2021/22 for:Kāinga Ora Homes and CommunitiesTāmaki Regeneration Company LimitedGuardians of New Zealand SuperannuationGovernment Superannuation Fund Authoritystatements of intent for:Tāmaki Regeneration Company LimitedGuardians of New Zealand SuperannuationMāori Television Servicefinancial statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2021Government Response to the Report of the Justice Committee on the Inquiry into 2019 Local Elections and Liquor Licensing Trust Elections and Recent Energy Trust Elections.
SPEAKER: I present the 2021 annual reports of:the Parliament Sector for the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Servicethe Controller and Auditor-General, andthe Office of the Ombudsmen
I also present the 2021/26 Strategic Intentions of the Office of the Ombudsmen. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Billreport of the Health Committee on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Billreports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Jane Sutherland and Rebecca Greer, and the petition of Pauline Lattareport of the Regulations Review Committee on the:COVID-19 Public Health Response Alert Level Requirements Order (No 11) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response Alert Level Requirements Order (No 11) Amendment Order 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response Alert Level Requirements Order (No 11) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response Alert Level Requirements Order (No 11) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response Alert Level Requirements Order (No 11) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The COVID-19 orders are set down for consideration. 
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:Retail Payment System Bill, introductionData and Statistics Bill, introductionRemuneration Authority Legislation Bill, introductionResource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What Government economic support has been provided to businesses since the Delta outbreak on 17 August? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government moved swiftly to provide significant support to businesses and workers in response to the Delta COVID-19 outbreak. The wage subsidy scheme and resurgence support payment were reactivated. Other existing supports such as the leave support scheme, the short-term absence payment, and the small-business cash-flow scheme have also been available, as appropriate. In total, the wage subsidy scheme has now paid out $3.35 billion, and the resurgence support payment, $1.13 billion, totalling close to $4.5 billion. I am very well aware of the strain that the restrictions that are in place are putting on businesses and workers, and we are continuing to talk to businesses and evolve our response. The Government has been working on an enhanced business support package which will have a particular focus on supporting businesses in the Auckland area, and I'll have more to say about that on Friday.
Dr Duncan Webb: Where has the support been targeted to business?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Under the wage subsidy scheme, the data shows that as of 14 October, 1.267 million jobs have been paid at least one payment. Some 39 percent of employees and 46 percent of self-employed have been supported by at least three payments. The analysis also shows that 65 percent of the employees supported by payments three and four are located within Auckland. A growing share of the jobs outside of Auckland that are being supported are in the accommodation and food services sector, as industries such as construction return to normal outside of the Auckland area. Under the resurgence support payment, which helps businesses with their fixed costs, the proportion of payments Auckland businesses have received has increased for each successive round, from 43 percent in the first payment to 64 percent in the second and, currently, 70 percent for the third. By sector, construction has received the largest amount for the first two rounds of payments. For the first week of the third payment, however, that has changed, with the accommodation and food services sector receiving the largest amount.
Dr Duncan Webb: What other support is available to help businesses in response to Delta COVID-19?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, these are stressful times for businesses and business owners—particularly in Auckland—who are doing it tough. Every week during lockdown, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has put out a specialist business support newsletter to more than 800,000 businesses, with help and advice on issues such as mental wellbeing. There is also a range of other resources available for small and medium sized business owners on the MBIE website, which has a lot of practical resources and advice. On Friday, we will have more to say about the support that we'll be providing to businesses.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to COVID-19 restrictions, "We know that in the future we cannot ask people to live week by week, not knowing when things will change"; if so, when will she announce clear milestones for lifting current COVID-related restrictions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement: "We know that in the future we cannot ask people to live week by week, not knowing when things will change or how to help things speed up. We know that needs to change and we have a plan on how. While the announcements today will be about the next few weeks, on Friday we'll provide the detail around the system we'll use to protect ourselves in a highly vaccinated environment. We'll give details on how we'll move into that new system and what will help us to get there."
Hon Judith Collins: Why did she not announce clear milestones three weeks ago when she released a three-step plan for lifting lockdown in Auckland?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because as we've always said, our outbreak has been and continues to be different than those outbreaks we've seen in Australia, where they were using vaccine to exit their outbreak. What we wanted to do was maintain the ability to continue to assess the progress of the outbreak alongside our vaccination, so not necessarily say that everything would be contingent on single vaccination rates but to continue to assess the containment of the outbreak. That is why we made the decision, of course, as you know, in level 3 to have a step 1 change that allows people to gather outdoors.
Hon Judith Collins: Can she commit to telling students in Auckland and Waikato this week what the criteria are for when they can return to school, so that they don't have to live week to week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've already signalled that the Ministry of Education will be making announcements around the near future around education in Auckland on Wednesday, and, obviously, as I've already said in my primary answer, we'll be looking to the framework for a highly vaccinated environment and the details of that being released on Friday.
Hon Judith Collins: Can she commit to telling South Islanders this week the conditions for when level 2 restrictions will be lifted so that South Island businesses don't have to live week to week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've already said in my primary answer, we've set out the time line for when we will be releasing the details of a framework for a highly vaccinated environment. What I will say, in the meantime, for the South Island is that you'll see that we continue to assess the parameters and restrictions that sat alongside level 2. Of course, we've kept a level 2 environment in the rest of the country because we know the mobility of New Zealanders. We know that we're continuing to have to ship and transport goods out of Auckland into the South Island. But we did assess that we could lift the caps for, for instance, hospitality and those sites that are using the seated and separated rule to try and just ease a bit of pressure there, acknowledging that the restrictions do have an impact.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she accept that the Government's failure to deliver a plan to ease restrictions has seen small businesses living week to week, and many destroyed?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I accept that COVID has destroyed many people's lives, and affected, in a disastrous way, many people's businesses. Of course, no country has had zero impact from COVID, but it is fair to say that our country has had far fewer impacts than many when it comes to case numbers, hospitalisations, deaths, and—of course—unemployment and the impacts of restrictions on business. We absolutely acknowledge this has been an incredibly difficult period for many, but when we look at the overall impact of COVID around the world, we have had a very different and far better situation than many, many others.
Hon Judith Collins: Can she commit to announcing the conditions this week for lifting the Auckland regional boundaries so split families across New Zealand don't have to live week to week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've already talked a little bit this morning about some of the thinking that we're doing around the Auckland boundary, and one of the issues we have is, of course, the desire of the South Island, for instance, to be without any restrictions, but, equally, the member has now raised also the desire of Aucklanders to be able to move around. So we, as Government, have to navigate those two competing interests and keep people safe, but also acknowledge that there are, of course, incredibly important reasons that Aucklanders wish to move again. So we are doing some thinking around how, regardless of the situation of the outbreak in Auckland, we might be better able to enable that safely.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she now accept that when she said earlier this year, "I support the fact that we have been later in the pecking order", her decision not to prioritise vaccinations for New Zealanders resulted in Auckland's 62-day lockdown?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I utterly reject the premise of that member's question.
Hon Judith Collins: Will she apologise to New Zealanders for failing to get them vaccinated earlier and leaving us as sitting ducks for Delta?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I also completely reject the premise of that question. We entered into talks with pharmaceutical companies before they'd even finished their clinical trials. We were purchasing vaccines across multiple portfolios before it was even clear that they would necessarily be successful. Despite the constant misrepresentation of the Opposition on this issue, we were very early in our purchasing. Whether or not we were amongst the first to be delivered to is a very different question, but I utterly reject any suggestion that we did not do everything that we could to ensure that we had access to vaccines.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept or not accept that New Zealand has been one of the last countries in the OECD to get its population vaccinated?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We've already overtaken many other countries for whom the member would compare us to. Of course, when it comes to first doses, I believe we've overtaken Australia now, the UK—a number of other countries that the member continued to compare us to, we have overtaken. The difference is that we've always taken our own approach on COVID. We've always said that we want a situation where we keep people as safe as possible and, at the moment, that means trying to keep the outbreak as low as possible while we get very high vaccination rates, because that means that when we move, we will be able to continue to try and keep that outbreak and those numbers as low as possible. There's very few countries that have been in that position and there are few countries that have been in ours. But I don't, for a moment, trivialise the impacts of lockdown.




Question No. 3—COVID-19 Response
3. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent progress has been made in the Government's COVID-19 vaccination roll-out?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Over the weekend, New Zealanders came together across the motu to get behind Super Saturday, and I want to acknowledge the support of Super Saturday from all parties across the House. Nationwide, we had 700 vaccination sites open on Super Saturday—a number of them running into the evening in order to allow people the opportunity to get their vaccinations. A number of people from across the country went out of their way to get vaccinated—130,000 doses administered on a single day, the biggest day that we have had. I do want to thank everybody who played a role in Super Saturday's event, whether it was leading up to, or on, the day; whether it was involved in organising the vaccination sites, or a barbecue, or driving someone to be vaccinated, and—very importantly—encouraging friends and family to show up and to do their part in keeping New Zealand safe from COVID-19. Everybody had a role to play.
Ibrahim Omer: What areas did particularly well on Super Saturday, and where does this leave our current vaccination levels?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are some particular places that deserve specific mention, and I want to mention the Kawerau District which, before Super Saturday, had the lowest first-dose rate of vaccination in the country. The Kawerau community came out with huge support and they ended up with the largest percentage increase in first doses of any district in Aotearoa New Zealand—so a massive effort there. We saw high uptake amongst Māori on Super Saturday: 10,825 first doses and 10,877 second doses. That was particularly pleasing to see, a 5.4 percent jump in the overall vaccination rate for Māori in a single week, and the days leading up to it as well. So a big, big boost there, and the momentum is continuing.
Ibrahim Omer: What support did he see for Super Saturday across the country?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I want to acknowledge the communities and businesses that got behind the Super Saturday events. For example, we saw community groups, businesses, councils, health providers, and a whole lot of individuals doing a fantastic job to encourage people to be vaccinated. There was a lot of fun on the day, including Air New Zealand's Jabaseat, where they had a 787 Dreamliner parked on the runway where people were able to be vaccinated in business class and wait out their time in economy class. We saw businesses across the country donating significantly to the cause, and I'd like to thank them for that. I'd like to also just extend the message that Super Saturday can't be the end of this; we need to see that momentum continue. We still have more people who we need to get vaccinated.
Ibrahim Omer: What further works are planned in the vaccination roll-out to build off Super Saturday?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We now need to redouble our efforts to target those communities where vaccination rates continue to be low. One of the things that we know is that people in those areas are less likely to come forward and seek out vaccination, and so we need to make vaccination as available as close as possible to them. That includes things like the Delta Buster, which we launched in Waiwhetū over the weekend, making sure that we have buses, vans, campervans, mobile vaccination clinics heading out into those communities where we have lower vaccination rates. Every New Zealander can continue to contribute here. Every additional person we encourage to get their first dose, or to get their second dose if they're reluctant to get their second dose, is a step closer to getting back to the freedoms that we all want to see the country getting back to.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, "We must not allow inequality to take hold in our recovery. In fact we need to take this opportunity to improve the prospects of all New Zealanders and tackle those long-standing divisions"; if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do stand by the statement, which was made in April 2020, ahead of the 2020 Budget. Since then, the hard work of all New Zealanders and Government policy has driven a strong recovery, which has delivered more people in jobs and tens of thousands fewer people on income support than was forecast; the largest increase to benefit rates in a generation on top of an indexation of main benefits to the average wage; and one of the strongest economic performances during COVID in the OECD, which in turn has seen more jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders. This is not to deny that there is more to do. There is, and that is why we are continuously updating our response, and we'll have more to say about that on Friday.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the enhanced business support package for Auckland he is announcing on Friday include direct financial support for Auckland students, renters, beneficiaries, and those in transitional housing; if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously I'm not going to pre-empt the announcement, but what I would say is that the package of supports that the Government has already put in place has been providing support to those groups, many of whom are part of receipt of the wage subsidy scheme, for example, but I will leave more details until Friday.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why has the Government provided less than half the financial support to tertiary students in the 2021 COVID response than they provided in 2020?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There was an initial boost to student allowances and student loan living cost support payments then. Obviously that continues to flow through. We have also, in this particular outbreak, increased funding for the student hardship fund, which enables us to target the support to those students who are the most in need.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he asked for or received any advice about the impact of high inflation and whether increases in living costs and rents will erode the previous increases to benefits and the minimum wage?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I haven't sought specific advice since yesterday with the material that came in then, but the general advice is that, yes, higher inflation does impact more on those with the lowest incomes. Over the course of the last 20 months, we've seen not only the things I outlined in my primary answer but also increases to the minimum wage, and we continue to look for ways to support low-income New Zealanders.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the Government freeze rents, as they did during the COVID lockdowns last year, to address the needs of people in Auckland as they face the longest period of level 4 and level 3 restrictions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That's not currently on the Government's agenda, no.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he provide direct financial support to low-income and marginalised communities in Auckland so people can afford to stay home and stop spreading the virus and look after their families during this extended lockdown?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There have been a number of investments made by the Government in supporting those on low incomes and in vulnerable communities in the Auckland area. That is included through additional funding for Pasifika health and community providers for Whānau Ora and other iwi and Māori providers, and we continue to provide support, obviously, through the Ministry of Social Development.




Question No. 5—Finance
5. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What new plans, if any, will he announce to support those businesses that are currently affected by alert levels in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government, as I outlined in my answer to question No. 1, has provided significant support to businesses across New Zealand affected by the change in alert levels. We know that the impact on some sectors and regions, such as those in Auckland, has been hard, and we will continue to work with them and provide support. Again, as I said in question No. 1, the Government's been working on an enhanced business support package with a particular focus on Auckland, and I'll have more to say about that on Friday.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen the Auckland Business Chamber survey from October, which shows that two-thirds of Auckland businesses are not confident about the state of the economy over the next six months; and, if so, will he restore confidence by committing to allow the wage subsidy to be accessed at alert level 2?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have been in regular contact with the Auckland business chamber of commerce and, indeed, many of their members over the last couple of months. In terms of what we will be doing, that will happen on Friday.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen the Retail New Zealand report from 30 September, which shows that a third of all retailers are not confident that their business will survive the next 12 months; and, if so, what plan does he have to ensure that this does not happen?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The focus of the Government over the course of the last 20 months has been on cash flow and confidence within the economy. That's the reason why we have put out such a significant amount of resources—as I mentioned, close to $4.5 billion going to businesses since the August outbreak. I know the member has his own announcements that he plans to make tomorrow; if there's any new ones in there on top of what's previously been announced, I look forward to seeing them.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen, in the same Retail New Zealand report, that 87 percent of retailers want the Government to provide a plan for rental support in the form of a financial payment; and, if so, will he be adopting National's rental support package?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I previously said, the resurgence support payment was specifically designed to help businesses meet their fixed costs. We've obviously expanded access to that over the course of the last couple of months; the member will have to wait till Friday. But, again, I look forward to any further new announcements he has tomorrow.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen the report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, which shows that 43 percent of the building sector expect weaker economic conditions ahead; and, if so, what plan does he have to make it easier to supply and transport building products across the Auckland regional boundary?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's very clear that there'll be no new announcements tomorrow from the National Party, given this particular line of questioning. As the member knows, we have facilitated the movement of building supplies across the boundary over recent times in order to meet some of the needs that exist there. And the construction industry, bear in mind, continues to operate at alert level 3, and, indeed, around the country.




Question No. 6—Building and Construction
6. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen regarding building consents?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I've seen a report from Statistics New Zealand that shows that for the sixth month in a row, the annual number of residential building consents has reached another all-time high. The number of new homes consented in the year ended June 2021 is at a record high of 46,453. This is an increase of 24 percent from the August 2020 year. These figures show the Government's commitment to responding to increased housing demand is delivering the warm, dry, safe, and durable houses New Zealanders need.
Terisa Ngobi: What other trends does this report show?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The report shows a steady increase in the demand for multi-unit homes, with the total number of multi-unit homes consented in August 2021 at 21,164, an increase of 35 percent from the year prior. There's no doubt that New Zealanders' needs are changing and the building landscape is evolving. It's encouraging to see a shift in the type of homes we're building, as more apartments and townhouses will help us deliver affordable and healthy and energy-efficient homes.
Terisa Ngobi: How is the Government supporting the building and construction sector to build this growth in consents?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government's investment in the construction sector is creating more jobs, helping us to retain and grow construction skills, and building warmer, drier, secure housing at a critical time. More people have moved into construction than any other sector since the start of COVID-19. This is fantastic for our communities, our economy, and our housing delivery programme. A strong sector means we can build back better.




Question No. 7—Prime Minister
7. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to vaccine targets, "It is not as simple as that. If only the world were that simple"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement: "If we have a proportion of New Zealanders who opt out, we will have outbreaks that will lead to restrictions, and that will impinge on everyone's lives. So it is not a simple equation of 'If you've just had a chance, then unfortunately game's up and it's all over for everyone.' It is not as simple as that. If only the world were that simple."
David Seymour: Is the Government's policy now to have no numerical target, one numerical target, or a series of targets for different groups and locations in terms of vaccination rates?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'll refer the member to the comments that I made yesterday—that we are continuing to do work to finalise the detail around the COVID protection framework that we'll be releasing on Friday. But I have indicated that we will give direction and guidance on the trigger into that framework and what will need to be achieved in order to move into it, and we'll be providing that detail on Friday.
David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister describe the work that is required to finalise those details between now and Friday?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will have seen from some of the public commentary, we have been engaging with those who'll be most directly affected by the framework as we finalise the details, keeping in mind that this is the kind of framework that acts in a similar way to what you've seen with the alert levels, so it actually does need to have quite a significant amount of work around it.
David Seymour: Has Cabinet already decided at what vaccination rates Auckland and New Zealand will be able to remove current restrictions, and did it make that decision at Cabinet yesterday?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just said, there are elements of the work programme that we continue to finalise in preparation for release on Friday, and that will be my consistent response to those questions.
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about a specific aspect of the plan that's under scrutiny here. The Prime Minister hasn't addressed that. She's just said that there's a generic range of questions that she's working on. If she won't answer specific questions, then there's really no point in having question time and asking her questions.
SPEAKER: Well, whether or not there's a point of having a question time and whether the member wants to take part in it is something for him. But leaving that to one side, the member does know that, one, if he wants a very specific question, he should ask it, but even then he cannot require a yes/no answer. Speakers have made that clear I think for at least the last 100 years and probably quite a long way before that.
David Seymour: Point of order. With respect, sir—
SPEAKER: Well, the member doesn't mean "with respect", but carry on.
David Seymour: Oh, Mr Speaker, I'm hurt by that comment. You should have more respect for yourself. The fact is I didn't ask for a yes or no answer; I asked a specific question about a specific aspect of a plan to be addressed and, clearly, the Prime Minister hasn't done that. All she's done is persisted in saying there are details. The point of a supplementary question is if a member asks what those details are, they've at least got to address the question about those details.
SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister very clearly said that those matters would be the subject of comments further or later in week, and while I'm sure the member won't be satisfied with that answer, the question was addressed.
David Seymour: What new information has the Government received, or is it waiting to receive, about school openings, between yesterday when the announcement was announced and tomorrow when the announcement will be made about school openings?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Every decision that we've made is based on the most up-to-date information about the nature of the outbreak that we have. I think it's particularly interesting, of course, to see, as you would have heard me say today, that under-39s—in fact, if I were to give the member the precise number, 16 percent of our cases today are 10- to 19-year-olds and 12 are zero to 9-year-olds. So we even factor in that level of detail in the decisions that we make. We also look, overall, at things like vaccination rates amongst those who may be eligible for schools reconvening. All of that is material as we look to the safety of decision making around schools reconvening. As I've just said earlier in the House, in House time, Minister Hipkins will be setting out some of those plans tomorrow. But we had in fact already signalled that schools would not be reopening this week, so there was no expectation that they were.
David Seymour: If the plans announced this week can change with information received by the day, how can the public have confidence that those plans will endure for longer than, say, the roadmap released a few weeks ago?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is conflating two completely different things. We've always said that the decisions that we're making relative to this individual outbreak, whilst we are vaccinating we will continue to look at our ability—even while we do not have high rates of vaccination—to see if we can make alterations to restrictions based on our ability to contain the outbreak. Secondly, we've also said that vaccinations do make a difference to what you're able to do in the future if you have high vaccination rates—that we intend to operate differently when we have high vaccination rates. And so, of course, alongside with dealing with this outbreak, as it stands, we're also looking to the future and setting out a framework that incorporates vaccination rates at a high level.
David Seymour: Why do double-vaccinated Kiwis with a negative pre-departure test returning to their country still have to go through 14 days of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), if they can get it, when people with a positive COVID test are being allowed to home isolate?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, when we identify a positive COVID case in the community, there's an assessment undertaken as to whether or not that person would be best placed in managed isolation or continue to be cared for in their home, in the same way that we are also now piloting the idea of having people coming in at the border being able to isolate at home. We do still have cases coming in at the border. Knowing where those cases are and who they are and that they are being properly contained continues to be important to New Zealand, because every modeller demonstrates that even when you're operating with a slightly high tolerance of COVID in the community, if you're seeding too many cases, then that does have an exponential effect. But we are looking at our MIQ arrangements in our current environment. We already have the reconnecting New Zealand work. We are expediting some of that work and looking at things like shortened MIQ and home isolation. Some of that work was already well under way.
David Seymour: In what assessment does a person with a negative COVID test have more chance of passing on COVID than someone the Government knows has COVID because they just had a positive test but are still allowed to isolate at home?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So I don't think these two scenarios that the member presents—of course, one group you could almost say, coming in at the border, essentially you're almost treating them as contacts, and so we do have requirements of the way that we treat contacts. Some of them do still go into facilities, even if they've been in the community. We have contacts that will go into facilities if they're unable to isolate safely at home. So it's just about looking at those two different groups and making sure we're consistent between the two. We are in a transition period. But we've already set out that the bones of that needs to include the ability to isolate at home, which, as I've already said, we're piloting and we're doing that both for positive community cases where it is appropriate, and we're looking to do that for travellers where it is appropriate, and we're also looking at things like shortened MIQ. So I think the things that the member is seeking we do have under way.




Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Did Cabinet agree yesterday to vaccination rate targets in Auckland and New Zealand to allow COVID-19 restrictions to lift; if so, what are they?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The Government's overall target for COVID-19 remains to get every New Zealander taking up the opportunity to be vaccinated. Everyone who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated. As the Prime Minister has just indicated in the answer to her question, an announcement on the thresholds for shifting to a new COVID-19 protection framework for a highly vaccinated population will be made on Friday. We are working through the final details of that, including the interrelationship between the rates of vaccination and the potential new requirements in the new framework.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific as to whether or not Cabinet agreed to vaccination rate targets. I think the Minister said words to the effect of they're working that through. It doesn't actually answer or address the question.
SPEAKER: Is there any response to that?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm happy to elaborate further on the answer if that would be helpful.
SPEAKER: I think it would be. I think at least the first leg should be addressed.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Cabinet made some in principle decisions. Details are still being finalised.
Hon Simon Bridges: Still writing the press release.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member can take a call if he wants to.
Chris Bishop: Does the Minister mean, therefore, that Cabinet will finalise the decisions reached in principle yesterday before the announcement on Friday?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are specific Ministers working through the details of that, and, of course, the announcement will be finalised before the announcement is made.
Chris Bishop: Why has the Government not published the vaccination rate target agreed at Cabinet yesterday and given some certainty to Aucklanders and New Zealanders desperate for a roadmap out of the situation they find themselves in?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Probably for a similar reason to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition demanded to know what the Government's targets were and then refused to release her own, despite the fact that they've clearly already decided what they are, which is that we're working through the details. We want to be able to answer all of the detailed questions that will flow from the announcement when we make it, and so, therefore, we will do that on Friday.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Has the member seen any reports of any other parties in this House and whether they've finalised the no less than three different targets that they've had around vaccination rates across New Zealand?
SPEAKER: Now, I think the Prime Minister knew that was out of order. Therefore, she will withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: I withdraw and apologise.
Chris Bishop: Why didn't the Government announce yesterday their in principle decisions, to use his words, around what the vaccination targets that Auckland and the country needs to get to to have COVID-19 restrictions loosened?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Cabinet made some in principle decisions. The details of that have been delegated to a group of Ministers to finalise, and that is the process that we're going through at the moment.
Chris Bishop: Why is the country waiting until 63 days into this Delta outbreak before finding out what vaccination rate New Zealand needs to get to in order for restrictions to loosen?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that the member asks that question on the day that we have recorded the highest number of COVID-19 cases that we have had since the pandemic began. There is still a lot of uncertainty around the pandemic, and the Government continues every day to get new information, new modelling, new projections, and we want to make the most informed decisions that we possibly can. We are acutely aware of the fact that when we make these decisions, going backwards isn't an option. Once COVID-19 cases take off, it's very difficult to contain them. We want to make sure that the success that New Zealand's had in containing COVID-19 continues in as much as that is possible in light of the Delta variant that we are dealing with. This isn't a fast and easy process; there are a lot of different things that needed to be weighed up and traded off. The fact that the Opposition themselves haven't been able to maintain a consistent position over the last few weeks, despite not being responsible for anything, shows that it is actually a complicated set of issues.




Question No. 9—Conservation
9. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcement has she made regarding investment in a project to protect kea?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Last week, I announced Jobs for Nature funding for a two-year project aimed at reducing lead poisoning of the endangered kea, the world's only alpine parrot. Lead poisoning is a serious threat to this charismatic and cheeky mountain parrot, as it is attracted to the sweet-tasting but toxic metal commonly used in building materials prior to the 1990s, and the effects can be devastating. Kea are a taonga, an icon in the mountains of Te Waipounamu, but they are in trouble and need all the help we can give them to overcome threats like lead and predators.
Rachel Brooking: How will this project be delivered and what will it involve?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: This project has been spearheaded by the Kea Conservation Trust. Government funding of $950,000 will allow the trust to take on eight people from areas most affected by the COVID-related downturn in tourism. These people will be trained to work at heights and in roofing maintenance. Work will involve removing lead from private dwellings and replacing it with non-toxic alternatives, working with property owners in areas surrounding the South Island, including in the Tasman District, Abel Tasman, Golden Bay, Arthur's Pass, Aoraki, Ōkārito, Franz Josef, Fox Glacier, Haast, Mount Aspiring, and Piopiotahi. The trust project complements the Department of Conservation's own programme to remove lead materials from huts and other buildings on public conservation land.
Rachel Brooking: Can the Minister reveal which bird or bat she is backing for Forest & Bird's 2021 Bird of the Year Competition?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well, yes, I can. This year, I am proud to say I am backing the kea—a highly intelligent, resourceful, and a little bit of a rascal. Some characteristics could perhaps describe a few people in here. Some fun facts about the kea: a kea once learnt to turn on the water tap at the Aspiring Hut campground, a kea once locked a mountaineer inside the toilet at the Moa Hut, a kea once learnt to use tools to set off stoat traps to get the eggs. As I said earlier, the kea is a threatened, nationally endangered bird numbering between 3,000 and 7,000 and is under pressure from predators and human impacts. But through sustained action by the Department of Conservation, the Kea Conservation Trust, and countless others, we can protect this taonga species if we put our all into it.
SPEAKER: Yes, I'm tempted to ask why the Minister hasn't re-opened the office at Arthur's Pass so visitors can see it better, but—Penny Simmonds.




Question No. 10—Education
PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Education. Does he have confidence—
SPEAKER: Order! There are two members who haven't got their masks on. Please put them on. Thank you.
10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: Does he have confidence the Government's actions and statements have provided schools clarity about how they can operate under COVID-19 alert level restrictions?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Broadly, yes. I'm confident that the Government has appropriately balanced schools' need for timely and clear information with the need to make considered decisions in the interests of all New Zealanders in an evolving situation.
Penny Simmonds: Why has the Government still not told Auckland schools, with students anxious about exams, the date they can reopen?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I've committed to making final decisions around that by tomorrow. No final decisions have been made on that at this point. We're working through a number of details, including logistical and practical considerations around having students back on school sites, and so I hope to be able to provide as much clarity as possible. We have provided, in recognition of the disruption that those senior secondary school students have faced, some pretty clear guidance around the additional support that will be provided for those aiming to complete their NCEA—that was provided some weeks ago—and we are now working through further guidance on having a larger number of students returning to school sites. I would note that under our current alert levels, there are some provisions for senior secondary school students to be on site where the only place that they can complete assessments and so on is on a school site. There are some limited provisions for that at the moment, and I'll have more to say on that in the next 24 hours.
Penny Simmonds: How will schools ever get clarity around the impact of lockdown on students' progress when officials say, "Our curricula don't yet clearly signal important markers of progress" and current assessment tools are of variable quality?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, that's always been the case. In fact, there has never been a nationally consistent set of measures of student progress outside of the senior secondary school, and some of the measures that have been put in place have proven to be neither national nor standard. They weren't particularly consistent. We do have studies available, including the national monitoring project, which gives us pretty good and robust information. There are some other sources of information available as well, including through some of the digital tools that are available that do provide some aggregatable data that can be drawn on for research purposes in measuring students' progress in some of those earlier year levels.
Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister accept the Government's lack of clarity about how schools should operate in lockdown means education is a lottery for students, with one Auckland principal calling online learning "just a joke"?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the Government's provided a lot of clarity for how schools should operate during alert levels 3 and 4, which is, by and large, to be supporting young people to learn from home. Whether that's using digital learning platforms or using hard packs of materials, the teaching methods that teachers use when using those tools are ultimately up to the judgments of the individual teachers. We don't tell teachers specifically how to teach within their classrooms; we leave that to their professional judgments. Similarly, in this environment, teachers will be making judgments. In some cases, it's better to support students using digital technology; in other cases, it is better to support them using hard packs of materials. Those are ultimately judgments for the teachers and for the schools.
Penny Simmonds: Why didn't the Government outline schools' options where teachers refused to be vaccinated when they announced the vaccine mandate and, instead, tell them all to get legal advice?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The last part of the question is not correct. The Government is working through further guidance to schools about what they should do at the end of this year in terms of the employment process for teachers who have chosen not to be vaccinated. That does have some significant impact on the teachers' collective employment agreement. The Ministry of Education are working through that process with the teacher unions at the moment. We needed to announce the requirement to be vaccinated before that process could begin. That process is now being expedited.




Question No. 11—Research, Science and Innovation
11. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What progress has been made on allowing more widespread use of rapid antigen testing for COVID-19?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): As we enter a new phase of our COVID-19 response, with more and more New Zealanders gaining protection through vaccination, we can expand the tools we use to combat the virus. Last week, the Government gave the green light to importation of 300,000 approved rapid antigen tests, that will be used by some of the country's biggest employers. These tests can provide a result within around 15 minutes and will be used for workforce surveillance testing. However, they do tend to be less sensitive at detecting cases, so polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests will remain the mainstay of our COVID-19 testing in most situations.
Tāmati Coffey: Why is the use of these tests being limited to 29 businesses initially?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It's important that we step through the introduction of new technologies carefully as part of our COVID-19 response. Rapid antigen testing was first introduced at Middlemore Hospital and is being rolled out in other hospitals. It will also be used as a point of arrival test in self-isolation pilots in Auckland and Christchurch, starting later this month. Trialling workplace use of rapid antigen testing gives us the chance to refine, learn, and iron out any other issues before we look at how this testing can be rolled out more widely. It's important to note that some of New Zealand's biggest companies are involved in the scheme, including Mainfreight, Foodstuffs, Summerset Group, Vodafone, The Warehouse, and Auckland International Airport. Some of the businesses in this group are already using rapid antigen tests successfully overseas, and their international experience has helped them develop this scheme in New Zealand.
Tāmati Coffey: What reaction has she seen from businesses to the wider use of rapid antigen testing?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Oh, I've been pleased with the positive response from those involved. Foodstuffs' North Island chief executive officer, Chris Quin, said, "At a time where the challenge of Delta in New Zealand is greater than ever, it's been renewing for everyone to be able to work together across Government and business to enable this additional testing solution. We need to do everything we can and this is a positive step in helping to further look after our teams in stores and the supply chain New Zealanders depend on." Auckland Airport's chief executive, Adrian Littlewood, thanked the Government, the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment and the Ministry of Health "for their quick response to our request to import rapid antigen tests", and said rapid antigen testing "is a vital added layer of protection to help identify chains of transmission and ensure workplace continuity."




Question No. 12—Prime Minister
12. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's policies and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I especially stand by the Government's actions and the actions of all parties in this Parliament, in fact, alongside those incredible providers on the ground that ensured Super Saturday was a success and worked so hard to make it so. Working together, every single person, providers, business, nurses, vaccinators—everyone—we smashed through our target of 100,000 vaccinations by mid-afternoon and went on to see 130,000 doses administered in just one day. Most heartening: 39,000 of those doses were people receiving their very first dose, a quarter of which were amongst Māori. Kawerau led the country in first doses administered per capita, and Ashburton led on second doses, seeing nearly 5 percent of their population become fully vaccinated on Saturday. There are countless other great stories from Super Saturday right across the country, but, in short, to everyone vaccinated on the day, and to all those already vaccinated, I just want to say thank you very much for your vaccination.
Hon Judith Collins: Has Cabinet considered any proposals to make the three waters reforms compulsory?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, Cabinet discussions remain in Cabinet until such a time as those decisions are publicly released. When it comes generally to the three waters proposals, the member will know that we feel very strongly about the fact that the status quo is not an option. Without change, ratepayers will face increasing costs. Their bills will go up. Our infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. Already we have sewage regularly pumped into our oceans and our beaches, and if we're all being honest, decades of under-investment in our infrastructure is contributing to our housing crisis. The status quo is not an option.
Hon Judith Collins: Will she rule out her Government mandating the three waters reforms on all councils, thereby forcibly seizing ratepayer water assets?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally reject the premise of that question. The idea of seizing assets, I would completely reject. What we all have a duty to do—and I would've thought that the Opposition would be, of course, all too familiar with the reason that this work started: people in Havelock North were made incredibly sick and some died because of issues with water in New Zealand and its provision. Work was started and completed and then, as a result, we've undertaken a reform process. Our desire has always been to work alongside local government to try and find the best way to ensure we gain efficiencies and outcomes from our water infrastructure that we can all be proud of: safe drinking water, decent investment in infrastructure that allows the housing growth we need, and for our environment to no longer see sewage pumped into our waterways. That is why we've undergone this process. If the member wants to stand still and allow all of that to continue, it's her prerogative. 
Hon Judith Collins: Will she continue to take the path of forcibly seizing council water assets with the Opposition confirming today that a future National Government will return all confiscated assets to the local councils from which they have been taken?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All the member has confirmed is that under a potential National Government, ratepayers would experience thousands of dollars in increases in their bills and the continuation of under-investment that means we have an ongoing housing crisis and sewage pumped into our oceans.





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move—
Hon Member: Slowly!
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Slowly! I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stages of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill; the second readings of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill and the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill; the first readings and referral to select committee of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill; and the second readings of the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill, the Commerce Amendment Bill, the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, the Organic Products Bill, and the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.





STANDING ORDERS
Sessional
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the following rule be adopted and come into effect on 28 October 2021:
Time for presentation of secondary legislation
For the purposes of section 114 of the Legislation Act 2019, the relevant Minister must present secondary legislation to the House within 16 sitting days after the day on which the secondary legislation is made.
Motion agreed to.





COVID-19 RESPONSE (MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILL
Second Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I present a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
This bill is part of the Government's continuing response to COVID-19. It amends 16 different Acts of Parliament, I think in part recognising the complexity of the situation that we continue to deal with. It also amends one set of regulations. These are common-sense, practical solutions to problems that have been created by the Delta outbreak of COVID-19 and our response to it. We often find—and we did find this last year and we found this again this year—that compliance with existing statutes can be incredibly challenging. There are often deadlines that can't be met. People find it difficult to work in a digital environment with some of the constraints that the legislation currently places upon them. So this particular bill, the second of these types of bills—I think it's at least the second of these types of bills—that we've brought before the House deals with a raft of issues, with some relatively pragmatic changes.
As the Minister in charge of the bill, I am in a bit of an unusual position, in that the policy advanced in this bill doesn't relate to my ministerial portfolios. So I do want to thank all of the Ministers and officials who have contributed to this bill. It is, effectively, a compendium of different legislative changes. Unlike previous legislation, when we dealt with similar bills previously, we have referred this bill to a select committee for a very short period of time. So I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who did an excellent job of scrutinising the bill. I'm advised they received more than 200 submissions and had heard from 41 different submitters on aspects of the bill. The Regulations Review Committee has also added its analysis of aspects of the bill as well. Many of the amendments in the bill recommended by the committee will now form part of the bill being considered by the committee of the whole House next week.
The Property Law Act changes attracted the most attention from submitters. These are the changes being made around commercial leases. The Property Law Act amendments have two main purposes: firstly, to support commercial tenants and landlords to come to agreements to adjust the rent due under the leases so that the parties share the financial burden of the COVID-19 response, which will help to enable more businesses to remain solvent during the response; and secondly, it provides a way for disputes to be resolved if no agreement can be reached. Many submitters on the property law amendments discussed the behaviour of landlords towards tenants during the epidemic so far to date and highlighted their own experiences, so it was good to hear from landlords and tenants through that process. It is a difficult situation. I want to acknowledge it's a difficult situation for everyone—the landlords and the tenants—and there are clearly some parties that haven't been able to reach agreement, so those dispute provisions will be very important.
Other issues raised included whether the bill should provide criteria around the types of businesses or leases to which it should apply, whether we should be limiting eligibility to only small and medium sized businesses, whether there should be a linkage with the eligibility of the wage subsidy scheme or income and capital levels. The period for which the rent reduction should apply was debated, and so on. A key theme that was raised by the submitters was what constitutes a fair portion of rent. I'm sure when we come to the committee stage of the debate, there will be some discussion about that. The Ministry of Justice is preparing guidance on its website that will go up shortly. That will give businesses more clarity. 
There was also quite a bit of debate about the Residential Tenancies Act amendments. These are the ones that enable tenants to stay in their rental homes during any future COVID-19 alert level periods where people can't move houses, and that will help us to stop the spread of the virus in that way. The amendments also make it clear what notice periods apply after the termination restrictions lift.
So these are similar to the temporary restrictions that were put in place last year. They very much continue that work. Submitters overwhelmingly supported the nature and intent of those changes, and there is a forthcoming Supplementary Order Paper that will include some of the changes that were suggested by submitters. For example, it will propose that the Minister must give seven days' notice prior to switching off a COVID-19 tenancies order. So the Government is working its way through that, and we will have a Supplementary Order Paper before the House before the bill completes its remaining stages next week. Tenants will be given two days' notice to cancel or terminate tenancy agreements where they're prevented by a COVID-19 public health order from taking possession, to avoid tenants being liable for both rent at their current property, where they need to remain, and the new property which they can't yet move into.
Very briefly—I'll try and keep this fairly brief—the bill amends the Land Transport Act to include electronic service and infringement notices, infringement reminder notices, and regulatory notices. I hope these particular provisions will be relatively uncontroversial. There will be some further clarification on the point at which an electronic communication is deemed to be delivered, and so there will be some further clarity there. The committee has noted its concerns about the proposal applying to criminal matters having the potential to create some confusion. So to be very clear: if someone's charged with a criminal offence, such as driving while unlicensed or while suspended, the bill does not amend those criminal procedure provisions.
There was some debate around the Electoral Act provisions. I want to provide some reassurance to the House that the Cabinet has picked up on those concerns. We've had further discussions around the Electoral Act provisions, and we will come back to the House again on that next week during the committee stages. Final decisions have not been taken, but we have taken on board the concerns that were raised there.
In terms of the environment-related legislation, some submitters have been concerned that the proposals extend statutory deadlines by which the Minister of Climate Change must set the three emissions budgets in the first emissions reduction plan. They have expressed concern that that could have an impact on New Zealand's overall action on climate change. I want to be clear about this: it's not expected to delay significantly the action to address climate change over the time frame of the first three emissions budgets. It will also not preclude the Government from taking updated or additional commitments under the Paris Agreement in advance of COP26. Similarly, despite the concerns of some submitters, the extension of the repeal date for the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 for an additional year is unlikely to have a negative impact on the environment, and there isn't any evidence to date that suggests that it has. Members will have the opportunity to consider further these and other provisions of the bill at the committee stage next week. So I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Now, the National Party supported this bill, the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, at first reading in good faith on the basis that we are a bipartisan—for the most part—constructive Opposition when it comes to COVID matters. We wanted to send it to committee to kick it around and then see where we got to at the end of the committee process. Unfortunately, we are going to oppose the legislation at second reading, and beyond, for two major reasons. The first is in relation to the amendments to the Property Law Act that I want to spend a bit of time dealing with, and the second is in relation to the matters the Minister has just referred to, which is the Local Electoral Act amendments. It is good to see that the Minister will be bringing a Supplementary Order Paper, I think he signalled, at the committee of the whole House stage in relation to that—that's an example of the Government listening; we encourage that. So we'll wait and see the details of that. But at the moment, we are very disappointed in the attitude of the Government to its amendments to the local electoral legislation through this omnibus bill.
I want to make a point at the start in relation to process. It was poor form for the Government to only provide around a day's notice to the Opposition before this bill was introduced. Many of the amendments in this omnibus bill are non-controversial; many of them are very sensible. So the Gambling Act amendments in relation to lotteries, class 3 operators, are very sensible. Some of the amendments around the Land Transport Act are, again, very sensible. We can have a debate around the climate change amendments. But most of the amendments put forward through this omnibus bill are reasonably non-controversial. But a couple are quite controversial, and good process means that they should be sorted out through good consultation, particularly when it comes to an omnibus bill like this which deals with a whole range of pieces of legislation.
As a related point, the process at the select committee was very, very shortened—very straitened circumstances. I accept that the Finance and Expenditure Committee did what they could in the time that they had, but the point is that they didn't have enough time. So the bill's only just come back to the House. It was referred to the committee in the last sitting period of the Parliament—so, not enough time for the committee to get into the nitty-gritty of this legislation.
So just with that process point, I come to the substance of the legislation. I want to deal, firstly, with the property law amendments. Members on this side—National members, in particular—spent quite a bit of time in the first reading expressing some misgivings about these sections. It is quite outrageous, actually, what the Government is seeking to do. We voted for the bill at the first reading in good faith to see what the submitters would say and to kick it around a bit at the committee. But the fact that the Government has not made any substantial changes to this provision is quite appalling.
The starting point is that retrospectivity is a bad thing, and what this bill does is retrospectively interfere in contracts that have been signed by people in the private sector. That is wrong as a matter of principle. It requires a very good justification from the Government before they retrospectively legislate. The reason retrospective lawmaking is bad is because people are entitled to know what the law is at the time that they sign contracts and make decisions on the basis of what the law is at that moment. Obviously, Parliament altering what that law was at that particular time undermines the certainty or undermines the very idea of the rule of law, because if you can't know what the law is at a particular moment, because Parliament might come along in a few years' time and change what the law actually is, how can you have certainty in what you are signing? So of course retrospective law is a bad thing. It is terrible, obviously, in relation to the criminal law. Everyone accepts that you shouldn't retrospectively change criminality; it's not quite as bad, but it's still very bad in relation to commercial contracts, which is exactly what this bill does. 
So this bill undermines the rule of law, undermines the sanctity of contract law. Now, to do that the Government has got to have a very good reason before they do that. What is the Government's reason? It's not actually clear what it is, because Kris Faafoi's own rationale for the bill is that he has anecdotally heard from some tenants in commercial landlord relationships that the existing law and existing rental-relief arrangements are a problem. That's it: just anecdotal evidence. This is how Government makes policy that is an affront to the rule of law now. The Government makes policy on the basis of anecdata—anecdotes that someone talked to Kris Faafoi about in the Koru lounge. That's how the Government makes policy that is an affront to the principles against retrospectivity and an affront to the rule of law. It's anecdotal evidence, that is it. It's just outrageous. 
Unsurprisingly, everyone involved in the commercial property sector lined up to oppose this bill at the select committee. All the property firms, the Real Estate Institute, Infrastructure New Zealand, Bayleys, Business New Zealand, New Zealand Law Society, the Auckland District Law Society (ADLS), they all lined up to oppose it and said, "This is a dumb idea.", and that the bill doesn't make any sense, it won't improve things, and you need to throw it out. And what's the Government decided to do? Not listen to people actually involved in the commercial world, people who actually are involved in the signing of contracts on a daily basis and enforcing those contracts. No, no, the Government knows best, and instead we are going to proceed with this. 
Minister Kris Faafoi had an embarrassing little moment when the Auckland District Law Society had to, basically, put out a press release, which is quite an amazing thing for them to do, to criticise the Minister of Justice. The Auckland District Law Society had to put out a press release criticising the Minister and correcting him on his claim that the Government had consulted with the ADLS. Nothing was true in relation to that. In fact, the first that the Auckland District Law Society heard about the legislation was when the Minister put out a press release about it on 28 September. So there was no consultation with people involved in the sector, no consultation with people actually affected by this provision; the Government has just decided to go ahead with it on the basis of anecdote. It undermines the sanctity of contract, there has been no consultation as to how it will actually work, and the bill as drafted is way too wide. Companies who don't even suffer economic loss will be entitled to seek rent relief. 
The real issue when it comes to this issue is cash flow. As numerous submitters said to the committee, the issue is cash flow. If the Government was serious about solving cash-flow problems for businesses that have disputes with landlords, they should pick up Andrew Bayly's suggestion proposed by the Opposition, which actually goes—
Anna Lorck: No way. 
CHRIS BISHOP: —to the problem. Members opposite go: "Oh ya, ya, no way." Well, actually, Mr Bayly's proposal enjoys the support of people involved in the sector, because he's actually gone and talked to them about what would work and has got wide-ranging support from people, and that's why it enjoys their support. The Government's proposal, the Government's solution, enjoys no such support. No one supports it. So the Government should listen to Mr Bayly's proposal.
Finally, in relation to the local electoral changes—the Government's signalled some changes here, so I won't dwell on it too much—it is just appalling that the Government is giving itself the power to delay local elections. Now, we accept that there should, of course, be power in emergency circumstances, but what this bill will allow the Government to do is to do that over and over again in six-week increments all the way through 2023. It has never been justified to the Parliament or the committee why the Government needs such a wide-ranging power. That has never been justified. We accept that in extreme circumstances clearly you need the power to delay an election. But the wide-ranging power that the Government seeks for itself has never been justified. And it, of course, has set people's minds racing out there, in the wider community, about what plans the Government does have to delay local elections and why they might do that—three waters, potentially, for example. Now, I'm not alleging that that's what the Government's ulterior motive is, but I'm saying that the Government, of course, is going to leave itself open to accusations and allegations like that at the same time as they are engaged in a massive bun fight with the local government sector, and people are clearly going to be worked up about—
Hon Scott Simpson: Joining the dots.
CHRIS BISHOP: —the Government giving itself the power—they're joining the dots, as the Hon Scott Simpson says, and I think that is precisely the point.
So we will oppose this legislation. It's got some decent things in it but we'll oppose it on the grounds that the amendments to the Property Law Act are an affront to the rule of law, and the Local Electoral Act amendments are not justified. Thank you.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to talk on this bill, particularly because I was a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that scrutinised the bill and listened to the numerous submissions that had come through over that two-week period. And, as Chris Bishop, the previous member who has just sat down, says: it's anecdotal—well, clearly he was not in the submission hearing period, where you had business after business after business say, "It's not anecdotal. Our business is being affected because our landlord is not willing to give us a fair proportion of rent reduction." That is not Koru lounge discussion; those are actual businesses on the ground in New Zealand who are coming to the select committee saying, "We support this."
What that member also fails to recognise is the bill has a gate; the gate is that, if you have this clause, you don't need this implied clause. There was no reference to that by the previous member in his conversation, and that's why, when the committee reviewed those particular rent relief provisions, we thought about the retrospectivity aspect of it, and there were a number of submitters who said to us—including Retail New Zealand, including hospitality, the association—"It needs to be retrospective back to when lockdown was actually announced." So that's why the Labour and the Green members in our report back for this committee report have asked the Minister to give it serious consideration. This is not Koru lounge discussions. These are actual businesses, small business—businesses like Acquisitions across the country, businesses like Butlers Chocolate across the country—who are asking us as parliamentarians to give them some relief.
So that member also said we've given them no relief, we should try and give them some other sort of relief—$4.4 billion of relief has gone through the wage subsidy and the COVID resurgence payment. That's all I'm going to say on this particular aspect of the bill, because I think it speaks for itself. Had that member been a member of the committee and sat through the hours and sat through with those submitters, he'd understand that there is pain on the ground by those businesses. They've asked us for help; they're looking for retrospectivity. So I look forward to the Minister coming back to the House with a Supplementary Order Paper on that point.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. So the first thing I'd like to say is there are elements in this bill that we do support, and it is a wide-ranging bill. It affects many, many Acts. But particular measures around allowing lotteries to run at alert level 3—there's three entities that have been provided for specifically, which are important, and I think in the current environment for them to be able to get funds to continue to operate during this difficult time is very appropriate.
Changes to allow councils to delay rating valuations—obviously with restrictions, particularly in Auckland, now that we're going into week nine. Thirdly, empowering the coroner to allow remote participation—obviously, pretty logical stuff—and deferring a number of regulatory requirements as a result of changes or the alert levels that are going on at the moment. So that is fine, and most of that didn't need to go through under urgency. In fact, you've struggled to understand why on earth they were passed as part of this bill that needed to be passed—well, debated, and in the Finance and Expenditure Committee over the last 10 days.
The biggest issue that we have and the main reason why we're opposing this bill is that the two significant things should have been subject to a proper debate. That's namely around the rent proposal elements, and the second one is around the local body and how elections can be delayed. Those are very significant. The first because of the financial consequences to people, and, secondly, the constitutional issues that relate to the second around the holding of council elections, which are due at 8 October this time next year.
So I want to just turn to the Property Law Act changes, and the previous speaker, Barbara Edmonds, just said, "Well, hey, we have to do something and this is going to be fine and dandy." Well, as I mentioned in my question to the Minister of Finance at question time, I just remind the speaker that Retail New Zealand, when they did a survey at 30 September—so it's not that long ago—showed that a third of retailers are not confident that their businesses will survive the next 12 months, and specifically asked for a financial payment to be made in terms of rent support. So they are looking for cash, unlike what the previous speaker spoke of.
We are now in Auckland, and I've come down here after having been locked up for nine weeks in Auckland, and I've seen what's going on there. You walk down the main streets of North Shore and over 40 businesses have closed their doors—40 since the start of this lockdown. If you go through the CBD, it's like a wasteland. That is the scale of what's going on. Whilst the Minister keeps talking about the level of wage support that's going to make these companies survive and the level of resurgence, it is clear from the various surveys—and the retail one is the most significant, showing that a third of businesses think that they're going to fail over the next 12 months—that it is absolutely essential that we are putting in place mechanisms that get cash in the hands of those desperate mums and dads that own businesses, particularly in the area of Auckland. This bill does nothing for it.
What this bill does is socialises the cost of a Government-imposed lockdown and transfers the responsibility for the financial cost of that from the Government, who is the one who has imposed the lockdown, and transferred that cost to landlords. The Government has, in this bill, effectively socialised the cost of the lockdown and transferred it to landlords. That is fundamentally wrong. The solution that should have been put up 18 months ago, not when we are now entering week nine of an Auckland lockdown—what the Government should have done 18 months ago is dealt with this properly and substantially. Of course, the same mechanism was proposed all that period ago, and, of course, was turned down by New Zealand First, and quite rightly so.
Now that we've got a Government that has total power on its own merits to be able to do anything, not only have they chosen to reactivate the same proposal that was roundly rejected, but they've done it under urgency. I think that is terribly wrong and shows a Government that is using absolute power to achieve its means by doing so in a manner that does not allow for adequate consultation. I applaud all the companies and people who fronted up to the select committee over a matter of three days to present their case in the short period of time that they've had to prepare it, and they've presented well.
The reality is that this proposal, what it does is it forces that cost to the landlords to provide some rent relief. It is wrong the way that it's gone about, and we have four principal issues with it. The first one: the bill refers to what is called a fair proportion of rent. So when we asked the advisers to the committee, "What is meant by the term 'a fair proportion'? Can you elaborate on that? Can you provide some guidance?", it was unclear that they could. It has been a deliberate decision by the Government to leave it as an unclear definition. That means that it has to be defined, probably in the courts. That also means a time delay. So the first issue is around what is understood by the term "fair proportion".
The second thing is that this whole approach cuts to the core of the sanctity of contract law, and that is one of the principal concerns we have with this piece of legislation. Because when you start to interfere, when you have a Government starting to interfere between agreements agreed by two parties and impose themselves, and not only just impose themselves but also to reallocate how money is to be paid between those two parties, that is fundamentally wrong, and that is why this is an incredibly shoddy piece of legislation.
The third thing is that the proposals apply to all commercial tenancy arrangements. Many, many submitters made a strong proposition that it should be linked to small to medium businesses. At least put a criteria on it, or, very logically, link it to the wage subsidy scheme—which is, by the way, what I'd link the National Party's rental package to, to the 40 percent decline in revenue—or to a loss in income or capital.
Those were four very good grounds for setting some criteria, because many people were concerned that what you might have is very large companies taking advantage of this. Many may be not even New Zealand resident-type companies, or owned by New Zealanders, taking advantage of these new unclear laws to benefit themselves financially.
The other issue—the fourth one—is the issue of lack of access. This is a very significant issue. Of course, what we ended up with in the bill is a reference to the Auckland District Law Society—27.5. This is about where a business is unable to fully conduct its business from its premises. We heard from many submitters, including Michael LeRoy-Dyson, who actually has a 27.5 clause in his tenancy arrangement, and he cannot get agreement with his landlord.
This is wrong—this whole approach. The lack of clarity around it is a fundamental flaw. And that is even before I start to talk about the local government elements of this bill. It is wrong. We will oppose it.





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and I'll pick up on what the other side of the House said in talking about the Local Government Act. An example that I can use is that during the recent lockdown, Hawke's Bay Regional Council had a by-election that was to be undertaken during this time, and because of that it had to extend its election time to enable people to be able to vote, to be able to legally post their ballot papers, and, of course, to enable the people that were standing for election to be given the opportunity to campaign, which is quite difficult during the level 3 restrictions that were faced in Hawke's Bay at the time. 
So this bill looks to enable the extension of elections beyond a six-week by six-week date. I think it's important to stand in this House and say that there is absolutely no intention on this side of the House to delay local government elections. It is to enable elections to take place, to enable voters to have their democratic election process, and to ensure candidates are elected fairly. On that, I would like to congratulate our new regional councillor Jacqueline Taylor on her election. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'm going to speak to a couple of areas. Obviously, this was a huge piece of legislation that had a shortened select committee period with a good number of submitters and a good portion of the recess dedicated to hearings in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick was representing the Green Party. The Green Party's broadly supportive of the bill, but there are some areas where we have a differing view than the Government.
I'll start with the emissions reduction plan, just noting that there were many submitters who highlighted the urgency with which we must tackle the climate crisis, and that we absolutely note the delay to the emissions reduction plan is not ideal or something that we wanted to see happen. Now that Cabinet has made that decision, it is vitally important that when the final emissions reduction plans are released and in the next Budget, what is proposed is equal to what the science says that we must do to have a habitable climate in the future and for New Zealand to be pulling its weight.
We also oppose the fast track of the Resource Management Act—the fast-track process, which we opposed initially last year in the COVID response. We don't believe that disregarding local submitters and a proper assessment of environmental effects is necessary for our economic response to COVID-19, and, indeed, we want to make sure that there is a thorough and proper process before we're investing huge amounts of money and potentially taking up land with infrastructure.
Obviously, the biggest part of the debate was around rent changes and commercial tenancies. I note that at the select committee, the majority of submitters speaking to it did want a rent freeze, if not also rent controls. The Green Party absolutely backs this call. You know, it is true that the Government's made a change to the number of times a rent can be increased, but that is simply not sufficient to deal with the scale and escalation of rent prices in the past—I mean, going back more than COVID, but certainly since COVID, the rent freeze ended after the last lockdown, and there was a significant increase in rents. What this is driving is a huge increase in the cost of living for some of our most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, the increases to benefits and the increases to the minimum wage are unlikely to have actually benefited those people who are the most vulnerable, because of the rapid escalation of house prices, the increase in rents, and the increase in general cost of living. So we think that there needs to be further action on that from the Government, and that is what submitters were calling for at the select committee.
When it comes to commercial tenancies, it was quite astounding to listen to the speeches from the National Party members—I'm sure the ACT Party speech will be similar. Truly the parties of rent seekers and the landed gentry in this country, they want to make sure that the owners of property don't contribute anything to our economic response in COVID, that they continue raking in profits just because they happen to own the land and the property, and that the Government should subsidise them directly but they shouldn't pay their fair share of tax, because these are the parties that have consistently argued against a capital gains tax, against a wealth tax. Arguably, the owners of property have done the best out of the Government's economic response to COVID-19. We've seen massive increases in the capital values of property, most of which—the vast majority of which—will be untaxed; that is, untaxed, private windfall gains due to Government policy. We had Andrew Bayly arguing that somehow they were socialising the gains—no, did he say "socialising the gains" or "socialising losses"? It really was truly astounding, as he seemed to be saying God forbid the owners of property should do anything but just continue to profit massively from Government policy, and then Government should, without having any revenue source from these property owners, go ahead and subsidise them during a time when the economy is virtually shut down. I just thought that was amazing.
My view's obviously the exact opposite. The owners of property could, if they're reliant on their income, claim the wage subsidy, just like any other business, and there's no reason why they should continue raking in surplus profits at a time when the economy is shut down. The Greens support the idea of going back to the start of the pandemic when it comes to the commercial tenancies changes, and hospo and retailers obviously support this as well. The only people who are opposed are the landlords, ACT, and National, who would like to continue to see the people who happen to own property profit from our economic system while everyone else pays, basically.
One thing I also found interesting was that Local Government New Zealand totally supported the changes to the Local Government Act around the timing of elections. I think that is a really relevant point. I think it makes it pretty doubtful that, you know, the criticisms or concerns—one could call them scaremongering—from the National Party about some ulterior motive or agenda around those changes—clearly, it is a practical change that's supported by Local Government New Zealand, which is not at all politically aligned and does represent the interests of local government.
I was disappointed that the Green Party was the only party advocating for overseas voters. I think that's probably the electoral issue that I would like to see the National Party join us on or the Labour Government act on. Our laws around voting in New Zealand are quite unusual. Most countries allow citizens to vote even if they have lived overseas for some period of time, without there being any requirement to come back and visit the country. Of course, many, many New Zealanders would like to and feel a very deep connection with Aotearoa New Zealand, even though they are living overseas for whatever reason, for whatever period of time. Not all of them have the financial means to travel back to New Zealand every three years. Indeed, in the past 18 months, it has been extremely constrained, the ability of New Zealanders living overseas to come back to New Zealand, and this situation is likely to persist for quite some time. There will be a good two-year period where most New Zealanders living overseas will have been advised by the Government not to come back to New Zealand. That doesn't mean they should be disenfranchised in their right to vote in local and central government elections. They care about the future of this country. They are citizens, they should have a right to their vote, and I think that is a change that really urgently needs to be considered.
So the Green Party will be moving four amendments at the committee stages to deal with some of these issues I've raised, including around rent freeze, the right for overseas voting, and some of the changes to commercial tenancies to make sure that those small businesses that haven't been able to operate are able to get the rent relief that they deserve. Of course, it's only fair for the owners of property who've massively benefited from Government policy in the last year to contribute their fair share. They are able to access Government support just like any other business. There's no reason they should be privileged over and above the rest of the economy.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. This bill is what they call an omnibus bill: it amends quite a wide range of laws and the people putting these bills forward always claim it does so with a common purpose—to manage COVID-19 in this case. 
Hon Simon Bridges: Like totalitarianism.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Simon Bridges says "Like totalitarianism." and he's not entirely wrong about that. I was amused, actually—Simon Bridges will like this. One of the new Labour members—I'm sorry, I can't remember their name right now, but one of the Labour members was talking about the policies being cooked up in the Koru lounge. That member might like to reflect that because of the Government she supports the Koru lounge in Auckland's been closed for 62 days. You know, they can't go to the Koru lounge because Auckland Airport is more or less closed and much of Auckland is closed. It's a very strange thing. We're counting the days that it's been closed. 
As I was saying, this legislation, it makes quite a number of relatively benign adjustments. For example, it allows a charity running a raffle to do it digitally so people can still raise cash for good causes under COVID restrictions. That's a pretty good idea and something that could be put through in a bill like this in an uncontroversial way. We could even rush it through and get rid of the usual consultation: have a couple of weeks for select committee, just rush it through, don't worry about giving the people a say because I don't think there's a lot of people in New Zealand who would be worried that a charity could run a raffle digitally under COVID conditions. There's a bunch of changes like that that are well worth supporting. So we're not opposed to a lot of it. 
But there are two parts of this legislation that most certainly did deserve a much greater debate and consultation than they've had, and indeed the ACT Party believes should never have been introduced to this House and should never have been passed. The two parts of this legislation that we are absolutely opposed to on principle are: the Government's ability to delay local body elections. Well, most local body elections are done by postal voting and you think about this: this is the Government that just two months ago said this Parliament can operate by Zoom. That was the big idea. We were all going to come together by Zoom, and that was going to be enough democracy for the whole of New Zealand. We were going to ask questions, pass laws, raise taxes off people, spend the money—all of that, according to this Government, was going to be done by Zoom. Now they're telling us that under COVID conditions it is too hard to have a local body election, which, by the way, is all done by postal ballot. Now someone might ask: if you can have a Parliament by Zoom why do you have to delay a local body election by postal ballot? It's not as though—
Hon Scott Simpson: Three waters.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Scott Simpson says it's three waters. He's been going on to some of those funny websites, getting some theories. Well, the real issue is this—
Greg O'Connor: The ACT website.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Greg O'Connor says it's the ACT Party website. Well, let me just ask Greg O'Connor: how would he know? Has he been on the ACT Party website? Hey, hey—oh! I'll tell you what. I'll tell Greg O'Connor we're going to try and get it down to an 11-year-old reading age and then he can come and visit the ACT Party website. But until that time, he should probably stick to the picture books.
Greg O'Connor: He might let his own MPs speak then.
DAVID SEYMOUR: In any case, there is no logical reason—there he goes yapping away. You wait till after dinner, Madam Speaker; he'll be much looser. 
Here's the question: why would a Government that believed in a Zoom Parliament want to delay a postal ballot election? There is no reason for this Parliament to delay people's right to elect their councillors. That's the first step.
But far more critical than that is this: this legislation changes the results or the meaning of commercial rental contracts that may have been written 10 years ago. This is far more important than any other legislation that this Government will try and pass in this two-week sitting block and perhaps actually this year. The significance of it is that normally when we pass a law in this Parliament, we pass a law but you can't be done for it if you broke it in the past. For example, if somebody was to catch a fish that was undersized now, if we raise the length of snapper that you're allowed to catch, you can't be prosecuted for having caught a fish that was too small 10 years ago by today's standards. You caught a 25-centimetre snapper. That was legal back in the day. Now the limit is much longer: 29, I think. You can't get done for catching an undersized snapper, by today's standards, 10 years ago. The laws don't apply to things you did in the past. 
But what this commercial lease law says is it doesn't matter. If you made a contract 10 years ago to lease a premise, a commercial premise, well, actually, we're going to change what that contract means. It doesn't matter that when you signed the contract, the law said you will be paid according to the contract or you will pay according to the contract. Actually, we're going to say, "Here's the new law, and it doesn't matter what you agreed back then, you have to follow the law today." That's what they call retrospective legislation. The problem with retrospective legislation is that people who want to be good citizens, who want to follow the law, who want to plan their futures can't do those things if they might find the goalposts get moved after they did the thing. That's the problem—that's the problem—and this Parliament, as far as I'm aware, certainly not in the time I've been here, has never changed the legislation in a way that is retrospective in any significant way. We've never changed the law on people after the fact, not like this. If we live in a country where you make a contract, you sign an agreement between two adults voluntarily, and the Government comes along maybe 10 years later and says, "Actually, it doesn't matter what the law was when you signed it, here's the new law. You no longer have to pay the rent, or you can no longer expect the rent, we've actually just changed at all.", that is a very dangerous precedent for any country. Labour Governments, National Governments, all sorts of Governments we've had in this country over a long period of time have never gone where this Government is going. 
What's interesting, and it's one of those observations about New Zealand politics, is that only one political party stood up three weeks ago when we first voted on this law and said it is wrong on principle. The National Party stood up and—you know, I mean, the Greens, you can forgive them. The Māori Party, they don't always remember to vote on legislation. But the Labour Party, I mean, they're behind it, they wouldn't have a clue, frankly, about business and law in the real world that actually provides the wealth they tax and give out to their supporters. But the National Party, even they got up and voted for it, and said, "Well, maybe, perhaps in some circumstance we could support retrospective legislation." I think that's, frankly, unforgivable. They should have opposed it right from the start. The ACT Party stands for a country where the laws are reliable. You know what they are. And you don't change the laws so that what people did in the past can be judged by laws they couldn't anticipate at the time. That is the rule of law. That is property rights. That is the environment that allows wealth creation. This law, more than anything Parliament's done, violates that, and the ACT Party is proud to stand consistently alone against it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time is expired.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Fakaalofa atu, Madam Speaker. I'd just like to pick up on a couple of points relating to retrospectivity and sanctity of contract referred to by the members Chris Bishop and David Seymour, and also the alleged transfer of responsibility from Government to business alleged by Andrew Bayly. There was a lot of discussion actually about retrospectivity. The lawyers of us who sat in the Finance and Expenditure Committee are well aware of the sanctity of contract, but sanctity of contract is not absolute and the courts historically have intervened in cases where there is a need to balance between freedom of contract and social duty. That happened in the 1940s, when good faith and conscionability came into play. It happens in marriage contracts; I don't think anyone would dispute that. And it happens where there is material unfairness and extraordinary circumstances.
Nobody can dispute that COVID is extraordinary, because what it has done is it has made businesses legally unable to operate. That is extraordinary. It was not envisaged. It would not have been envisaged by many of those signing contracts. If it was, they would have opted to contract out specifically, as some did, with the Auckland District Law Society clause. But for many, many of them, they didn't, and that is why we need this clause, why we need this amendment to the Property Law Act 2007. The question actually is: how retrospective should it be? Should it go back to the introduction of the bill? Or actually should it go back to the beginning of lockdown? There was some discussion about that as well with many submitters saying that the legislation, the omnibus bill, would be a toothless tiger in this respect if it didn't go back. 
I now refer to what Andrew Bayly spoke about, which was the peak body for retail, Retail New Zealand. It has 27,000 members, 95 percent of whom employ less than 20 staff. He was saying that there was a transfer of responsibility from Government to business. But what he failed to say is that 70 percent of their members have sought rent relief and 50 percent of those are in dispute with their landlords. It's my contention that if this bill was legislated already, they would have that relief and that cash flow that they need to do business. 
If we look at the impact of what will happen when this goes through, it is that the fair players will actually have nothing to worry about. So the legislation only captures those who have not been playing fairly. That is the intention of this bill. It is to create fairness in unprecedented circumstances, in circumstances that weren't envisaged at the time contracts were entered into. So for that reason, I commend this bill to the House. I think this is a great piece of legislation to be able to provide more fairness and certainty and also more economic stability for our business sector.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I've only got a five-minute split call. I've got so much to say. I've already said at first reading that I don't like this bill one little bit. Legally, constitutionally, I don't like it. That may sound a bit dramatic to the punters watching at home. But, I'll tell you what, this is a bill that delays the ordinary provisions of many a law, that gets in the way of the ordinary everyday rights of New Zealanders, and, on that basis alone, I say it's wrong. By the way, it does that—oftentimes in 2022 and 2023. This Government's just come along and they've said, "You know, we're just gonna put off all this stuff. We're just gonna say, 'We don't need to go there, we don't want to go there on this.' ". I say that's constitutionally high-handed and wrong. I want to just focus on three of the worst bits, and David Seymour's talked about a couple of them. There's one, though, he missed out and that I, as I know the other member's in the National Party, take seriously.
The first is the suspension of local democracy in an election year, and that's wrong. Take my city, the city I'm privileged to represent, of Tauranga. We have already, because of Nanaia Mahuta—"trigger-happy Mahuta"—decided to get rid of our council and put in place nice people, good people, but, ultimately, unelected people: commissioners. Someone was unkindly saying to me just yesterday, "commissars". I think that's a bit unkind. They are running our city now, because, I tell you what, the Government certainly isn't. I don't know that they'd know where Tauranga was if it slapped them in the face. They are running the city and this bill says we don't even get local democracy in a regular election year, necessarily. Next year, they're going to put it off again. Nanaia Mahuta has taken those powers themselves. I have heard a rumour that's because Angie Warren-Clark is so disillusioned with Parliament and the Labour Party that she's thinking about standing for mayor next year and they don't want to see that happen and so they're putting that off. I've also heard the one about Rongotai, of course: "Eddie the Eagle"—I'm sorry, Paul Eagle, his worship, who is thinking about standing, and they don't want to see that as well. But I would say it is wrong, in all seriousness, to suspend local democracy. Actually, when all you've got here is a postal ballot, it's not as if there are health and safety issues around COVID that require that.
The next thing I want to mention is commercial leases. What we've got here—where the Government comes in and rides roughshod over contract law—is the doing away, actually, with centuries and centuries of precedents and certainty, in the name of fairness. Their version of fairness, they say—"Well, actually, we don't like those fat cat landlords, so we're going to do something for the retailers." And look, there'll be some New Zealanders who say, "Oh well, that sounds fair enough." I say, number one, actually, it undermines contract law and that in itself, and the freedom of people to come together and sign contracts, makes it wrong. But even if you say, "Well, maybe, Simon Bridges, you're being a bit unfair about that.", the reality is that landlords are often mortgage holders as well. They often find it tough to pay their mortgage. And if you take, for example—I can think of many examples in the city of Tauranga—chain store lessees where the landlord, actually, is the one of the two of them that's hard up. In the name of fairness, doing away with ordinary principles of contract—and, certainly, I say that's just not right.
But here's the kicker in this bill from a Government that's, let's be frank, not very good at much: it hasn't delivered in roads, it hasn't delivered in housing, it hasn't delivered in really anything I can think of that conventional, decent Governments have done. You would have thought, though, for Jacinda Ardern on their nuclear-free moment, they might actually deliver something, anything, maybe in climate change. What does this bill do? It delays their obligations when it comes to climate. It is literally, according to Jacinda Ardern, the most important issue the world has right now, and they've just blithely—is James Shaw too busy? I mean, can they only do one thing—and not that well—at once, and that's think about COVID and nothing else?
I say, actually, to all those young New Zealanders out there who are worried about this issue, who are concerned about this issue—not just young ones, actually; let's say that clearly—this Government in this bill is delaying its climate obligations by another year, I think it is. It's lazy, it's arrogant, and the reason, ultimately, for it is because this Labour Government doesn't actually have a plan. So they just put stuff off. They take the lazy, the arrogant approach when they should, if they'd had plans on borders, vaccines, ICU beds, and our economy, have no need for this wrongful bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill and to follow the next mayor of Tauranga City in that sense. I think that's part of the reason as to why he is so keen to see an alternative view with a local election just around the corner in the city that he so much loves.
I just want to reflect on a couple of contributions from Mr Seymour. I want to thank him for outlining that this is in fact an omnibus bill. My analysis of the bill indicated that, but I want to thank him for his confirmation in that space. Secondly, it's also no wonder that he was not able to recall the name, as he said, of the new Labour member who suggested that this was a policy decision that was concocted in the Koru Club, because it came from Mr Bishop rather than actually any member on this particular side of the House.
When we look at this bill, essentially it is seeking to extend some statutory time frames and also allow some flexibility in terms of regulations as well. While I'm not a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that looked at this, the select committee's report is a very good one. It clearly articulates the various issues and contributions that were made as part of that process. So I want to thank the select committee for looking at what is a very broad opportunity in terms of some of the issues that were raised.
I want to very briefly touch on the proposals as they relate to the local government sector. I actually agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter in that the fact that both Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā, previously known as SOLGM—the NZ Society of Local Government Managers—have lent their support to this indicates that there is an independent lens that suggests that this is the right thing to do in a context-dependent environment. So it's pleasing to see that they have effectively lent their support to this, and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was fortunate enough with this bill to sit through the vast majority of the submissions, and I'd actually describe it as a little bit of a ramble through the New Zealand legislative system: 16 Acts and one set of regulations. A great learning experience. 
But I'd just like to concentrate on the Property Law Act, which seems to have so aggravated and excited speakers on the opposite side of the House. I would just say to the Hon Simon Bridges that far from Tauranga being unknown to the rest of New Zealand, in fact, people like yourself have put it on the map. In fact, finally, it's good to see that it took an ex - National Party politician to actually try and bring the place together—a well-thought-out appointment, I would have thought. 
So the Property Law Act: one advantage of sitting through the submissions is that you get a feel for New Zealanders and how they're being impacted, and I can't help but be moved by one particular submitter who had an Airbnb in downtown Auckland and who was looking at losing his house. He was on a personal guarantee. He had sought relief from his landlord. Not only had he not received that relief, he had actually had a rent rise imposed on him. And for any member of this House who had the opportunity to hear from that member of the public, they could hardly help but be moved, and would understand just what the intent of this bill is. 
All it will mean is that the landlord must enter into negotiations with that tenant and that there will be available to them some form of arbitration, and that's really all it does. This is a very humane piece of legislation, because most landlords have behaved very well, but, like with most legislation that we look at in this House, it is designed for those who ignore it—those who need to be legislated just to be humane. 
So I have no hesitation in recommending and commending that particular part of the bill and the rest of the legislation to this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





NICOLA WILLIS (National): This bill is emblematic of the Government's lack of a plan to deal with Delta in our communities. Because the very reason we are having to have a COVID response bill—that, by the way, had its first reading under urgency: a comment made by many select committee submissions who raised concern at that process—the very reason a bill has had to progress in that way is that the Government in this matter, as with so many matters of our COVID response, has taken a "just in time; sorry, it's a bit late" approach. And it's not good enough, Madam Speaker.
I want to, in this contribution, focus on a couple of parts of the bill that National thinks are particularly egregious, and those are the provisions relating to the delaying of local government elections, and intervening into private contracts and making changes to the Property Law Act. I will also return to this issue of process, which we think is significant and which we think could cause problems down the line in terms of the provisions in this legislation. 
So first of all, delaying local government elections. This bill allows local government elections to be delayed for up to a year into 2023. Now, members of this House are aware of it because we have studied this piece of legislation, but was this announced by the Government in one of its COVID announcements? No, it wasn't. This was not something that the Government sought to highlight, and we on this side of the House think that it is pretty poor form that that significant change to electoral law was snuck in in this omnibus measure—and in fact, in a way that will have a binding long-term effect on electoral law. We also think that this delay speaks to the Government's lack of confidence in its own plan—
Hon Scott Simpson: What plan?
NICOLA WILLIS: —because why is it that the Government is envisaging having—well, my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson says, "Well, what plan?" And he's absolutely right because, actually, a Government with a plan would have ensured that we had vaccination rates that meant Aucklanders, today, weren't heading into day 63 of lockdown, and a Government with a plan wouldn't be saying, "Well, we may need to delay local government elections for up to a year." So the Government hasn't at any stage done a good job of setting out what exactly the concerns and anxieties are that they have that have led them to introduce these rather dramatic provisions. 
The second part of this bill that National takes particular issue with are the changes to the Property Law Act, which are in Schedule 6 of this bill. This inserts a clause into commercial leases requiring rent to be paid in certain circumstances. It is a direct intervention into private contracts. Not only that, it is a retrospective intervention that was not telegraphed or signalled by Ministers, and which submitters said may wreak havoc in the relationships between commercial landlords and their tenants. 
Now, when the Minister of Finance appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee to discuss COVID response some weeks ago when we first headed into lockdown, I asked him, "Was he, or his agencies, considering steps to help out landlords and renters in difficult situations as a result of COVID"—so particularly those people, for example, who can't access their business premise, but are required to keep paying rent. And what National, of course, has proposed as a solution to that is a rental support package, a direct approach to account for the fact that Government intervention is wreaking havoc for many businesses, for many tenants, for many landlords. When I asked the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, about that, he said that they were considering a range of options, and almost laughed off the idea that they would look at intervening into private contracts—and is it any wonder that he did, because this is actually an extreme step. 
There was nothing at that hearing that telegraphed this level of intervention. Of course, we know the history of these clauses, which are these are clauses that those who understand commercial dealings, who understand the importance of private contracts, worked hard to oppose last year when the Government mused about introducing them. And yet still, they haven't learnt. So National opposes those measures, and we advocate for a rental support package that would mean that private contracts could stand, but support was available. It sets a very bad precedent when the Government is happy to introduce, under urgency, under the cover of lockdown, changes that intervene into private contracts. I will, and members on this side of the House will remember this when the members opposite try and say that they stand on the side of business. You cannot be on the side of business if you take retrospective steps of this sort that create uncertainty for all involved. 
Finally, as I said, I would, I do want to raise questions about the process applied to this bill, because, actually, I think what New Zealanders have seen—and not the least of which at the vaccination Super Saturday this weekend—is that, where appropriate, National has been prepared to work constructively with the Government on its COVID response. In fact, my colleague Chris Bishop has made a number of constructive suggestions which tend to end up as Government policy—whether it's rapid antigen testing, whether it's saliva testing, whether it's reforming managed isolation and quarantine, these are all things that we have been very constructive about. But in order to keep that spirit, it is vitally important that the Government show that they are prepared to put their proposals to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, that they telegraph them well in advance, and provide members of the public absolutely fulsome opportunities to submit on what are significant law changes. That has not been provided for with this bill, and those who sat on the select committee have noted that many submitters asked themselves, "Why the urgency?" 
And I would put to you, Madam Speaker, what I said at the beginning of this contribution, which is that we have, here, a seat-of-their-pants, just-in-time Government who didn't plan for Delta to come to New Zealand, who didn't roll out vaccinations fast, who were complacent, who sat back. Now New Zealanders are paying the price, and this legislation is but one example of it. 





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It's funny, isn't it? "Why the urgency?", we hear from the Opposition, and then, in the same breath, "We're not moving fast enough." The reason this bill is being dealt with under urgency and was introduced under urgency is because the problem is urgent. Businesses are crying out for help, and we are going to deliver it. I'm going to go to the Property Law Act amendments, because I'm absolutely flummoxed with the view of the other side. They don't seem to think that these measures are necessary, and they raise the issue of retrospectivity. So let me deal with some of those issues.
Firstly, the Property Law Act, which is being amended, implies numerous clauses into leases across the board, and this is just in addition to an existing framework of implied clauses. Secondly, we have a law of frustration already that looks backwards in time when there are extraordinary circumstances and adjusts the relationships appropriately in the benefits and burdens of the contract. In a sense, this clause is simply doing that. It's saying the parties cannot have been expected to contemplate that their lease would be affected by a global pandemic. We are going to assist them in resolving that tension in a fair way. Thirdly, the Auckland District Law Society believes the common lease used in commercial premises in New Zealand has pretty much an identical framework, and that is being used as a template for what parties would have negotiated had they turned their mind to it.
In terms of retrospectivity, it is absolutely essential that this relief is given. In a sense, it's no more retrospective than any addressing of a frustrating event would be. Anything where the parties can't make the contract which they contemplated it to be at the outset. So this reform of the law is greatly needed.
In terms of what is a fair proportion, we received many useful submissions on that, some of which suggested we set out a list of factors. We took careful advice and reflected on it, and we thought that that wouldn't be useful. But I do want to make it clear that things like whether someone has received the wage subsidy would be relevant. Whether someone has been able to conduct a profitable business even though they've been locked out of their premises would be relevant. All of those things will be relevant, and, obviously, the revenue that a company has, the tenant has, would be relevant as well.
There is one other important thing I want to say. In respect of the claim—I think it was Mr Bayly who was talking about large tenants and landlords with mortgages. Landlords can use this clause too. If a large tenant simply says, "Go away. I'm not paying my rent. I don't want to.", this is a clause that the landlord can use to say, "You have to pay a fair proportion of the rent." So it's a really useful and important clarification of the law.
In terms of if it's going to be effective, we absolutely think it's appropriate to look at how far back we should go, whether we should go to the beginning of lockdown on 18 August or not.
Lastly, I'll talk about dispute resolution. We absolutely need a speedy dispute resolution process. Arbitration can work, but it can also be expensive and a little unwieldy. This is really a prompt for parties to get together and sort their problems out themselves if they can, to mediate if need be, and arbitrate if necessary.
This Property Law Act reform is not a great shift in the law. What it's doing is it's imposing a clause on the parties which, if the parties were asked two years ago "What would you do if there was a global pandemic and you were locked out of your building?", would be the fair place to land. That is why I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 45
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.





HOUSE IN COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee on the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.





FINANCIAL SECTOR (CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Part 1  Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by first anniversary of Royal assent
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come first to the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 20 and Schedule 1—Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by first anniversary of Royal assent. The question is that Part 1 stand part.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It is a pleasure to bring proceedings on Part 1 of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill forms a key part of the Government's commitment to addressing climate change, and I would like to make at the outset a number of points as I thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for its consideration of the bill, and intend to seek perhaps one or two calls at the beginning just to cover off some of the changes that are proposed as a consequence of the work of that committee and other matters that have come to light. I do want to thank at the outset also not just the committee but the Hon James Shaw for the work that he has done alongside the Prime Minister in the background to get this bill to the House.
I'd like to highlight some of the key features of Part 1 of this bill. New Part 7A, inserted by clause 7, inserts new climate-related disclosures provisions into the Financial Markets Conduct Act. New Zealand is the first country in the world to introduce legislation to require all large listed companies and large financial institutions to report on their climate-related risks in accordance with global standards. Others are following fast behind. We've seen the UK make progress in that regard, and I'm sure many other countries will too, but New Zealand is the first to bring this legislation into the House, so it is world leading.
The legislation ensures that financial organisations disclose and ultimately take action against climate-related risks and opportunities. It will do that by requiring the largest and most important businesses in the New Zealand context and those that participate in the financial markets to disclose clear, comparable, and consistent information about the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. 
The original scope of the climate-reporting entities is unchanged in the bill. Some submitters had suggested that the disclosure regime should cover a wider range of entities including public sector organisations and large companies that are not listed on the NZX. The definition of climate-related entities in the bill is sector neutral. Approximately 15 public entities are climate-related entities. Four Crown financial institutions including ACC and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, with more than $1 billion under management, will be required to make climate-related disclosures, and that will be done through the letters of expectation process. The Minister of Finance will write to those entities in the usual process, stating that they must prepare climate statements in accordance with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and that, of course, is the same advice that informs this regime and produced advice, I believe, in 2017. So those are kind of well understood parameters. 
There are potential reasons for extending the disclosure obligation to large non-issuer companies. However, requiring these companies to do so does not fit within the scope of the bill. Furthermore, climate-related disclosures are intended to be read in the context of an entity's financial reports, and, of course, large non-issuer companies are not required to make their financial statements available to the public, so it's questionable how useful stand-alone climate statements might be to investors. 
New section 461OA excludes small listed issuers and issuers on growth markets, and that's kind of a pragmatic response. The select committee recommended excluding small listed issuers with market capitalisation below $60 million and entities listed on growth markets, like Catalist, from the mandatory disclosure regime. Small issuers—to give some context to the committee—are less than 1 percent of total NZX market capitalisation. So that gives you a sense of the scale of those issuers. The exemption of small issuers and growth markets still means that the majority of the financial sector are captured by the bill.
New Subparts 2, 3, and 5: to keep climate-related disclosure records, prepare and lodge climate statements—so climate-related entities will be required to prepare statements in according with climate standards issued by the External Reporting Board (XRB). Climate statements have to be lodged with the Registrar of Financial Service Providers within four months of the climate-related entity's (CRE's) balance date, and CREs also have to keep climate-related disclosure records and make them available for inspection. There's a new Subpart 7: climate-related contraventions are added to the Financial Markets Conduct Act's existing civil liability regime. That means that contraventions will attract pecuniary penalties not exceeding $1 million for individuals or $5 million in other cases.
Schedule 1, new section 92, which concerns transitionals—I'm mindful of concerns around the industry's preparedness to comply with the disclosure requirements while the standards are being prepared. The transitional provisions clarify that the disclosure and record-keeping requirements do not come into force until after the XRB has published and issued at least one climate standard. The XRB standard, of course, as I've mentioned already, will be based on the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and that material has been available for some time. None the less, there is a due process consideration here. The XRB therefore is required to adequately consult with those likely to be affected by the standards before those standards are issued. That's a part of due process.
The XRB has already started consulting with affected entities. On 20 October, which is tomorrow, it will launch its consultation on the governance and risk management sections of the proposed climate-related disclosure standards. Climate reporting entities will have ample opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed climate standard that may apply to them. That is the fundamental point. Once the XRB has issued a climate standard that applies to that entity, the disclosure obligations apply to accounting periods that commence on or after the date that standard is issued.
Now, there's also been a removal of the disclose-or-explain provision. The bill originally provided an exception if a climate reporting entity reasonably determined that it is not materially affected by climate change, but what was recognised was that that would've created a two-tier reporting system. Far better to have a simple, single standard for reporting and then investors can compare, even if those that are not materially affected—well, that will be clear in their disclosure that that is the case. It ensures that the records are easy to compare and that all climate reporting entities are analysing the climate risks and opportunities in the same way.
There's been a removal of the assurance practitioner accreditation and licensing regime. The select committee recommended removing the licensing regime proposed in the bill as introduced because it would not be effective, and that removal responds to concerns that non-accountants would be excluded from carrying out greenhouse gas assurance engagements. The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) also supported removing the proposed licensing regime. Now, despite removal of the licensing regime, the greenhouse gas assurance engagements that are carried out up to three years after Royal assent will still be robust, and that's because new section 461ZDA would require assurance practitioners to "comply with all applicable auditing and assurance standards" when carrying out an assurance engagement.
Now, in respect of assurance of greenhouse gas emissions required three years after Royal assent, to allow entities and the assurance industry time to build assurance capability, assurance engagements for climate statements that are required to disclose greenhouse gas emissions will only be required three years after Royal assent.
Now, I want to speak also briefly to the Government's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I'm going to be tabling a Supplementary Order Paper which makes three small changes to two provisions in Part 1 that implement the select committee changes. The first change is to close a loophole in the definition of market capitalisation. The definition was added to the bill as part of the decision to exempt small listed issuers from climate-related disclosures. For listed debt issuers the current test is based on the net assets of the issuer and its subsidiaries. That's not a measure suitable for economic significance of debt instruments. It's the amount of debt that the issuer is seeking to raise that matters most, not the size of the issuing entity. I'm not disagreeing with the fundamental principle introduced by the select committee but making an amendment. The current provision could also have the effect of excluding issuers that raise debt through a special purpose entity, and that's not an uncommon practice. The SOP therefore changes the test for a listed debt issuer from net assets of the issuer and its subsidiaries to the aggregate dollar value of all of the entity's quoted debt instruments when they are issued. That is the face value. 
The second and third changes both relate to an assurance practitioner's report on parts of climate statements relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This provision was changed at select committee to address the legal consequences for assurance practitioners when their report does not comply with the requirements of all applicable auditing and assurance standards or if a qualified report is not sent to the FMA, XRB, and the supervisor within seven working days. There will still be a fine if instead it doesn't meet the new 20 working day deadline. As it stood, though, assurance practitioners if convicted would have been liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000 for either of those requirements as they stood in the legislation. The SOP amends the bill so it's not an offence if an assurance report fails to comply with applicable auditing and assurance standards. The risks of criminal conviction could deter high-quality assurance practitioners from taking on greenhouse gas assurance engagements. Assurance standards for greenhouse gas emissions is new territory for the industry. We want to make it permissive for folks to turn their hand to it. Practitioners may not want to risk, as the bill currently stood, committing an offence by not meeting the standard. So that's why we have made that change.
In closing, the refinements and changes that we've made will help the bill to achieve its aims of ensuring that climate change risks and opportunities are routinely considered in business and financial market decisions. It will also support intergenerational equity through informed investment decision making. We are seeking here to make sure that New Zealand's financial markets disclose clear, comparable, and consistent information about the risks and opportunities presented by climate change and believe that that transparency will enable the efficient allocation of capital and effective markets. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank the Minister for his intervention there, which ran for almost 13 or 14 minutes. I do commend him for that, because I remember, during the second reading, members opposite—members of the Government, his backbenchers—standing up and saying how very important this is and the amazing things, the important things, it will do to address climate change, and saying that they are a responsible Government and they take this seriously, and they spoke for about a minute and 14 seconds each, each time, it was so important to them. I did have a constituent email and it said, "Well, I suppose they're not adding to greenhouse gases through their long speeches." But I do want to thank the Minister for taking the time to actually set out the reason that he's brought the bill, the importance of it.
Can I start by saying how I feel for him. I remember when I was a Minister and things were passed to me when I got a new portfolio after an election, and I would look it at and think, well, it doesn't actually achieve what the last person—the last Minister—said that it would; it feels like it's overhyped, but you've just got to grin and bear it and get through it and keep reading from the paper, and he's done that admirably. I think, actually, if the Minister had been here with his portfolio in the last term of Government, he would have actually done a proper job of it, and I think the previous Minister, of course, as support partners they needed before—they don't need the Green Party now, but, of course, they're still nice to them in case they need them in the future. You've got to pay credit to the former Minister James Shaw, but, actually, this Minister knows, as we do, that whilst it sends a signal to the world, it doesn't achieve anything else and doesn't do anything more than that. It does run the risk of burdening business in areas that it shouldn't, because every time there's a regulation, there is a cost of that to business. In some cases, I suppose, for the very large insurance companies, the banks, it's not significant, but it is getting them to do something they do already, and for those companies that are listed on stock exchanges in New Zealand or around the world, they already need to do these sorts of things.
National is supporting this, but we have three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs); two are tabled to this part, they're on the Table already, and they are in my name. We think that, actually, there needs to be things done here to address this so that any unreasonable burden that's placed upon businesses and companies is met, it's not there, it's not unreasonable—we want to give them good time frames to get through this—and that Government entities and private sector entities are treated the same. 
The Minister mentioned earlier in his intervention that there's another way to deal with public sector entities. Well, if it's good enough for the private sector, it has to be good enough for the public sector, and it's not enough to say, well, public sector companies are under a duty of care when Ministers write to them with their expectations every year, and we could go further—actually, of course the Government can go further, but if you are going to have a requirement on a like-minded, same business in the private sector, why is the Government exempting itself? It's not reasonable, it sends the wrong signal. That's an SOP that I've put down to include public sector entities in this, and I will speak to that in Part 1A. Is that right? The Minister wants to respond to that—yeah, go ahead.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I do thank the member for his contribution. Whilst I don't agree with some of the sentiments he expressed at the beginning, I sincerely do believe this is a very important piece of legislation, actually. This is about the fair, transparent, and efficient running of public markets, and if we believe in the efficient allocation of capital and we believe that there's also a climate crisis, we do want to see that capital used in a way that doesn't endanger markets because the information is not clear or transparent or comparable and creates risks in our market—volatility and so forth. Those who believe in the value of markets want to see an efficient market with good information, and so consistency of information is important.
So I do think this is incredibly important, and, equally, as to the allocation of capital, those who are concerned about climate risk, and they are many, will also want to see that they are supporting companies that don't have risks in the future on their balance sheet that are climate related and/or that are taking appropriate mitigation where they do have risks on their balance sheets that are climate-related. So I think this is incredibly important legislation. I pay, again, tribute to the Hon James Shaw for the work that he's done to develop this legislation, working with the Government during the last term.
What I also want to respond to the member on is in respect of his SOP to require public entities to make climate-related disclosures. Here he is suggesting a whole lot more red tape when there are other measures. There are 4,000 entities that qualify as public entities in the Public Audit Act. He is wanting them to, essentially, go through two processes. For a Minister that claims that "We don't want red tape."—and I have heard him say that before—I'm just a bit bemused by that desire. There are 15 public climate-reporting entities that are captured under the bill: Kiwibank, Air New Zealand, some port companies, some energy companies, and so on. So these companies are captured, and it's a matter of scale and it's a matter of public markets working efficiently. This is a bill that is focused on public markets. I expect investors in the future will demand more climate-related disclosure from private equity companies and concerns as well. But this bill is targeted, clearly, at those that are public reporting entities.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I thank the member for that. In fact, my Supplementary Order Paper is very specific. It doesn't deal with all of those. Of course, he mentioned Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand's already on the stock exchange, and it actually wouldn't be deemed under the scope of the bill to be covered anyway because it's not a lender or borrower or insurance company. But there are five that I have mentioned here. So it's not all; it's Crown financial institutions.
If we take the example the Minister's just given of investors wanting to know about any liability or effect that climate change might have upon the investments or conduct that a business has, an issuer or a lender, well, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or ACC corporation, whilst they're Crown entities, are actually not owned by or benefit the Government. They are taxpayers. They are New Zealanders. If it is good enough for the private sector to have to meet these requirements, then it should also be good enough for like-minded or similar or the same entities that are Crown financial institutions, the Super Fund or the ACC, to also be covered.
The point that we're making here is—and I agree with him—too much red tape, bureaucracy, is a cost. His Government is bringing this forward and saying to the private sector that they must do this, but there are entities that are the same, and if they are covered by the scope of $1 billion or the $60 million—everything else that's in here—then they too should have to comply. If a Minister wants them to go further, they get to instruct them to do that. Although, in the case of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or ACC, there is some direction, but there is independence when it comes to investment, unless a law is passed in this Parliament. They get to decide what the investment is. If the Government doesn't like the way they're investing, they can change the board, but they don't get to sit there and decide upon every single investment. They can ask them to do levels of reporting, I suppose, or bear things in mind each year, but, actually, they don't get to do it by statute—and this is statute.
So we're saying to the private sector, to a bank or an insurance company, "You must do the following things because of climate change and to see the impact of climate change on your company—not your activities but on your investments and the liability, perhaps, or the effect it might have in the future." If it's good enough for them, why not the Superannuation Fund or ACC, because in the end, to the investor or the taxpayer, they are the same. If there is a requirement and if the Minister says he thinks that the private sector investors will ask more in the future of private companies in as far as climate change is concerned, well, I guess the New Zealand public doesn't get to do that as taxpayers unless the Government wants to. But the Government can only go so far, because this statute, this piece of legislation, won't apply. 
I have other interventions, but I'll allow the Minister to respond.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'll spell it out, perhaps, as clearly as I can. The four Crown financial institutions that have more than a $1 billion of assets under management, which are the ones the member's referring to, will be required to make climate-related disclosures. The decision's being implemented through letters of expectation, and I give the member my undertaking that this Government will implement that. If ever in the future he and his members were on this side of the House, I would anticipate they would do similarly, because this is the rhetoric he is putting forward—that he thinks they should be making those same disclosures.
So rather than broadening the scope of this legislation, which is quite specific, ACC, New Zealand Superannuation Fund, Government Superannuation Fund Authority, and the National Provident Fund will be required, through the letter of expectation process that Ministers have legislatively to use, to make climate-related disclosures. Further, I give him an undertaking that if the Earthquake Commission fund reaches $1 billion, it too will be required through the letter of expectation process to do the same thing. This is the direction of travel.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I thank the Minister in the chair for that, that his Government has given an undertaking, but this is legislation that specifically sets things out. Now, unless the letters of expectation—that he doesn't get to write but other Ministers do—set out the exact same requirements as will be agreed at some time in the future via the External Reporting Board (XRB), then, actually, there will be a difference. So it's good that the Minister has said he wants to do that, but it actually is an exemption. Those businesses, those Crown entities, that he is speaking of are exempt from a piece of legislation when you have two companies that are identical, are the same, the only difference in this case is the ownership—and one is owned by the Crown, one is not owned by the Crown; it is owned by the private sector. Why has he decided to treat them differently?
If his argument is that the Government wants to go further and doesn't want to place those requirements—or that burden, perhaps—upon the private sector, then that's reasonable, but he hasn't said that. He said it will be the same, although he doesn't know what the reporting requirements will be yet because they are not yet set. He said that the XRB is consulting, but we don't know what they will be and how that will happen. It could be that in the future, the Government says, in their letters of expectation, "You must abide by the following:", but, actually not by law, because if they decide not to, the Minister or the Government has to call them and tell them off or would have to sack a board member, and that's not necessary. 
Now, I know that the boards are responsible. They act and react to letters of expectation. But there have been many occasions where the letter of expectation—the interpretation between the Government and a board of a Crown-owned entity is different. In the case of this law that's being passed, that has support of the House, it is very, very clear, the obligation, the intention, and the requirement, and the XRB will make a decision. 
So, ultimately, I'm actually not arguing for more regulation and more red tape; I think there should be less cost. But if it is fair enough for the Minister to say that there is an exemption for Crown entities from this legislation, then he should say why, not: "Well, we're doing it anyway and we can write letters.", because he's writing a letter, or his Government is as the owner, but he is not giving the same ability to the private sector owners; he is requiring something by law. He should treat the private sector and the public sector the same in as far as this legislation is concerned. If he wants to take it further, his Government, he has the ability to do that through letters of expectation. 
But, ultimately, where a company in the private sector is covered by this legislation and they don't meet the requirements, they break the law, there is a fine; well, that's not actually going to happen. If anything—and I've seen how these things work because it is very, very political; it's a slap on the hand, or a telling off, or a "fix it next year"—actually, they should be treated the same.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Obviously, I mean, the member's argument is becoming fairly repetitive, so I won't respond to the same points that I have responded to again. But what I will do is I'll just give the wider piece of context, which, of course, is that the Government has a carbon-neutral programme from the 2021-22 financial year. All departments, departmental agencies, and non - Public Service departments will be required to measure and publicly report on their emissions, and offset any emissions necessary to reach carbon neutrality by 2025. 
On this side of the House, we are ambitious for achieving carbon neutrality. So we are setting expectations that are significant on our Public Service departments and those things that report into the Government. So that is the wider piece of context which I think is very important that the member conveniently omits or neglects to mention in his arguments.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Look, I thank the Minister, but this legislation has nothing to do with the Government's target of being carbon neutral by a certain date. It doesn't do that; it asks the private sector to report upon climate change upon their balance sheet and risk to them. It doesn't make a single private sector company change how they act, just report, and so they are two very different things.
So the Government may, in their letters of expectation to these Crown institutions, say to them, "We want you to be carbon neutral by a certain date.", but they don't get to say to the superannuation fund, "And we want all your investments to be carbon neutral or to be the following to do with climate change.", unless they change the law. They don't get to direct them in that way, because it's important there is independence in as far as the super fund and ACC and how they go about their investments. There are times when this House has passed a law that says, "We don't want these entities, these Crown entities, to invest in a certain way." That has happened previously around weapons and so on. But the Minister is trying to confuse things by saying that the Government has a target of all Crown entities or the Government being carbon neutral by a certain date and suggesting that that is the same here. It's not.
Ultimately, what the Government is doing is putting a legal requirement upon businesses, a number of businesses, to report the impact of climate change upon their business, not what they're doing about climate change, but upon their business. In the same breath, they're saying that businesses that are the same, with the same size assets that invest in the same ways but are owned by the Government, don't have to do that and this Government knows better and will just direct them themselves.
The case that I'm making is that that's not right. If it is good enough for the private sector in this case, there should not be an exemption from this legislation for certain Crown financial institutions. The Minister has mentioned that, you know, my arguments are repetitive. It's because he hasn't actually addressed the reason that there isn't a difference yet.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder if I may assist in this and perhaps accelerate moving through this point by talking about the relationship between the Carbon Neutral Government Programme and the legislation that's being debated today. So, as the Minister has said, the Carbon Neutral Government Programme includes reporting requirements for all public entities. Those reporting requirements are intended to be similar to or as close as possible to those that will be the reporting requirements under this legislation. However, as the member who's been on his feet a lot recently has mentioned, you know, private entities do have slightly different requirements. They have shareholder requirements and allocation of capital requirements that are different from public entities, and so the precise nature of the reporting won't be, you know, a perfect apples for apples comparison. But the intention is that all Public Service departments—all departmental agencies, the New Zealand Defence Force, the Police, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, etc.—will be required to report on their metrics and targets from 2021-2022, which is a year ahead of where the private sector will be required to report under this piece of legislation here.
Now, entities under this amendment bill, of course, are required from 2023, according to the standards in the External Reporting Board. Now, it may be that the member would be more comfortable if the Carbon Neutral Government Programme itself had legal backing, and so it would be good to hear if they would support legislation that, essentially, took what is currently a governmental requirement on every single Public Service agency to report to a similar standard—if they would be prepared to support legislation that would require that of the public sector so that the public sector entities are required under the law, just as these large reporting entities are under this legislation.
The member has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper. I think it's good that he's thinking this way, that it's obviously important for the public sector and publicly owned funds and other entities to take the lead. That is why, under the Carbon Neutral Government Programme, we said that they had to report earlier than under this programme, because we agree with the member on that point and look forward to his wholehearted support for the Carbon Neutral Government Programme and the reporting requirements therein.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, the first thing I would say is—I think my learned colleague has just raised the issue of consistency, and I think that's a fundamental principle that should be adopted: what is good for the private sector should be good for the Government sector. I think the argument that if you're going to make a distinction, then the best way to do that is to make the legislation which we are talking about today consistent, and it's not. I think he makes a very valid point.
I haven't sat on this committee, so I'm a little bit new to it, but I was just looking at the new Supplementary Order Paper 63 that the Minister's put up, which is the one that deals with the issue of value of $60 million, which, from what I understand, less than 1 percent of companies have on market listings, so the proposition's been that a small number of companies will be affected by that. The first thing is I'd just be keen to get some clarification from the Minister: when the figure of $60 million is quoted, what does that include? Is it merely equities and does that mean share capital? Does it mean debt? Does it mean pseudo or quasi-capital—auctions, warrants? Are they part of that valuation? That's my first point. So maybe we'll deal with that and then we'll deal with the billion-dollar question in a minute.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'll come back to the member with more detail on that point. I'm happy to deal with his next question.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well, I am a little bit surprised, because the Supplementary Order Paper is in your name. So let's maybe go back. First point is why $60 million, which is the—and I see that you've changed that clause in the bill. You've replaced new section 461OA in clause 7, which previously just talked about a large issuer, and now you've defined it as being $60 million.
So the second question, while we're waiting for an answer from the Minister: the big question I've got around the use of value is at what point is the value determined? Because as we all know, listed companies, and with all companies, have to value their assets, and normally on a mark-to-market basis. Is this only at the end of the financial year? Or what happens if the value of the assets goes up during the course of the year but declines, and therefore it'd be under the threshold at, say, 31 March, which is the normal balance sheet? So how are those inconsistencies or irregularities or increases and decreases in value actually accounted for?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I want to make sure that I come back to the member with the appropriate technical answers to his questions. I imagine the normal process will apply, as with other accounting provisions, but I will come back to him with the further technical advice on that. I expect that's what he expects too, but it's always good to have these things clarified.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I must admit, Mr Chair, I've only spent the past 15 minutes looking at the bill. I don't proclaim to be an expert but it was an issue that sort of seemed blindingly obvious to me. So, hopefully, we're going to get an answer quickly.
So the second aspect I was going to talk about is we've now got a $1 billion threshold. So we've got the change that Supplementary Order Paper 63 put up by the Minister—that was talking about $60 million. Then we've also got this issue around a $1 billion, which I think assumes that relates to fund managers. I don't know and I'm hoping I'm going to get clarity from the Minister on that.
Again, it is interesting from a fund manager's perspective. First of all, maybe we'll just clarify some scenarios. So if I'm a private fund manager, but I have $1 billion and $1 in listed entities, am I captured? Secondly, am I going to be captured if I'm still that private entity with a mixture of investments in equities listed on the stock exchange and a mixture of bonds listed on the stock exchange, and then a range of private bonds and private equities, which are not listed and, obviously, there's not a readily available market price for? So, again, I'd be quite interested in that scenario.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): For listed debt issuers, the current test is based on the net assets of the issuer and its subsidiaries.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK, so I don't quite understand that and I'd be hopeful that the Minister might be a little bit—when you talk about the net assets, presumably, is that total investments, and is it total market investments or does it include non-market related investments? Secondly, does it include non - quasi-equity instruments such as warrants, options, whatever, that do have a true value but are not readily valued? So, again, I'd be keen for some update on that.
OK, well, while we're waiting for that, the issue—just going back to our $1 billion, because, hopefully, we're going to have some answers soon on this. The issue around the fund manager: I've put up a proposition where you've got a private fund manager with a range of investments, both listed and unlisted—so I see the adviser's come back, so maybe I'll just wait for a response before I carry on. 





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps I can fill a little time in while the Minister does some homework. Look, I think we have to be clear about what this bill is about. I think it was all laid out by the Minister in his opening statement, where he said we are world leading—others are following, and they're following fast, but we are world leading. That's what this is all about. We're trying to get ahead of the game and do something around climate change, because, actually, we haven't done anything other than declare a climate emergency. The only urgency that's been shown around climate has been the declaration of a climate emergency, and nothing else has followed.
It would seem strange that this would be the bill that would seem to be their "get out of jail free" card, particularly when we don't actually have the standards, and we won't have the standards until 2022—December of 2022, actually, is when we'll get the standards—and the Minister said that public entities are going to have to report in 2021-22, which will be ahead of the standards that will be set for the private companies and public companies. So the public entities are going to report—what? What exactly are they going to report, because we don't know what the standards are. Are we going to have a whole lot of a hotchpotch of reporting and the Government entities sitting back there congratulating themselves on how well they've done, but how well against what? That will be the question.
I note also that the one thing the licensed insurers and the banks and the credit unions are in the business of is actually measuring risk. Everything they do is measured against risk, and climate change is just another one of those risks and they are very well aware of it, so I think this is just another needless impost on business. 
I would like to know what assessments were done by officials into the costs of reporting to these standards. Are we expecting that all that will be required will be the normal risk, which will probably cover all this anyway? Will it be acceptable if they're lifted off their records and collated into a form to meet their standard, or are we going to have to go back through and reinvent the wheel and actually come up with the same result but do it in a different way, which will add significant costs to business? 
Actually, all business at the moment is struggling when we have something really real and present out there that we need to deal with in a business sense, when businesses that are going to be captured by this are already doing probably way more than they're going to be required to—and way more, I suspect, Minister, than the letters of expectation that will go to the public entities. They understand risk, but they also understand what their customers want and need, and their customers are interested in climate change and in seeing that the people that they deal with on a day-to-day basis are living up to their expectations.
So I just see this as a solution running around looking for a problem, and I think, as I said in the beginning, it's all about having something to announce in Glasgow so that the Minister can puff his chest out, as he walks around in Glasgow, saying, "Well, we've actually done something. We're world leading." Yeah, we're world-leading—at what, exactly? So I look forward to the Minister's answers to the questions. Hopefully, he's got the very insightful questions that Andrew Bayly has asked; he should have the answers to those. And, given that they revolve around the Minister's own Supplementary Order Paper, I would have thought they would have been top of mind. So we look forward to hearing the Minister in his response to those questions. Thank you. 





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Mr Chair, I'm just waiting to—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Andrew Bayly.
ANDREW BAYLY: OK. I was just hoping the Minister was going to take the opportunity, but maybe we'll move on to a new topic. I just want to talk about the change around the assurance practitioner licensing arrangement. This relates to clause 7, of course, in Part 1. There's been quite a change to this, as I seem to read here, and it's around the question of who is a qualified assurance practitioner, to be able to do what's called CRDs, which are climate-related disclosures. I suppose there's been quite a change in the bill, moving away from the concept of having approved climate assurance practitioners to one that really revolves around more of a process—that reports are tabled and lodged within, I think, 60 working days, from what I could see here.
So my issue is, first of all—maybe the Minister can just help us—who can be a qualified assurance practitioner now. I just read the commentary, and it talked about accounting firms and whether they were actually precluded from being an assurance practitioner. So, one, is I'd quite like to understand who can't be one, and, secondly, who might be one and what is the process for them to do it other than what may be suggested? I don't know if my assumptions are right about whether you just put yourself out as someone suitably qualified and the company makes sure it files your report in 60 days, but I'd just like a bit of clarity around that assurance practitioner arrangement.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): There are already greenhouse-gas assurance practitioners, but it won't be till the third anniversary before any standard around that needs to be lined up. We're expecting new people to take this on, as I outlined in my introductory comments. 
I do want to come back to a couple of other questions that have been raised. The member Stuart Smith raised a question around what standards would be applied to the public reporting entities—to those listed on public markets; prior to that what were public entities. Again, as I mentioned in my introductory material, the standards will be based on the recommendations of the task force of climate-related financial disclosures, and that material, of course, was confirmed in 2017. So this is not a new area. There's not going to be great surprises in here, and at the same time, the External Reporting Board, of course, is obliged to give those who it's issuing the standard to a chance to be comfortable with the standard, to go through due process and raise any concerns.
In respect of the previous question of the member opposite, the new section 461OA(1), set out in clause 7, is amended so that the size of a listed issuer of quoted debt securities is measured by the face value of their quoted debt securities at any time during the last two accounting periods, instead of the value of their net assets as at the balance date of those two accounting periods. A listed issuer of both quoted debt securities and quoted equity securities will be a large listed issuer if they are large in terms of the value of their equity securities or in terms of the face value of their debt securities or both. But you cannot combine equity and debt securities for that total, and the amount that must be exceeded is $60 million. 
The member will appreciate that many of these matters are technical and I want to be absolutely spot on when I report back to the House. Unfortunately, many of our officials who have worked away on this are out in a back room because we have some COVID restrictions on how we operate in the House today. So if members are patient, if they do have technical questions, I will come back to them because I regard them as important and I do want to make sure that we are providing that technical information. Most of the rest of the argument, obviously that raised by Mr McClay, is more of a rhetorical nature. Happy to respond to those arguments one by one, but obviously where's there's repetition, we'll just let the argument and debate continue.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for his explanation of the officials in the back room—I was worried they'd gone fishing or something, but they're still here.
There's another part of the legislation I want to come to—sorry, this part but another section of it—and that's around the comply or explain provision. Very clearly, for people listening in, where an entity is of the view that, actually, they have no exposure or risk from climate change, they could explain why they were not reporting. That was in the original legislation at first reading, as tabled in the House. During committee, that was changed based on perhaps a submission, but advice from Government. I have a Supplementary Order Paper in my name to put that back in, and the reason I think this is very important is, look, we want entities to meet their obligation, to do what the legislation says, but in the case that there is an entity, a private sector entity, that actually does not have any effect of climate change upon it for whatever reason, it's unreasonable and unnecessary for them to have to go through this procedure—a very long procedure—to report on something to say "We have nothing to report.", when they could just explain why it is they're not reporting.
Now, the legislation says you must comply. In the case that a business says "We explain that we're not affected by this." and they are, they have broken the law. It's not an exemption from meeting their obligation; it just says there's a shortened procedure in a case that you are not affected by climate change. I would say that it was in the original legislation the Minister brought to the House and spoke of, and then it was changed. I think it's a mistake that we've made that change. It doesn't lessen the impact of the bill—although the bill doesn't have a lot of impact anyway, but it doesn't lessen the impact. It doesn't alter the requirements of the entities that are covered by this legislation to report properly based on the standards that are being set, but if there is an entity that has no obligation, no consequence of climate change upon them as a result of the legislation, then, actually, we shouldn't be asking them to go to the extent of what would be a very costly and long procedure to come back and say, "Nothing to see here."
I don't think it would be used very often, but it's actually good lawmaking to say, "If this doesn't apply to you, we're not going to burden you with it." The Minister did say in his introductory remarks it would create a two-tier system. It wouldn't. It actually wouldn't be a two-tier system; it would be a one-tier system where if somebody's not covered, they could explain why, and if they got the explanation wrong, then they've broken the law under this legislation and they'd be held to account.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well, obviously, I did cover this off in my introductory remarks, as the member notes. I stand by the view that a system that enables two records to be compared with each other is better than one that has two different types of records. The whole point here is to have comparable records. So if somebody is a climate reporting entity and they don't believe they have substantial matters to disclose, they still would have to, as the bill was originally worded, demonstrate that. That was believed to be quite onerous, actually, because they would have to go through a process of providing an alternative type of report. We would have two different types of report then: one which demonstrates and seeks assurance around not needing to disclose, and one which is around disclosure. So it was deemed to be much more sensible to have a system where all reporting entities prepare the same climate statements, and those that identify minimal climate risks will have less to disclose.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Hopefully, we're going to get some answers before this debate gets closed down, unless the honourable members opposite are, hopefully, standing up to ask some questions, which they haven't to date. 
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's entirely the Chair's decision, so you should carry on. 
ANDREW BAYLY: I just don't understand the explanation the Minister provided before; I'm grateful he attempted to. 
So let me give you a scenario. There's a listed investment company. It has $50 million of equities on the market and it has $9 million of debt securities on the market. It actually has a portfolio of investments that have a value of $900 million, but alongside it, outside the listed debt bonds that are issued on the market, it has a huge amount of bank borrowings. During the course of a year, the value of the business goes up. The value of the equities goes up from $50 million to $60 million; therefore, breaching the $60 million test—if I understand it—but by balance sheet, it comes down to being within the $60 million cap. Is that company captured under the rules? 
That was my point before around at what point in a year over the two-year period—is it a balance date or is it at a different date, because the value of the assets, not only its own value of its equity or debt instruments but also the value of its investments, might have gone up and down during the course of the year. So, hopefully, we're going to get an answer. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister Clark, the final Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the three that I've put in there is around when these obligations will be placed upon the businesses covered by the scope of the legislation. As I understand, as it's currently written, it will be 12 months after Royal assent—so, entering into force. However, the External Reporting Board (XRB), although the Minister has said they're currently consulting, they haven't set the standards yet, and there isn't a requirement in the legislation as to when they might do that. Look, I think the XRB will take its responsibility seriously, but I am concerned that there won't be enough time for companies to take their responsibility seriously and meet these requirements. So this isn't about not having to meet the requirements; it's about a fair period of time. What I've suggested is a—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Is that in the commencement clause?
Hon TODD McCLAY: So there are two parts. I think it's in Part 1 and Part 1A, is my understanding.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Part 1 amends a date and then Part 1A also does, but maybe the Clerk can clarify that for me. I understood that—[Chairperson seeks advice]
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, you can actually have that debate under clause 2, but I'm happy that you've mentioned it in passing. It is a little bit irrelevant.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Yeah, so, well, I'm at your guidance, Mr Chair, but with the exception of 1A, my colleagues finding it erroneous, we probably won't debate much longer since we're supporting. But in this respect, the suggestion is that, actually, the dates be changed so from when the XRB brings forward the reporting requirements, companies have two years to be able to meet those requirements. Look, it's actually not about an extended period of time, because these companies will take it seriously; in many respects, they're probably already considering this. It is good that the XRB is talking to them, but, ultimately, for some of these very large businesses, particularly when one considers they do have investments around the world, it could be quite some amount of work, and we don't want undue pressure to come on them, or unreasonable cost, because whether they meet it in the first year or two years afterwards actually means the same to the climate. The reason for that is this legislation doesn't make them alter anything they're doing, in meeting lower levels of climate emissions or anything else.
So I'll have one more question after this, but, to the Minister, the SOP suggests allowing more time—not unreasonably, I think—for the entities covered by the scope of this legislation to meet the requirement once the XRB publishes the standards.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This is a new point the member's raised. In addition to climate standards, the XRB intends to issue an adoption standard which lays out a pathway for climate reporting entities to adopt some of the more challenging disclosure requirements. Adoption standards offer various provisions to entities when a new standard or new requirements are to be applied for the first time and can include practical expedience, phased adoption, or relief from providing comparative information. It's a recognition that for those who are doing it the first time, a more pragmatic approach will be taken.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just remind the Minister that I'm still waiting for some answers that were to be provided, and I appreciate the officials who are out the back doing their bit. But there was a difference between—I gave him a scenario about the value changing over the course of a year and at what point is it valued. It's the same with the fund manager, the $1 billion one. There's a fundamental question about when do you assess the value, and the second element of that was if you're a fund manager, for instance, do you have to value non-listed investments as part of getting to your total of $1 billion. So, hopefully, we're going to hear a response on that, and, hopefully, we're getting a response back now. 
But in the meantime, I did ask about the assurance practitioner arrangements. I think, from the Minister's response, all this is to be decided in due course, and maybe he can confirm that, but who's going to be deciding? Is it the Financial Markets Authority or was it going to be a recommendation, and to what extend can the Minister assure businesses that they're not going to be lumped with exaggeration and excessive requirements around regulations imposed on businesses—so that we actually get to an outcome that means that the practitioners who can operate and have due skill are not exposed unduly to liability, because, frankly, trying to quantify climate change impacts on certain industries and businesses would be a pretty heroic mission in some cases. 
So I'm just understanding the framework that's being proposed, and when might the framework be available, because given the due date—and I just acknowledge my colleague's suggestion, which on the face of it sounds a good one, which is to delay the commencement date for three years, rather than one year. That might give sufficient time to put those arrangements in place, because if people do want to become a climate change assurance provider, then, obviously, they've got to set up the processes, get the right skills in place, talent, and all that sort of stuff, and you don't do that overnight. 
So, again, those two key questions. Hopefully, we're going to get a response. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm happy to answer those two specific questions. Working through, I confess I misheard the member's example the first time, and the officials have, rightly—because I couldn't make his numbers add up, but the officials tell me they do. So—
Andrew Bayly: They do add up. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: So they do add up, on this occasion. 
So in respect of the equity securities listed of investment $50 million equity, $9 million debt, a portfolio of $9 million, and huge bank borrowings, the company goes over $60 million. So the entity must be above one of the thresholds, is the answer: $60 million equity debt or $1 billion assets under management at their balance date for two consecutive years. 
The second question was around who can be a climate-related disclosures assurance practitioner. Anyone who is independent from the entity may assure their disclosures, as long as they assure against the Expert Reporting Board's standards for auditing and assurance. 





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, we're just about there. What about the unlisted components? So we've got a classic example, New Zealand super, that, obviously, has, I think, $59 billion of investments but is now increasingly investing in private sector, so in the unlisted. And also related to that, I keep talking about quasi-equity instruments—are they part of the $1 billion, are they part of that calculation?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm advised that they're not.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 63 be agreed to—no, not that one. The question is that the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 63 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Todd McClay's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Todd McClay's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Todd McClay's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendments not agreed to.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.





Part 1A  Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by third anniversary of Royal assent
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 1A. Part 1A is the debate on clauses 20A to 20J in schedule 1A, Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by third anniversary of Royal assent. The question is that Part 1A stand part.





CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 63 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Todd McClay's amendment to Part 1A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Todd McClay's amendment to Part 1A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 is ruled out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Part 1A as amended agreed to.





Part 2  Amendments to Financial Reporting Act 2013
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate—
Andrew Bayly: Madam—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): —on clauses 21 to 35 and Schedule 2 amendments to the Financial Reporting Act 2013. The question is that Part 2 stand part. 





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Sorry, I was so enthusiastic. I just want to ask a little bit about new section 19B in Part 2, which relates to the climate standards. And of course, as I said at the outset, I haven't been on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, so I haven't had all the liberty of hearing all the arguments. But new section 19B sets out that "The purpose of climate standards is to provide for, or promote, climate-related disclosures, … [to] (a) encourage [any] entities to routinely consider the short-, medium-, and long-term risks and opportunities that climate change presents for the activities of the entity … (b) enable entities to show how they are considering those risks and opportunities; and (c) enable investors and other stakeholders to assess the merits of how entities are considering those risks and opportunities."
Hey, those are quite significant issues, particularly where you start to put it in a way that investors will be in a position where they can rely on those statements and, obviously, other stakeholders, which are customers, etc. And I don't think anyone is suggesting for a moment that companies should be shirking their obligations around climate change. What it seems is that these are wonderful, broad principles, but I was just wondering whether the Minister might be able to enlighten us, because "broad" sounds great in a piece of legislation that takes up a few lines, but what does it actually mean and how will it be implemented? And that gives rise—if they're extensive and you're requiring a whole lot of financial modelling, as well as environmental modelling, on not only cost factors but on risk factors, taking into account what might happen, you start to get into a whole range of different aspects. 
What this doesn't do is put a limit on it or provide any clarity. What it does is a never-ending course. And you can imagine over time, what might start out with relatively brief statements actually turns into being a meal, and under Government-proposed legislation that is often the case. So there doesn't seem to be any limit to it, and one of the reasons I'm highlighting this and seeking the Minister's response to it is that the wider and the deeper this goes and who is exercising the discretion of how far you go when you write that report will also give rise to the issue of indemnities, particularly where investors are involved, and who is going to pay for that, given that we don't have clarity around who the insurance practitioners are, as the Minister responded to in Part 1. And so it just looks like we're creating what seems good on a piece of paper. Wonderful for the Hon James Shaw to announce overseas what he's done, but without any clarity around actually what it is seeking to achieve and how far it goes. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): For those who are at home, new section 19B lays out—because not everyone will have the benefit of this fine, fine legislation in front of them—you know, we're looking at "the short-, medium-, and long-term risks and opportunities that climate change presents for the activities of the entity or [the] entity's group; … (b) [enabling] entities to show how they are considering those risks and opportunities; and (c) [enabling] investors and other stakeholders to assess the merits of how entities are considering those risks and opportunities."
Now, I mean, it goes back to the point which I covered in my introductory remarks, but also in terms of the transitional—I mean, all of this, the recommendations of the XRB, will be based upon the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures work from 2017. So, you know, that's all out there. That's been out there for a long time. It's pretty well understood and that will form the basis of that thinking. So I don't think there's a lot more to say on that. Those standards may be reformed over time. There may be further meetings, but it's actually not new or surprising. It's kind of out there for businesses to see and look at. And indeed, many businesses already are.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, thank you for that. So I think what the Minister in the chair is trying to suggest is that there is enough clarity with the standards now that if you apply those three concepts, and particularly the one where you've got investors investing in a company on the basis of what is included in those reports—are you suggesting that there is a clear limit? Because what happens is, in many cases, you can set objectives like these, which are great sounding, but it is the extent of the requirements. So does it set out, for instance, the need to do economic modelling around it? Does it have to have taken into account assessment of risk factors, and, therefore, who do you rely on to provide those? Are you looking at impact of climate change on infrastructure or housing or shoreline or rising water tables or more frequent, intense storms? To what extent is there clarity in the standards? Because, otherwise, this will end up being a situation that in 10 years' time we'll all be sitting here and the reports cost hundreds of thousands for these large entities to do—and, no doubt, the Government will extend the mandate beyond that—and they will just grow without any clarity, because as people do more and more, they'll get deeper and deeper and they'll cost more and more and they'll take longer to do.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I probably should have also repeated my other point that while the External Reporting Board standards will be principle-based, guidance will also be issued. That's the point of having the consultation: so that clear guidance can be issued to companies.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So I suppose my last point is: the rush to get this legislation out—no doubt, I suspect it is because the Hon James Shaw is rushing off to a climate change conference overseas—I'm just a little bit surprised that there hasn't been more thinking and preparation for the introduction of this bill. We've got some serious issues. One is that we don't even know what the requirements are of who will be an assurance practitioner. Secondly, there is probably a lack of clarity around the standards and how they will be applied. And we've just voted down the Hon Todd McClay's Supplementary Order Paper to extend and provide more time to enable those firms to get appointed, understand their liabilities and put it in place. So, I suppose, is that correct? We are going into a bill that is going to rip through this House today and, very shortly, in the next couple of days, without enough clarity around some of those key aspects?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I propose not to debate the points that refer to Part 1 of the bill that the member continues to raise, because we have already voted on Part 1 and he has raised those points several times before. I believe they have been well rebutted. But for the sake of the record, let me say I acknowledge that he is raising those comments again, and I refer him to my previous answers on the assurance providers. We've just had the debate about the principles and discussed that there'll be guidance issued. I'm happy to respond to any new material the member might want to raise.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Part 2 agreed to.
Part 3 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 63 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Todd McClay's amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 are ruled out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 1A agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Todd McClay's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendments not agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.





REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (RCEP) LEGISLATION BILL
In Committee
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.
Barbara Edmonds: Point of order. I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Part 1  Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 2018
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Part 1, this is the debate on clauses 3 and 4, amendments to—
Barbara Kuriger: Point of order. Sorry, Madam Chair, I've just clarified on what I was told before, but we will take it as one question, thank you. We don't object anymore.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): So, leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There is none.
Parts 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Parts 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Can I just start by thanking all those engaged in processing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill so far: from members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, members of Parliament, and the civil society and business representatives. Your engagement has been a very critical part of this process.
It's no secret that the international trading regime is under enormous pressure, a trend that has intensified as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. New Zealand businesses, and exports in particular, have been facing challenging times, but we have also seen how resilient they have been. Our Government recognises how important it is to support these businesses, and RCEP is part of that. It is an agreement which reduces trade barriers, facilitates trade, and provides new market access. RCEP is important in supporting our trade-led recovery from COVID-19. RCEP is also critical to our engagement internationally. Joining RCEP ensures that we will be at the table where decisions affecting our interests will be taken and it reinforces our place in the region and sends a very important signal of New Zealand's continued openness to trade and the importance of rules-based trade. Most of the obligations under RCEP are met through New Zealand's existing legal frameworks and policy regimes. The RCEP bill makes a small number of legislative amendments that are needed to ratify RCEP. 
The bill was introduced in the House on 4 May 2021 as an omnibus bill that amends the Tariff Act 1988, the Tariff, and the Customs and Excise Act 2018. Broadly, the bill will enable the application of preferential tariff rates under RCEP. It will enable the application of transitional safeguard measures under appropriate circumstances on imports originating from RCEP parties and the issue of New Zealand certificates of origin in respect of goods for export to the RCEP parties. RCEP will also be implemented through regulations which will amend the Tariff to enable the application of preferential tariff rates for imports originating from RCEP parties and the Customs and Excise Regulations 1996 to give effect to the rules of origin applicable to imports into New Zealand that originate from RCEP parties. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee extensively examined the bill and received submissions from the public, civil society, and business representatives. The select committee recommend that the bill proceed without any amendments. 
So why is it important that we are ratifying RCEP? Firstly, it is a mechanism to create new opportunities for international trade for New Zealanders, contributing to and improving the wellbeing and living standards for all New Zealanders. Although RCEP does not offer the same level of tariff liberalisation as some previous free-trade agreements, bringing the broader region into a single rulebook covering all 15 markets will significantly reduce complexity and therefore compliance costs for exporters. This is a substantial achievement. Services investments are where big gains will be made, but there are also advancements in addressing non-tariff barriers. As the Minister of Customs, I must also highlight the benefit RCEP brings through enabling trade behind the border. This includes setting expectations for perishable goods like our seafood to be released within six hours of its arrival, even when outside the usual business hours of customs administration. These procedural changes will create a significant benefit for New Zealand's perishable goods exporters. These trade benefits are material. About half of New Zealand jobs are from the tradable sector, and independent modelling predicts that once the agreement 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.
But RCEP's importance is more than what it achieves in terms of outcomes for our economy. It demonstrates New Zealand's commitment to cooperate with other trading economies, our commitment to ASEAN and to the wider Indo-Pacific region. RCEP demonstrates even in challenging times that Governments are able to come together, make compromises, and strike deals that will lift each other up. RCEP is more than a sum of all its parts.
So in closing, RCEP demonstrates that New Zealand does not pursue trade cooperation just for its own sake. RCEP will enable future cooperation between RCEP parties across trade and economic matters and it preserves the rights that New Zealand holds close: the right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes and to uphold our Treaty of Waitangi obligation. This bill will enable New Zealand to ratify RCEP, be part of the agreement, and to see the benefits from it.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I acknowledge the Minister for the role she has played with her customs portfolio. Obviously, it will have ongoing importance to future trade deals and the trade of goods and services.
The Minister has acknowledged the importance of trade to New Zealand, and we know over 600,000 jobs are directly involved and we can feed and clothe 40 million people around the world so it's essential we do have deep and enduring trade agreements around the world in order to get that product to markets; we certainly can't eat and wear it all ourselves.
To the Minister, this Government, through this COVID response, our debt is looking at about $100 billion and climbing. The Minister's talked a little about the economic impact that the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership deal will have on New Zealand economy, but I'm sure that any traders, exporters, producers, and manufacturers sitting and potentially listening to this—I'm sure they've got better things to do, but just in case they are—could you give some more details?
In a Government statement it said that this agreement would create more market access opportunities, especially for services and investment into China and ASEAN members' states. Minister would you please give us some details on those, and what does the Government mean, exactly, by "less red tape for exporters and more streamlined trade"?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Can I thank that member for that question. In the opening remarks, obviously with most trade agreements, and which the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is doing, I do understand that there are 14 parties to this agreement. There are some bilaterals that already exist with them, but your specific question around how, I'm looking to my official so that I can actually answer that question, so could I please come back to that member with some more specificity—as far as I can—around the opportunity. Specifically, I think you're asking around with China, I think that's right, so if you would bear with me, I will ensure that I come back and answer that more appropriately.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Would the Minister agree with the sentiment expressed by former Minister for Trade, my colleague, the Hon Todd McClay, that we are only as good as the last deal we signed, and is it the Minister's view that the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is as good as it could be?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Thank you, again, to that member for that question. Absolutely, and I think in my opening statement I talked about the coming together of 15 parties in a region that is really significant to New Zealand. I think we shouldn't underestimate the importance of getting 15 parties to agree. Of course, there were opportunities, as advised in reading the report back from the select committee, where there was more push from our end and, obviously, we didn't get exactly what we wanted. I would draw member's attention particularly around the environmental chapters, which I think we pursued.
But your questioning around opportunities, of course, like with any trade agreements—this is first step. We're presenting this legislation so we then can pursue the opportunities that it will unlock. It's a bit like saying, "How long is a piece of string?" I think we all agree that trade agreements are really important for our producers here in New Zealand, and I'm pretty sure that we can, perhaps—in my opening speeches, I talked generally about growth to GDP of somewhere between, I think, $1.5 billion and $3.2 billion per annum in GDP. So that's where the benefit's going to lie for exporters. And, like I said, I'm sure we can push those opportunities further once this agreement is ratified through this piece of legislation.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister, I'm sure our sheep and beef producers sitting at home would want to know about market access tariff reduction quotas. Can the Minister please give some detail around what actions the Government is taking to promote the growth of New Zealand's agricultural sector, and can you break down that promoted growth in market for dairy, horticulture, red meat, fish, and wool that this Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement will enable?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Again, a very good, detailed question. I think the bill that we are presenting—I'm presenting—to this House for ratification, for agreement, obviously, addresses or enables our exporters to pursue additional markets to what we currently have. I think the question that the member's posed about specific sectors, had I had those questions in advance, more than happy to have provided that to her. But this bill will enable, like I said in my introductory comments, the opportunity for our producers, be it in the red meat sector, be it in our seafood sector, be it in our forestry sector, to explore and pursue more markets through this agreement. But in terms of specificity, I think the bill touches on enabling that. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I do know that we are investing and working very closely with the sector that she has mentioned.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): The bill acknowledges an approximately 97 percent reduction in tariff elimination, but it doesn't give much detail around the 3 percent where there isn't an eradication of tariff. Can the Minister please outline what that will encompass, who it will impact, what products, and what is the lost opportunity to New Zealand exporters?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: I have got some responses around the earlier question—and I'm sorry I'm going back to your earlier questions around market access, examples of what can be achieved for some of our exporters. Can I just report back to the House and that member that one of the examples is that New Zealand goods exporters to Indonesia will see tariff elimination on a number of primary products, including sheep meat, beef, fish, liquid milk, cheese, honey, and avocadoes. So the earlier question that the member—some specificity around helping our producers in those areas.
In terms of investment, under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) a number of parties will provide investment market access commitments to New Zealand for the first time, in particular ASEAN countries that are not party to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and China, and RCEP will reduce barriers to investment and facilitate the navigation of complex regulatory systems by establishing a consistent framework and a single set of rules for the RCEP region. And like I said earlier, bringing 15 countries and having a single agreement I think will be beneficial for our New Zealand producers as we grow our markets internationally and particularly with these 14 other countries.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): So therefore, what actions is the Government taking to encourage India to rejoin and what meetings or communications has the Minister had with other RCEP trade Ministers on this topic? 
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: To that member, as you will see in the report-back to the House by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, unfortunately India did leave the discussions. But what I can report to that member and the committee is that the door is left open for India to return should it wish, and an obligation, as I understand—reading the advice I've got—to facilitate a fast-track of India's return should they choose to come back into the agreement.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I thank the Minister in the chair, Meka Whaitiri, for her response in as far as India is concerned, but is she aware that New Zealand wine exporters to India can pay hundreds of percent in tariffs over the export price? Our kiwifruit producers that want to sell Kiwifruit into India pay a very, very high tariff. Does she think it's good enough to New Zealand producers to say, "Well, India left—it's a shame, but the door's still open to them." Is that what she means by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), that New Zealand's trade policy now is: where a country doesn't want to talk to us, they can come back if they want to, but in the meantime our exporters actually are not competitive in those markets and they can't do well? If that's the case, this would be one of the worst trade policies this House has ever seen.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Remiss of me to say that we continue to engage with India on our aspirations to improve the economic and trading relationship at a bilateral level. So we have not departed from engaging with India. I can report that the Indian Government has been signalling in recent months, in line with its self-reliance campaign launched in May 2020, that it will prioritise partnerships and in the long run grant preferential market access to those partners making significant contributions to its development, including through foreign direct investment. As such, key New Zealand companies in India have been exploring how New Zealand can expand its investment footprint in India. Like I said, the door for bilateral agreement remains open should India choose to remain outside the RCEP.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Just to the Minister, again, further to my previous question, as I don't know whether it was covered. Outside of any discussions with other regional comprehensive economic partnership trade Ministers, what direct communication is the New Zealand Government having with India to advance a free-trade agreement? 
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Madam Chair, let me just get the answer to that question momentarily, please. 
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate will resume at 7 o'clock this evening.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Minister in the chair, Meka Whaitiri, just a resumption of the questions prior to the dinner break, if you wouldn't mind. I was just reading through an ANZ benefits analysis of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement, and it reports that the manufacturing sector will be worse off. I just wondered what knowledge the Minister has of that assessment, and could you outline any details for any mitigation plans?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: To the member that's just resumed her seat, and through the chair, I think I've indulged the member prior to the dinner break in terms of her questions going outside the gambit of the bill. The bill has three parts, the title, and the commencement. I am more than happy to answer questions that relate to the bill in terms of the three parts, the title, and the commencement, and I look forward to the member's questions in relation to the bill.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister, then, could you please detail the reduction of non-tariff barriers—which member States and on what products?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: As I said in my opening remarks, I described what this piece of legislation is attempting to do, which includes reduction of some tariff barriers to member States who sign up to this. It also, in terms of preferential tariff rates—I've also mentioned transitional safeguard measures under appropriate circumstances. I've also mentioned the issue of New Zealand certificates of origin in respect of goods for export to the RCEP parties. I've also indicated that through this piece of legislation—the implementation through the legislations, which will amend the tariff to enable application for preferential tariff reports for imports, and I've also indicated the amendment to the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to give effect to the rules of origin. I think, in my opening statement, I have addressed those questions.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister, my understanding is when this bill is passed, we will be the sixth member State to ratify this agreement. Could the Minister outline her understanding of what progress is being made by Australia and South Korea towards ratification?
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: I understand that in the bill we indicated, as discussed at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, the commencement date, which goes to the heart of the question around particular countries that are part of this agreement. We suggest that it goes in Order in Council, simply to recognise that different countries will be at different timelines in terms of utilising their domestic processes. And so, in terms of the countries that we have got signed up and countries that are still working on their internal ratification processes, I am more than happy to get that note from officials and give that to the member.
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister, could she outline the Government's programme of works to enter into force this RCEP agreement?





CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 10
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 12
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2. 
Parts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.





REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.





MENTAL HEALTH (COMPULSORY ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 September.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I rise to take a call on this bill. As a new member of the Health Committee, I have to say that I entered at the time when deliberations in terms of finalising the select committee report were taking place. However, fundamentally, what this bill does do is, in essence, it eliminates the need for—and practice of—indefinite treatment orders, which I think is actually a really good thing. I think all members of this House will suggest that as well, because, fundamentally, this piece of legislation deals with a number of vulnerable individuals and members within our society.
There is one particular part of this bill that I do want to reserve my comments for, and it relates to the ability for notices to be served and for communication and hearings to take place by way of audiovisual link (AVL). This bill does remove the sunset clause that exists for that particular provision. While, I guess, like other members in this House, I've had an experience in terms of conducting hearings via AVL, they can be very efficient and, indeed, in certain circumstances they can be very appropriate, but the existing law as it currently stands in this particular field actually does not allow for patients in terms of whānau support and encouragement to be supported. So the changes outlined in this proposed piece of legislation do, in actual fact, introduce a sense of flexibility to allow exactly that.
It's worth noting through the deliberations and questions from officials—and I want to thank the officials for their advice to the select committee. They mentioned that justices of the peace do fulfil some role in some circumstances, often because some individuals simply don't have the whānau support that's available to them. But ensuring that this provides for the capacity and, indeed, the capability to have whānau alongside vulnerable members of our community actually means that this field, this practice, is moving in a positive space. So, while that's one component of the bill, I think it's indeed a very important one, and I commend it to the House.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Got to get these [Face mask and spectacles] off without losing my hearing aids, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: I know the problem.
IAN McKELVIE: —because they're worth a lot more than what you pay me! If I can get it off—ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Yeah, I don't have the specs—
IAN McKELVIE: You'd sympathise with me, no doubt, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: You don't need to listen to yourself, I find.
IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Well, that's a very interesting point, because, of course, God gave us two ears and one mouth so that we can hear twice as much as we can speak. That's a famous old saying.
It gives me a deal of pleasure to take a very short call on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, second reading. It's a bill that I didn't sit on the select committee of—haven't sat on the Health Committee, I don't think, in my time in Parliament, so an interesting little issue for me to deal with. But, none the less, mental health really, for electorate MPs, and for all of us, in fact, is an extraordinarily, I guess, testing issue, because in New Zealand, for a number of years now, we've struggled as a country to come to grips with how we manage many issues round mental health. This Government came to the Government benches in its first term in Government with a promise, I guess, to fix this issue, and they found it more difficult than most, as, indeed, a lot of Governments have. So the issues that come to us through our electorate committee are directly related to a lot of the issues that are proposed in the course of this bill.
It's a bill we support, but, interestingly for me, the critical issue in this bill is how you get into the mental health system and how you get out of it, I guess. It's a real challenge, I think, for people in the mental health area, for people who are operating our mental health facilities, and for people who need to access those facilities. If you think about the fact that currently in New Zealand, many people enter the mental health system via the police, which I think is extraordinarily unfortunate because we should have ways of identifying the challenges that these people face and being able to get to them and manage them in a much better manner than we have—and this bill sets out to some extent to try and achieve that.
I think, from that perspective, any progress is good progress. But, of course, the real issue we've got in this sector is getting, as we have in many other sectors in New Zealand at the moment, and particularly in the health sector, people who are competent and able to deal with the issues that the mental health and those types of—what would you call them?—issues that are caused by mental health challenges raise, and to get the people that are able to deal with those and manage effectively those patients in a 24-hour-a-day manner. Whether they're in a facility or whether they're out in the community, they certainly need to be managed and looked after. It's a great challenge for us as a country and a challenge that this bill at least starts to, I guess—what would you call it?—address. So, with those few words, I'm happy to say National supports this bill.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I have earrings to contend with, not hearing aids, so thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. I was a member of the Health Committee, which worked hard on this piece of legislation, and I just want to take a second to add to the thanks of my colleague Mr Utikere to thank the ministry officials and clerks of the committee for all their hard work. I'd also like to thank the 53 submitters, and 15 of those we heard from orally, some of whom have actually been subject to indefinite compulsory treatment orders themselves, so their bravery in coming forward can't really be understated. So I would like to just acknowledge and thank them.
Of course, one of the key amendments of this bill is the elimination of indefinite treatment orders, which are widely seen to be a significant breach of human rights. Instead, we will be requiring that those are reviewed every 12 months, and that will go some way towards addressing these concerns. Another small amendment I'd just like to quickly nod to is the concerns that were raised by submitters that audiovisual link technology would be seen as the default mechanism and might be used to alleviate pressure on services when staff resources are limited. This has been addressed in this bill, and we've also required that reporting will be taking place to the director of mental health services—yes, I'm just checking that I've got that correct. I would like to just end by commending this bill to the House. Thank you.





HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I rise as the last speaker for the National Party, in support of the second reading of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. I did not sit on the Health Committee for this, but I am able to speak premised on having served as a mental health lawyer and also a district inspector appointed under this Mental Health Act. 
However, it is interesting how, over the course of time, things eventuate. When I was a candidate for the National Party prior to the 2017 election, I went along to the review that had been led by Ron Paterson, who was a former law professor of mine, was also a former commissioner for health and disability, and he happened to lead the review where their report, He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, was released to the public in November 2018. Members of the House, and also those who in the public may be listening in, this amendment bill is a consequence of that review.
The first reading of this bill was on 6 April this year. The second reading commenced on 28 September, and it happened to come before the House at the time when it was the week for mental health. People were speaking about the impact of mental health on our lives, particularly focused on that week, but we know that mental health is not just something that occurs once a week every year; it is a daily incursion for many people, and for many it is also an affliction. During these COVID times, what isn't reported, and it will prevail and play out in time, is the impact of what has happened with COVID on people's lives and the mental health consequences that will flow on from that.
The purpose of the amendments in this bill are intended to improve the protection of individual rights and the safety of patients in the public. The bill had been drafted, and, after the first reading, it went before the Health Committee, where there were 53 written submissions and 15 oral submissions spoken to from people's experiences. Not having had the privilege of listening to that, I have had the privilege of engaging with people who have lived with mental disorders and afflictions for a good part of their life. My job as a servant in the legal forum and arena was to advocate and represent the mental health patients, and then that, in time, transitioned to being what was called a "district inspector", where the requirement of district inspectors as lawyers was an oversight view to ensure legal compliance with the law. That is touched on, in part, by the amendment to this in terms of reporting—the reporting provisions and the transparency of ensuring that there is accountability in what comes about by way of these amendments.
The amendments, as had been outlined by Minister Little when he addressed the House at the second reading, is that the bill proposes to amend the key factors of eliminating indefinite treatment orders. Now, when we talk about indefinite treatment orders, those are compulsory treatment orders, where the patients are compulsorily, as opposed to voluntarily, detained in a mental health facility. The sequence was that an application would be made and, if the evidence was in support of establishing a mental disorder under the requirements of the Act, an order would be made for an initial period of six months, it would come back for review, and then would have another six months if the court was satisfied based on the clinicians' evidence, the psychiatric evidence, that a compulsory treatment order was required to sustain for another six months, then after that it would go into an indefinite period of time. This law will ensure that there is accountability by requiring that it is a definite period of time of six months plus six months plus 12 months, not indefinitely. 
In the day, again, for the practitioners of mental health, if we were seeking that indefinite status to be dispensed with, it would require an application for what was called a "section 76 review" under the Act. However, that would seldom, not often, occur, because the patients who were under the affliction of a mental disorder were struggling on a day-by-day basis just to cope with living, and the last thing on their mind was to apply for a dispensing of that compulsory treatment order. So this amendment to the Act will go about dealing with that.
There is also a provision there that deals with minimising the risk of harm for the transportation of special patients. A special patient is a patient who has been deemed legally by the court as not meeting the mental competency, and therefore are deemed to be either unfit of mind and not having the legal propensity to be able to make decisions—deemed otherwise insane. Those special patients are always placed into what is called the criminal section of a mental health unit, which is the forensic unit. So this deals with the transportation of the forensic patients who are special patients, from the facility that they are detained in to the court arena for the hearing. It deems that the contracting of the transportation can be to another Government agent—often those will be corrections officers or police who are trained in it—where our health service providers are compromised by time to be able to do that.
Another amendment, of course, is removing the sunset provision, which is deemed a technical amendment, which had been imposed during the COVID-stricken times for the hearing of these mental health matters to be not by physical presence but by the audiovisual links. So these are practical amendments that are being proposed within this bill.
It is interesting, also, that the bill, as had been drafted, presented to the Health Committee on scrutiny, and after hearing submissions from those persons who have been affected by the imposition of the Mental Health Act, giving their contribution that is relevant, the Health Committee decided also to make some adjustments to the bill as had been drafted and presented to them. So that has been outlined by a report that had been submitted by the select committee to the House. And, again, that touches on the use of audiovisual links, the practicality of that for patient assessments and for any court determinations. 
The member across the House talked about, in other jurisdictions, the fact that AVLs—the audiovisual links—have become a matter of standard practice now in this day of technology, where there may be bail applications heard from counsel on behalf of prisoners who are no longer required, subject to certain circumstances or conditions being satisfied, for them to be transported out of town to a court house. The audiovisual links are a practicality and they facilitate the application and the due process of the law that meets with the needs of the person who is required to make those appearances and be accountable to the courts. So there are those practicalities.
The Health Committee also talked about the monitoring of the use of that, with requirement of reports to the director of mental health. It hadn't been touched on in the select committee that that is what the lawyers appointed to the specialist role as district inspectors—our role was to go into the mental health units. I travelled to most of the mental health units within the North Island, and our purpose was to ensure legal compliance by the health practitioners and psychiatrists, with the detention of the mentally disordered patients, and that we would report any anomalies or inconsistencies. So the Health Committee has reported the requirement that this would be covered by the directors of area mental health services and also the director of the Ministry of Health. But just to say that these are areas that district inspectors will look out for, and that is what they are required to do.
So this is an appropriate bill before the House, as I say, supported by the National Party. We are a party that recognises due process and the importance of addressing the needs of our vulnerable within the community. It is very fair to say, endorsing my colleague Ian McKelvie, that mental health and our people who are afflicted by that has become more of a regularity in these COVID-stricken times, and this proposed law, and amendment, is practical, it makes sense, and, in saying that, I totally support and commend the bill to the House.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the most important recommendations arising out of the Government's inquiry into mental health and addiction was that New Zealand's mental health Act, which is now about 30 years old, be repealed and replaced, and be replaced with something that reflected modern approaches to human rights - supported decision-making and informed consent. The issue is that given the complexity of these issues, it's important that we take the time to get this right, but there are a number of issues that we do need to address now, and this bill makes a number of these changes. 
One of the most important is eliminating indefinite treatment orders, because I think these are seen widely as a serious breach to human rights because people can be detained indefinitely without access to the justice system. Basically, what the bill does is it requires courts to review the treatment orders every 12 months, and, certainly, the majority of submitters that discussed this when they presented their submissions to the Health Committee were in support of this change. 
One of the other important things it does is it makes permanent some of the changes that were brought in in response to COVID-19, and one of those was the use of audiovisual (AV) technology for making patient assessments and examinations. Basically, this legislation is due to expire shortly, but it's really important that we continue it because I think it's important for where the physical presence of a patient is not deemed to be practicable. But a number of the submitters raised concerns about the fact that if you just have a default of audiovisual technology, that may mean that many people miss out on some of the benefits of an in-person examination, and so what we've put in as a select committee is just a number of protections wrapped around that. So the first one is that practitioners actually have to record why it wasn't practicable for the patient to be physically present, and then, secondly, is that if you're going to be using the AV technology, then you need to report back to the director of area mental health services. In that way, we can actually, as a country, keep an eye on the use of AV technology and detect any trends if there are any concerns. 
So this is a really important first step in ensuring that our mental health legislation is fit for purpose, and I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time. 





FILMS, VIDEOS, AND PUBLICATIONS CLASSIFICATION (URGENT INTERIM CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS AND PREVENTION OF ONLINE HARM) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill to the House.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon JAN TINETTI: I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
That's a very long title, Mr Speaker, of this bill, and I hope that you forgive me for just reading this first part of my speech so I don't get that title wrong. This bill amends the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, also known as the Classifications Act. I think that title I like better, being able to say it. It does make really important changes that come as a direct response from the atrocities of the March 15 Christchurch mosque attack, where it became really clear that our legislation needed quick improvements to protect New Zealanders from objectionable material, such as the terrorist attack being livestreamed online. Prior to this time, the actual act of livestreaming wasn't illegal.
The bill updates the Act to take urgent steps to prevent and mitigate harms being caused by objectionable publications. The objectives are to ensure that the Government and internet service providers and online content hosts can swiftly and consistently take action against objectionable material. Now, I need to be clear that when I say "objectionable", this is already referring to a legally defined category of content, which is already defined in our primary legislation. This is the worst type of material that is already illegal in New Zealand. It includes child exploitation material and violent extremist and terrorist content. Now, the bar for determining objectionable material is already extremely high, and it is the job of the Chief Censor to apply the legal test. In that legal test, the Chief Censor already takes freedom of expression considerations into account. Once a publication is deemed objectionable, it is illegal to possess the content or distribute it; that already exists in law today. I say that because people have got that confused, that this bill was about redefining that definition that exists in current law; it doesn't. We're talking about something that already exists in law.
Since the bill has been at select committee, we have made some significant improvements. Firstly, I said in my first reading speech that I had reservations about the way that the filtering provisions in the bill had been drafted, but I wanted them to go through to select committee to see what submitters were presenting at select committee and to see if improvements were being made. It became clear to me, from the select committee submissions, that there was a high level of concern around the filtering provisions and how they would work. So both the select committee and Cabinet agreed to my recommendations to remove new sections 119L to 119O and all references to the electronic filter, including the regulations in the bill. Given the purpose of this bill was to enable the swift response if another attack or another incident, such as livestreaming of a terror attack, were to occur, I think that what the select committee has sent back for this second reading now creates a really good place that we have landed, and that means that we will be able to act effectively and efficiently without the use of an electronic filter system.
I'd like to take a moment to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for their work and their careful consideration of this particular bill and the valuable improvements that they have made and recommended for it. I'd also like to thank the 163 submitters who gave careful consideration to this bill, but particularly those who made oral submissions on it. Overall, I feel that the work that was done in the select committee by the members, but also those submitters, has added to the bill and made it very much stronger. They've made some sound recommendations to improve the bill, inserting clause 5C to add a new section 14A to the principal Act. This amendment would provide a process for online content hosts to submit online publications for classifications. It would provide more clarity to the process for online content hosts, as currently they are not specified in the Act.
The majority of the remaining recommendations that the committee suggested clarified existing provisions, increased transparency, or were technical in nature. But there are a couple that I'd just like to highlight here today. The first one is around the "safe harbour" provisions. When the bill was first introduced, it included a provision intended to ensure that online content hosts were held liable under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993 where they had knowledge that objectionable content was being hosted on their platforms and refused to take this down. In order to achieve this, the bill recommended removing those "safe harbour" provisions that were under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 for online content hosts. Those provisions do provide protection to online content hosts from liability when illegal content is posted on their platform without their knowledge, providing they take certain steps set out in the Act.
Following the submissions on this clause, it was acknowledged that a blanket removal of the "safe harbour" provisions would lead to unintended consequences, and that it's not appropriate for platforms to be held responsible for content that is uploaded or shared on their platform that they have no knowledge of. So the select committee and the officials agreed that the removal of the "safe harbour" provisions should only apply in instances where it is subject to a take-down notice and where knowledge of the element is met. So a take-down notice would specify the material that is objectionable and require it to be removed. So then they would have knowledge of that at that point. It is appropriate and consistent with existing offences in the Act that an online content host becomes liable once they have that knowledge that they are hosting objectionable content and refuse to take it down. It gets a little bit confusing, but it's about the fact that they then know and have that knowledge, and if they refuse to then take it down after having the knowledge, then they become liable.
The bill provides safety for New Zealanders and certainty for content providers with the new ability of the Chief Censor to make interim classification assessments in urgent situations for content that is likely to be objectionable. This means that the public will know as soon as content is found to have the potential to cause significant harm. It also means we will be able to move faster on content, as enforcement agencies and online content hosts will have the legal certainty they need to remove objectionable content. So, unlike other jurisdictions, we've had to rely on voluntary requests to remove illegal online material. This bill now will use authorised inspectors, who will be able to then issue take-down notices. So we'll be moving from a voluntary regime to now having inspectors, who will be able to issue those take-down notices for online content hosts to remove objectionable material on their sites.
I'd also just like to signal, before I conclude my speech, that I am giving notice of my intention to table a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) at the committee of the whole House stage. All this SOP will do is amend the commencement date of the bill, which has since passed.
So, finally, I would just like to say that this bill is about fundamentally protecting New Zealanders from harm that we know viewing objectionable content online can cause, and I commend this bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was a pleasure to be the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee as we worked through the submission part of this bill. I've now handed over the chair of that committee to the very able Mr Ian McKelvie, who I'm sure will do a great job on the rest of the work that needs to be done on this bill. But I really did very much enjoy working on this bill because it started, as Minister Tinetti just said, with a very abhorrent event that happened in New Zealand, which we all said would change who we were in New Zealand and change things forever. We've had a number of things that have actually changed people's lives, but none of them were as deliberate and as abhorrent as that one. So this bill is catching up with the technology.
So, as the Minister said, the objectionable—and that was one of the first things that we worried about: what is objectionable? Because there are people that are offended by things that other people might not be offended by. So we had all those questions that we asked, but "objectionable" is defined in the law, and it is an extremely high bar. Nobody would say that what happened on March the 15th 2019 wasn't objectionable. So the Minister laid out very well what the bill was intended to do and some of the changes we made. I just want to, at this point, acknowledge Minister Tinetti, because I always admire a Minister that sees a problem in a bill and makes some changes to do something about it. As the Minister said, the filter was causing a huge problem. We were concerned about it. We can now support this bill. We couldn't support this bill in the first reading because people were really concerned about the filter and that actually came through in the select committee process from the majority of the submitters that were concerned about it.
The other person I'd like to mention tonight is Melissa Lee. Melissa Lee is our spokesperson for all things digital. Melissa, we haven't seen in person for two months; we've only seen her in digital forums, in little boxes on computer screens. But Melissa was the person who questioned a lot of the detail of technology in this bill, and her knowledge around things digital far exceeds mine.
The other change that's happened with that select committee is that the member Tangi Utikere was the deputy chair. The Minister mentioned that this bill had a very long name, and I can remember the day that the clerks came to my office with Tangi Utikere and we had to make a video launching the submissions on this bill. They actually ended up holding up a piece of paper with the name of the bill as we sat there and tried to get it out on a video, tried to be natural, talking about the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, second reading. So, well done, Tangi. I think we did a good job of that video considering the material that we had to work with.
There's another group that I would like to mention and that is the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and the advisers. They were so thorough in the work that they did. We actually went across to DIA, we had some visits, and we were able to sit around a table and talk about some of the things they do over there and how they protect people from online harms. So it really was a great, thorough investigation. It was very much, I think, a joint committee effort, and while we had a very serious subject to deal with, we really enjoyed what we did.
So, as I said before, we had significant concerns about this bill. The removal of the filter has been a massive step for National in being able to support this, because it was the key. Is the bill perfect? Melissa tells me, "No, it could be improved, but it's way better than what it was." If Melissa was here, she'd probably be able to explain very clearly in some of the clauses why she feels that way. I'm sure her view is correct because you can always improve legislation post the point that you've done it. But will it protect New Zealanders from seeing horrific videos? Yes, it should, and it may. I think the point that we discussed the most was that we may not be able to hide that forever, but it should stop our children and grandchildren from going on Facebook and accidentally picking up their phone and seeing something that they really, really shouldn't see as those things happen. So, yeah, of course, anyone can find anything if they go looking for it, but it is actually a protection.
So Melissa's line, I guess, that I'll put across tonight is while she sees a number of technical inadequacies that may still be in the bill, the view is that the bill will no longer do more harm than good after the removal of the filter. So we really do thank you for that, Minister.
So what it does is it grants the Chief Censor the power to make swift, time limited, interim classification assessments that can have legal effect for up to 20 working days. So that was also a concern of submitters, that once the censor had made the classification, it needed to be time bound because while it's pretty clear under the law what "objectionable" is, people just needed the guarantee that this was a limited time frame, just in case the censor had done something that wasn't considered by everybody to be the right thing to do. I don't think anybody would have disagreed that it would have been, had it been available in March 2019.
So there were 163 written submissions, dozens of oral submissions, and there was a wide group of New Zealanders that participated in this. One of the main reasons that people were concerned about the filter was that they were really concerned that anything that we did in this bill around the filter would have had an effect on their ability to have freedom of speech. And, I guess, that was probably the biggest thing that concerned National at the time as well, because we don't want people not to feel free to say what they want to say. Of course, that doesn't need to be hateful and, certainly, we're really pleased now that we have the ability to stop this.
So, even as we were going through the provisions of the bill, the Chief Censor, David Shanks, had said to us at the time that there was too little detail around how internet filters would be used and too few safeguards around their use. So we even had it from the person who was going to do the job. So, well done, Minister, we respect you for making that choice to change something that you felt wasn't perfect.
And with that, it may take me the rest of my speech tonight, but I'm going to say that the National Party caucus supports the second reading of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. May we never have anything again in New Zealand. Hopefully we make this bill and, hopefully, the Chief Censor doesn't have too much work to do, because it's an awful thought that we would be using this bill a lot, but it's great to be able to capture what happens in this bill should we have another awful event, and we all really hope that doesn't happen. It's my pleasure to support this bill on behalf of the National caucus. Thank you.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you to the previous member, my colleague Barbara Kuriger for your support and for the National Party's support. When I came into this House a year ago—today, actually, was my first day here—it was very much around "How do I be constructive? How do we work together for the betterment of New Zealand?" Hearing those conversations that we've just had, hearing Melissa Lee's critique and work, and hearing the hard work of the select committee very much shows me how we can work together and make our nation a better place.
I want to say a thankyou to our Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Jan Tinetti, for bringing this piece of legislation forward, and as someone who's worked for many years with young people, it's really important to me and for me to ensure that we protect our rangatahi, and, knowing the content that is out there—not even objectionable, but just stuff that's unhealthy and not good for young minds—I'm glad that we can come to a place where we can ensure that it is an offence to make, possess, supply, or distribute objectionable publications such as this.
For me, I've been paying attention over the last few weeks to what's been going on in America, around Facebook and Frances Haugen, and the fact that they talked about—it really pricked my ears up when they mentioned, "It's easier to inspire people to anger than to any other emotion.", and creating anger, creating division is something that social media is an expert at, and we want to stop that. So I'm glad that we've made it through to this reading, we've had the select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I find myself in somewhat uncharted territory again, as the member Barbara Kuriger pointed out, not only uncharted territory but, of course, when I was young, if we wanted to see anything objectionable we had to go to the movie theatre—ha, ha! There was no other way of seeing it because we didn't even have a TV, and that just shows how the world's—
SPEAKER: A blue-movie theatre!
IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Oh, I never saw one of those. That just shows, though, how the world's changed. 
And, I guess, the other thing that I've observed about how the world's changed is that when this bill went to the Governance and Administration Committee, I don't think anyone but the governing party supported it. It's come out of select committee, certainly, with us able to support it, and I think that's a tribute to the select committee process, and it's one you don't often find happens in this House. I don't really recall a bill that wasn't supported at first reading coming back to the House and being supported by an Opposition party in the second reading. So that's certainly a tribute to the select committee.
As the former chair, Barbara Kuriger, said, Melissa Lee contributed a lot to that. Unfortunately, because of the environment we live in, the three Government members on that committee are locked down in other places than Wellington, and that's just how it is. So you get to have a whole lot of people speaking on this bill who weren't necessarily part of the deliberation and all of the hard work that went into getting it to this point. Of course, the only part I played in this bill was actually to be there for the very last part of it. I had no part in anything other than the final deliberation. But we were pleased to be able to support the bill, because, I think, whilst it creates a lot of doubt, and I'll get into that in a minute, it also does make an effort to deal with what, I think, is one of the most challenging things we've got going on today. 
I just want to give a bit of an example of that, because we've had one or two relatively contentious bills through the select committee in recent times in this House, and it really intrigues me what technology, the internet, and Facebook's actually done to the way people submit on bills in this House. I think we're going to have to be very careful in the future how we manage that process, and this bill touches on exactly that point, because the publicity and the public exposure you get through instant streaming of select committee processes, of submissions, and submissions that are made in good faith, often, and the negative comment and the comment that comes almost instantly as a result of those submissions, right in front of our faces and in front of the submitters' faces, actually, I think, is intimidating people in a manner that I think is completely unacceptable. 
I think, if we don't manage that process—and it's very relevant to this bill—in the future, we're going to have people who refuse to submit to this House simply because they don't like the unfortunate attack, I guess, that takes place—they see it as an attack—on them. And we've got to remember that people who submit to this House are not—we put ourselves out there and expect to get a degree of criticism. I don't think people who come here to submit on things—they come here to submit here in good faith—necessarily expect to get criticised. So I think that's going to be a great challenge for us in the future, or for this House in the future, as technology makes things that used to take a long while to assimilate through and to get through to a point—it's instant now, and so people are instantly getting criticised or getting attacked for things they believe in, rightly or wrongly. I think it's, at times, toxic and highly unpleasant. So I think that we're going to have to manage that process, as well, as we go through this bill.
So this bill—of course, one of the things that intrigued me was the Chief Censor, who I briefly referred to earlier, because the censor has been around as long as I have. I remember, in the early days of my life, the contentious issue of what the censor cut out of those movies you were talking about, Mr Speaker, before we got to see them. But now, of course, the Chief Censor's job's much more complicated, and this bill, again, includes him. But I was really intrigued by the fact that he argued that—and I'll quote him—"We need to embed in such a potentially powerful tool, fundamental protections around human rights and freedom of expression". I think that's the great challenge of this bill. 
One of the sections that I think is going to raise some doubt in the future is—if you look at section 119C in new Part 7A, inserted by clause 9, this reinforces my point, because it will be very interesting to see how that is implemented in the future. I think we need to monitor those kinds of things, because the worry that the National Party initially had about this bill was the impediment it could have or imposition it could put on freedom of speech and expression. And I think that those particular clauses in this bill, or sections in this bill, are the critical ones that we'll need to watch closely what happens, as it's implemented. I think this topic is a very big topic and needs a lot of discussion going forward. So this bill will be a bit of a test for it in some ways. 
I think it's been said already that the bill is not necessarily perfect. It's very hard to make it perfect. But I do think it's one of the real challenges that this Parliament will face in the next few years: how we manage this massive rush and the huge advancement in technology, almost on a daily basis, that enables things that we never would have dreamt of happening a year or two ago suddenly to happen. And so that's one of the things I think is going to be really challenging for the bill. 
The other thing that I think is challenging in the implementation of this bill will be how you judge what's right and wrong—and I know the Minister said that there was some pretty clear definition around some of that, but there's always going to be grey areas around what the bill intends to be right and wrong and what actually is judged to be right and wrong, and there's going to be some personalities come into that as well. So that's a challenge for the bill as it goes forward, as well. 
I think that the select committee has done a pretty good job of this bill given, as I said, that not everyone in the House agreed with it when it started. So I'm pretty confident that going forward it will turn out to be OK. I didn't have the benefit of sitting on the select committee until, as I said, its deliberation and as it's reported back. It sort of becomes very clear when you read the bill what a minefield it potentially is. So I think the committee has done a really good job of it. I think we'll wait and see what the outcome long term of that is, but, none the less, I think it's a pretty good effort, and I've got no problem in commending it to the House, and I look forward to the discussion in the committee stage of the bill. 
It's interesting that the Minister responsible for this bill is responsible for another bill that's before the same select committee at the moment. I notice a fair few of the select committee got changed before the next bill got to us, but it's equally as contentious as this one could have been, I've got to say. That's the one I was really referring to earlier when I talked about the divisive nature of some of the comments that are made as a result of what comes into these bills. So I commend the bill to the House.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I do recall, actually, sitting in Barbara Kuriger's office, and I think we actually did it in two or three takes—getting the name of the bill out—which I thought was OK, but, clearly, this has got to be one of the longest titles of a bill in history.
But I do want to acknowledge the members of that particular committee. I'm no longer a member of it, but I know my colleague the member for Nelson, Rachel Boyack, has taken on the mantle as deputy and will do a fine job there. The bill itself, we did hear from 22 submitters orally and the majority of those concerns were around the filter provision, and so I do want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti, for working closely with the select committee. I found it to be a very collegial opportunity for members of the select committee, alongside the responsible Minister, and what we have in front of us is a testament to that. So thank you to the Minister for her efforts in that space. 
I also want to acknowledge the hard-working officials. This is—as I think the speaker who spoke before me referred to it—a potential minefield in terms of a digital environment where many things can mean many things to different people, and so time after time, officials were tasked with providing responses to some tricky questions. So I do want to acknowledge the work that they have done. But I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the Department of Internal Affairs, but also the New Zealand Classification Office because, as Barbara Kuriger has already mentioned, the select committee did go on somewhat of a couple of site visits and were able to see behind the scenes the hard work in trying circumstances, in terms of content, that those officers and officials have to deal with. So I'm delighted that the select committee process has actually delivered to this House a bill that is workable, a bill that responds to the concerns that were raised by the Minister initially and through the public opportunities as well, and I'm delighted to be able to commend it to the House.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm going to give it a go, the longest bill name: the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. The Greens will be supporting this bill. Like many of the submitters, and a number of the parties in the House as well, we had a number of significant reservations around the internet filter, so it's good to hear that the Minister of Internal Affairs worked with the Governance and Administration Committee to make a bill that is workable, and I do want to acknowledge the select committee for that. I didn't have the pleasure of sitting in on the select committee process as well. The report was very thorough, and I really appreciate being able to look back on what the different submitters said in terms of all of the issues presented.
This bill addresses the specific legislative and regulatory gaps in our current online content regulation. These were highlighted in the tragic events of the Christchurch mosque attacks on the 15th of March 2019, and I think it's really important for us all around the House to continue to hold on to that in terms of how we respond to what happened in Christchurch in all the bits of legislation that come to this House. The terrorist of the Christchurch attacks sought to exploit online platforms to promote his acts of hate-based violence. Following the original livestream broadcast, footage of the attacks spread across the internet through social media, and in the days that followed we saw thousands of links appear across our social media platforms.
When I was reading up about this bill as well it kind of made me reflect on the 1990s, and the 1980s maybe, because when this bill originally came out, it was for, you know, things that came out in the films or came out on DVD or came out on cassette tapes or VHS tapes as well. I think all of us in the House probably remember those times, and so having that legislation updated to respond to social media and the power of social media is really, really important. The bill proposed to address this through a number of the following changes: creating a new offence of livestreaming objectionable content; allowing the Chief Censor to make interim classification decisions lasting for a maximum of 20 days—and it was interesting and good to know that, actually, the select committee and the Minister have sat down with the Chief Censor to really take a look at this legislation to get something that will be workable for him and his staff—allowing take-down notices to be issued to require the removal of objectionable online content, and then, of course, the "safe harbour" provisions that the Minister talked about earlier as well.
You know, censorship is a really difficult issue, and so I will say thank you again to the Minister for qualifying what that was and what that meant in that context as well. I think people around New Zealand will now know that that is actually codified in another piece of legislation, and what this is about is trying to make that all, kind of, usable for the Chief Censor and other officials. It is a difficult issue, and the Greens have expressed the complexity of the problem in the past. It really needs to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act framework, protecting freedom of expression is a primary consideration and recognising the very real need to affect and address significant harms and create transparent and reviewable frameworks for any restriction.
Clearly, the internet filter that was proposed—to me, it was an inadequate tool trying to deal with a very, very horrendous problem, and I also note what the Chief Censor said as well. But I have a quote here from one of the submitters, Thomas Beagle of the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, who said, "We can't meaningfully stop … motivated users from accessing materials. There's just too many channels and too many mechanisms, including encrypted chat rooms, peer-to-peer file transfers, websites … overseas and of course Virtual Private Networks … to ensure that no one in New Zealand can even [access what they're getting at]". 
But as I was going through some of the other submitters, I was reading the Inclusive Aotearoa submission by Anjum Rahman, and she focused on, in one of the pieces of her submission, algorithms. In that, she said, "Further, algorithms have caused documented harm in moving individuals to more extreme and radicalised positions. Algorithms, AI and machine learning systems should be subject to independent audit, to ensure that outcomes of such systems are not causing harm. Such an audit must be a requirement for any electronic system envisaged in legislation." If you don't know what an algorithm is, it's when you've got your phone and you only see about 100 pieces of content but, actually, because it's Facebook and all that, there's, like, thousands and millions of pieces of content. So the algorithm prioritises actually what's in there.
We often get caught up talking about the right to freedom of speech, but maybe we need to start talking about the freedom of reach: the ability for objectionable content, wherever it might be, or particular opinions, to actually be disseminated far and wide across social media networks. The algorithm picks from those options based on the kind of content you engaged with most of all in the past.
I was watching the news—not on Facebook or not on Twitter; actually, on the TV for a change—and there was an article by the whistleblower Frances Haugen, who was a product manager on the civic integrity team at Facebook. She was talking about—she was a whistleblower, and, you know, Facebook is a trillion-dollar company. I can't even imagine a trillion dollars, let alone a billion dollars. One of the things she said is that one of the consequences of how Facebook is picking up that content today is it is optimising for content that gets engagement or reaction, but its own research has shown that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarising is easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions. And, yes, Facebook has realised that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they'll click on less ads, and they'll make less money. She revealed that they, kind of, turn these settings off and on. When they saw that a particular president was getting incredibly problematic, they turned on a whole lot of settings; he disappeared. They turned them off again, and next thing you know, the events at the Capitol house happened as well.
So we need to get that balance right for freedom of speech, but let's start thinking about freedom of reach, because possibly this is where the issue is. Through the pandemic, you know, I've talked to anti-vaxxers that have gone down the rabbit hole. We know that the proliferation—for vulnerable young men in particular, they can disappear down these rabbit holes, and next thing you know it radicalises them in very, very dangerous, dangerous, dangerous ways.
So my reading of this bill is it does improve things. It will make things better for us. But what it has also done for me is actually open up a whole lot of other questions, because, at the end of the day, what we want to do, I think, right around the House, is to make sure that we reduce harm, that we mitigate harm, and that we promote a peaceful Aotearoa. So we know the algorithm's really good at making Facebook money and stuff like that—good at making the social media giants money—but what about an algorithm for conflict resolution? What about an algorithm for, I don't know, climate justice, an algorithm for world peace, and an algorithm which actually helps to deal with the problems that we have around the world? So we will be supporting this bill, but we've got a lot of work ahead of us. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Well, I have to have a go at saying the name of this bill because everybody else has. I stand to speak on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill.
Hon Member: Well done.
NICOLE McKEE: Thank you.
At the first reading we had wondered what would this confusingly titled bill actually do. Will it improve online safety? Will it improve the harm? Will it improve the access? And we questioned, do we actually need this bill? Don't we already have adequate censorship laws in place? During the first speech, ACT's leader, David Seymour, retold the story of where he was on the 15th of March 2019, at the university down in Christchurch, with 500 students locked in a hall with the Speaker of this House, watching online what was unfolding and wondering whether it was going to come to them in the university hall. I, myself, recall actually driving down the road with my daughter and I received a text, an urgent message that had a link on it telling me to look at it urgently. Because I was driving, I actually gave the phone to my daughter and asked her to click on it and to have a look, tell me what was going on. She told me to pull over, and when I pulled over and watched some of the mayhem that was unfolding we quickly turned it off. I will never do that again, where I ask one of my children to have a look at a link because I had no idea what was going on nor did I suspect it was going to be as horrific as what we actually watched. 
What I did do, though, is when I got home, at that time I was with the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, and I tried to get that link and link it to an email to ask them if this is true. Is this going on? Is this actually happening? But the link that I attached to the link actually didn't work. It had already been taken down from that platform. I was confused as to whether or not this was actually happening. Was it a scam? Was it in New Zealand? What was actually going on at that time? I wonder whether there's anything that we could have done, in retrospect, on that day in an official capacity. Could we have stopped it any sooner than what had already been done?
Well, the Government thought we could do more, and they came up with what ACT initially thought was a communist bill. We had grave concerns about the filter. The filter would have allowed the Government to censor what you watch. So we're very grateful to the 163 submitters who expressed their concerns in the select committee, Governance and Administration Committee, that stated that most submitters were against the filter. It seemed to me that the reason why was because the Government was unable to actually tell them what the filter was going to look like, how it was going to work, and what it was going to restrict. With that lack of detail, we are, of course, going to get a large number of submitters wanting to know more precisely what they would be restricted in watching. The main proposal, of course, included a filter for objectionable online content. Again, without the detail on what this filter would look like and how it would work, it left submitters and the Opposition concerned as to how far this filter could eventually be used. So I'm really glad that the select committee listened to their submitters.
Maybe all select committees should be led by Opposition members, Ms Barbara Kuriger. We tend to work well when we have Opposition-led select committee chairs. So I'd like to commend that select committee for most of the improvements that they've made, and I'd like to acknowledge the Minister as well for listening to the voices of the people and making those changes, especially in regard to the filter, and the fact that you deleted every reference to filters. Part 7A actually now only refers to the take-down orders. But again we've got to ask: why is this needed? Our legislation cannot be flexed internationally. Wasn't the Christchurch Call meant to fix this? So has that failed?
The submitters raised concerns. They raised concerns about freedom of expression being impacted. They wanted to make their own minds up on what it is that they will access. They don't want to be dictated to by the State as to what they can watch and what they can't, what they can share, and if they'll get prosecuted for sharing posts. I note recently that a friend of mine shot a good-sized stag and he placed an image of it on "Stalk book". It was covered because it could cause offence. But this is the way of life for many people, and for many people when they look at what looks gruesome to them they have concerns that, actually, this is just the way that they live. So while it's gruesome for others, it's a way of life for many. We wonder whether that could become objectionable in the future.
In a democratic society, we should be able to express our views with freedom. We should be able to share content and have it taken down later if it's deemed objectionable. I mean, Facebook do it all the time. What ACT does have concerns about is a new offence in section 132C(1), which is sharing objectionable livestreamed material when it's not necessarily been made objectionable yet. We see this as just going after innocent people. It was actually noted by the select committee that the intent can be difficult to determine, and it gave examples of where it would be OK to share certain types of objectionable material. It was warning people that a judgment needs to be made on background factors. Well, it seems a bit to me like, "You know it when you see it." It's not needed. It will potentially capture youth and the unsuspecting internet users. I am witnessing a few laws which are going through, where the police or our judiciary are the ones that are being left to interpret what we mean, because our laws are becoming so unclear, probably because they're unnecessary.
ACT understands the inherent need to keep our society safe, and we also feel that this is important. What we don't support is unnecessary laws that will potentially criminalise everyday people going about their everyday activities, posting unsuspecting objectionable material, and being prosecuted for it before it's been made objectionable, just because they shared it. ACT cannot support this bill while it seeks to criminalise potentially innocent people, restricting our ability to decide for ourselves what we should not be watching, and the laws that we already have that make that determination. So, in that respect, ACT cannot support this bill in the second reading.





ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm grateful to rise and take a call on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill.
I'd just like to, first of all, thank the Minister and the Governance and Administration Committee and acknowledge that they remained focused on the original intent that was expressed by the previous Minister, Tracey Martin, that this bill is about protecting New Zealanders from harmful content they can be exposed to on their everyday social media feeds. The innocence of our young people as they're scrolling through their virtual lives and coming across such horrific images is something that is a really, really valid pursuit. So I thank them for staying focused on the prize, and acknowledge the changes that they made to ensure that this goal is met.
They have enabled, with the changes with this bill, to allow those involved to be more effective in playing their part; both the Chief Censor's abilities to respond more nimbly and the obligations for those who host content to ensure, swiftly and effectively, to minimise the impact—the negative impact—of such content.
In my previous life as an educator, and as a mother, I am very, very aware of the profound scale and pace of reach—something that's already been referred to in the House this evening—of social media, and it changes every day. Many of us have acknowledged, tonight, that it's really hard to keep up with the technology. So I'm really pleased that this is able to help us to better respond, and it's an ongoing piece of work about making content a safer place to be in the future, and I commend this bill to the House.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been canvassed by many speakers tonight, this is a bill with a very complicated name, but I think it's also important to note it's very complicated by nature. By that I mean, as many other speakers have referred to as well, the speed and nature of change occurring in the digital environment, the complexity of the multinational digital environment that most of us operate in these days, is very, very hard to police. But this bill is viewed as a necessity born out of that horrific terrorist attack on the 15th of March 2019, and I think it is important that we as members of this House do always bear that in mind: that is the reason why we are here.
We must also remember the families of those impacted, a number of which have actually moved into my electorate as a result, wanting to get out of Christchurch City. So I do see the ongoing harm that this event has occurred on a very regular basis. The harm that the bill seeks to address is urgent, and the intentions of this bill are laudable. National did oppose it at its first reading because we felt that the internet filter was too much of an overreach and it didn't achieve the bill's objectives. The submission that stood out to me the most was from InternetNZ, which colourfully described the filter as "a blunt tool which is a mile wide and an inch deep." and was "purely symbolic … which anyone can get around". I sat in on the select committee, and we took the view that society needed to be protected from seeing the kinds of content that the bill was seeking to block, but we also had to balance that with those critical rights and freedoms.
Some of the comments made a little earlier in the House I'm not sure are entirely correct. This bill has been very, very carefully drafted and redrafted so that it will not criminalise everyday users simply for sharing something. It's really important to note that it targets livestreaming of objectionable material. I think, going back through the submissions that we as a select committee both read and heard, it was telling and worth acknowledging that many of the providers—that's the ISPs and the platforms—were really quick to respond, actually a lot faster than the bureaucracy of Government. Facebook, for example, almost immediately halted the autoplay functionality that it has, and there were other multinationals, like Microsoft, that, in responding to the inquiry, pointed to work that they've already completed outside of legislation to develop technology that detects and removes known images of child exploitation and abuse.
So given we as a party saw it as an overreach, the removal of that filter was a really important step for us to be able to support this bill. It is really important, I think, in an environment like this that we do listen to the users, the experts, the user groups, the stakeholders, and they were unanimous in their opposition. The filter itself also was a key concern for many of the objectors to the bill.
I think my colleague Ian McKelvie mentioned the Chief Censor, David Shanks. It was quite significant for us to hear from him that the proposal initially offered too little detail and that there were too few safeguards around the usage, a And so we're very grateful for the opportunity to go to the Department of Internal Affairs and spend some time with them and the officials to observe for ourselves the great lengths that they were prepared to go to satisfy the concerns of the committee, and also for us to be able to see that very trying work that a lot of people in those positions, in those roles, are asked to do. We as a society I think, should be very grateful for them for that work. They're, effectively, protecting all of us—I think, sometimes at their own expense.
So I just have to wrap up quickly. Obviously, we as a party very much do support this bill, but we also just would like to caution future Governments, and the challenge for future Parliaments, to ensure that legislations and regulations like this are written and enabled to keep up with that pace of change, and we do commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Duncan Webb—five minutes.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Māngai Whakawā. I rise to speak on this bill, and I must say that was an excellent speech by the member for Selwyn touching on the main points. I do want to, essentially, just emphasise that it's an excellent thing that we agree that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech and, unlike the member for the ACT Party who would apparently have people able to share pretty much any information without any constraints, most of us in the House—the vast majority—agree that reasonable, proper constraints which are correctly tailored are absolutely appropriate constraints on freedom of speech in a free and democratic society. That's what this bill achieves, it's what the select committee has refined, and that's always been the intention of the Minister. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member for Christchurch Central. He's so wise—very wise—and the people of Christchurch Central are well served by that member right there. 
Can I say, having not sat on this committee, that this is one of the first times that I've seen this bill, but I must say that I've been convinced by the various arguments around the House tonight—especially from our main parties—on the justification for it. If I was on the Governance and Administration Committee, I probably would have argued to rename it. But, actually, this name made it through—let's have a go—the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. After all of that select committee process, that's where they've landed—good on you. 
The law often chases advances in technology. In the short time that I've been a member of Parliament, what I've noticed is that, often, we've stood in this House and we've talked about how technology is running away and, actually, we as lawmakers need to try and catch up with that, and that's exactly what this bill has gone and done. 
The World Wide Web has very few controls. It's up to each country to decide how they implement those controls, and having gone through a select committee process, having had this brought to the House by the Hon Jan Tinetti, who is also a brilliant member of Parliament and a Minister, our Minister of Internal Affairs—she has brought this forward because she believed it was something that needed to be talked about. It's been through a select committee process. We do have the numbers around the House to be able to support it. So, for that reason, I commend it to the House. 





HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I didn't sit on the Governance and Administration Committee, and I'm not going to attempt to say the title of this bill, as everybody else has done. But what it does remind me of a little bit, particularly listening to my friend Ian McKelvie, is it takes me back to the days of the movies, and that was referenced. In the days we'd go to the old picture theatres—that was the days after they were silent movies. But the title of this bill reminds me a little bit of the song "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", which was the very well-renowned song sung by Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, the paragons of virtue. There's been an element of levity in the House this evening, just with the pronouncement of this bill to the House this evening.
But moving to the seriousness of what this represents and depicts, and it is about ensuring that the protections are there for our vulnerable, who are our children, but are people who are prone to things that weren't intended really for them to see. This has been prompted very much by—it's etched in our memories and in our history—the events of the Christchurch massacre on the 15th of March 2019, and the livestreamed video that people unintentionally tuned to, not realising what it was until they did. So it is appropriate that this legislation, the National Party now supports.
There were initial reservations about the overreach that came with this. That's been remedied through the submissions having been heard, the members on the select committee appropriately responding to that, taking heed of the Chief Censor, David Shanks, and also other specialist leading international digital technology giants, who gave the expertise of their experience and their advice that's been taken into account by the select committee, and commend them for doing so.
It's also interesting, because these bills coming before the House cause us to reflect on our life experience, and we draw and share that from different generations—don't we, Ian? For those of us who have been around for a little while now—and I conferred with my colleague, because I reflect back to the days of the 1960s and the 1970s, a very renowned woman. She became renowned as being the paragon of virtue—in fact, the person who deemed that she was the censor of social morality in New Zealand; her name was Miss Patricia Bartlett. I remember her for the fact that she drew very much on her experience and deemed that New Zealand was going down a pathway which required recalibration of the social fibre and moralities of our society. So, for those of us who are a little bit more seasoned and experienced in life, Patricia Bartlett was one of the first who is imprinted in our memory for censoring the appropriateness of what should be viewed—in those days in the picture theatre on the big screen, but also through what we had access to as children in our literature and in our reading.
So this films, videos, publications, classifications—in short—amendment bill is doing that. It's recalibrating and ensuring that there are those censors that are in place with the technology that we have today that is very rapidly evolving, and that with that rapid evolvement, it means that there is more accessibility to that.
So the National Party originally did not support this bill for some of the reasons that have been shared in the House by my colleague Nicole McKee. However, we've recalibrated and take the view that we support this bill before the House and that it's not perfect, but it's a very good start to ensure that there are those safeties and precautions in place. Accordingly, the National Party commends this bill to the House.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real pleasure to stand and take a call on this very long-named bill, which I will not repeat because I want to say a couple more things first, before we carry on.
First of all, to my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti, this has been a difficult piece of legislation to think through, and I really want to commend my Minister for the work that she has progressed and her determination to fix something that needed to be fixed. I really appreciate that she has done that. I'd also like to acknowledge the 163 submitters—22 of whom gave oral evidence—and the Governance and Administration Committee and the officials, etc., etc.
Now, I was not a member like many of tonight's speakers on this bill. However, I had a really good read of the legislation and this is my understanding: objectionable publications have a very high bar and definition. So this bill has brought to balance, I believe, the freedom of expression and speech versus the harm that objectionable material may give, and I think that that is very important. Of course, we all, each and every one of us, recall the events of March 15th 2019. We also recall the harm that occurred when people saw and watched live and then had it relayed time and time again around the country. It was horrific.
I do want to acknowledge, however, that prior to that event, there was all sorts of harmful digital exposures occurring. My own daughter was at school some 12 years ago and had the experience of someone showing her someone being murdered on social media. They thought it was very funny. It was incredibly harmful for my daughter; I had to go and pick her up and take her home from school at the time. So this is a matter that has needed to be looked at for quite some time, and I'm really pleased and grateful that we have actually got to the point where most in this House have supported this bill at second reading. I commend the bill to this House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 110
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





ANIMAL WELFARE AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O'Connor, I present a legislative statement on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill.
The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to ban the export of livestock by sea and shows the Government's commitment to upholding New Zealand's reputation for high standards of animal welfare. It's vital we stay ahead of the curve in a world where animal welfare is under more and more scrutiny. The Government started a review of the livestock export trade in 2019. Following the independent Heron report, which was carried out after the tragic loss of the Gulf Livestock 1 in September 2020, on 29 March 2021, the Government decided to ban the export of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship with a transition period of up to two years. 
The Government, like some in the farming sector, believes the livestock trade opens New Zealand and its farmers to long-term reputational damage no matter how high we set animal welfare standards for the voyages and everyone's best efforts. We acknowledge the economic benefits some farmers get from the trade, but support for it is not universal. There are different opinions on its long-term value amongst farmers, how it affects New Zealand's commitment to animal welfare, and our image in the eyes of international consumers. Those involved in the trade have made improvements over recent years, but the voyage times to the Northern Hemisphere markets will always impose animal welfare challenges. 
In submission to the live export review, it is important to note that the independent National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), which advises Ministers on animal welfare issues, said that the practice should stop. The tragic sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 highlighted the possible risk of the trade. Because of New Zealand's strong reputation for farming, livestock exports by sea have increased in recent years, but they amount to approximately 0.2 percent of our primary exports revenue since 2015. The Government has set a two-year transition period for the trade, which will end on 30 April 2023, to allow our trading partners time to adopt alternative options and to give those farmers involved enough time to change their business models. It's hard to estimate the total number of farmers who use the trade as that can be dependent on conditions and on-farm decisions from year to year. We recognise the importance of our relationships with international partners and are committed to working with them to boost trade through other means, such as scientific work into dairy cow genetics and germplasm use. 
Implementing the ban through primary legislation will enable people in the industry to give their views through the select committee process and Parliament to vote on the final proposal. I am informed that most affected parties—exporters, farmers, trading partners, and importers—are aware of the ban and understand the intent of the transition period. These actions do not set a precedent for other animal exports. Primarily, animals such as chickens are exported by plane and the travel times are much shorter. The journey time via ship for New Zealand livestock is far longer than by air, raising animal welfare concerns. 
During the transition period, improvements are being made to the trade. Following the loss of the Gulf Livestock 1 and the independent Heron review, a series of recommendations were implemented, including reducing stock density to no more than 90 percent of previous limits, increasing minimum fodder requirements, introducing a more comprehensive stockperson declaration to verify competency, increased voyage reporting and improved quality of reporting from exporters, and requiring additional information on animal welfare and on the voyage. Longer-term improvements will be implemented as part of the livestock exports continuous improvements work programme. I encourage all interested parties to involve themselves in the select committee processes. 
On behalf of Minister O'Connor, making this change to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 will prohibit the live export of cattle, deer, goats, and sheep by ship from 30 April 2023, reinforcing and building on New Zealand's reputation as a safe producer of high-quality products. I commend this bill to the House. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Listening to the speech that Minister Whaitiri has just made, she said that this would be very small when it comes to the agriculture sector. But it is a big cost for those people who take part in the live export industry. 
Also, I picked up on the fact that the Minister said it was really hard to estimate the number of farmers who do it. Now, before I go on to that, I just wanted to make mention of the people who died on the boat, because often we see that everyone talks about this being an animal welfare tragedy, and of course many cattle died on that boat and it was a tragedy that that boat obviously wasn't up to spec and went somewhere that it shouldn't go. As a result of that, over 40 people actually lost their lives on that boat too, and it's something that's very seldom ever mentioned. It sort of reminds me that, you know, we have a car accident, but we don't ban every car. You know, there's tragedies from time to time, but it doesn't mean to say we stop doing it because it happens to one boat. Even reading in here, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) didn't actually count this in their animal welfare figure or their animal death stats because it was actually a transport and a boat-sinking episode, not an animal welfare episode. 
Look, it does appear that there was something absolutely not right about the Gulf Livestock 1 ship that sank and the decisions that some people made with that ship. I've got a press release here that came out of Australia: "It has been 12 months since the live export ship sank off the Japanese coast, but a number of details about the tragedy remain a mystery. … It's understood there was an inquiry and it's been concluded, but for whatever reason the outcome has not been made publicly available and that's pretty disappointing." So the Australian Government is actually still trying to get their hands on the information around that inquiry, because it didn't happen in their waters. 
Look, I've been visiting people who partake in live exports, and their ships and their practices look nothing like what we have seen and the conditions that we've seen on that boat. So I question whether we need to take this giant step to do this, and so do my colleagues in National. 
The Ministry for Primary Industries, in September 2020, announced an independent review and launched into the animal welfare assurances for safe transport of livestock by sea. It made a number of recommendations, including ongoing review of rules, guidance, and regulations, and you can see that in Part 4 of the review—and we don't have time to go into the whole review tonight. But we in National believe that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy of one ship sinking. 
Export mortality rates are, typically, about 0.1 percent and it does contribute about $261 million to the economy, and I know that there are a range of views around this practice. But when it's done well, it's actually really—for someone who is exporting animals or any product to the value that some of these animals are, you don't want your product to turn up at the other end not in a good shape, because you wouldn't be in the business for very long anyway, and many of these people take a huge pride in what they do. If the industry is to be phased out, it should be due to changing market demand, not to a Government edict based on one event. 
So in 2020, the mortality rate of livestock was 0.12 percent, and in 2019, the mortality rate for livestock was 0.08 percent, and, as I've said before, MPI didn't count that. That was a transport misadventure, and they didn't count that in the stats. 
So the regulatory impact statement says that there are two approaches that the Government could have taken to this to respond to this tragedy. The first would be to "allow trade to continue, but with stronger regulations through maintaining strong animal welfare standards and enhancing New Zealand's long-term trade relationships.", and this is the approach that National agrees with. The second was to "ban the export of livestock", and this is what this bill is about tonight, which is why National is opposing this. 
There is currently no ban on other types of livestock, and it's only the ones that are mentioned in this bill. All animals undergo a pre-departure check, and I visited some people who are in the livestock export trade recently. They always keep extra days of feed on hand for these animals just in case they come across a storm like the one that this boat should never have gone into. So I say, again, that nobody's going to want to export animals that don't turn up in good shape. 
But the Minister of Agriculture, Damien O'Connor, said that the Government's decision was about animal welfare and protecting and positioning New Zealand's reputation. What happened on this ship was not a New Zealand situation, and we can actually put regulations in and we can take control over what happens within our own country. So even if it could be proven that the incident did not involve New Zealand animals, the Minister thinks that the public may conclude that our animals could face a similar outcome. But why? 
We don't have too many people going on cruise ships at the moment. I've done a few cruises in my life, and, actually, a year before that captain caught the attention of his girlfriend over in Italy, and that boat tipped over, I was on the sister ship of that ship a year before, and it was fine. So we react to one thing, which isn't always necessary. We don't have to ban everything because of one incident. 
Look, I'm dealing with another bill at the moment, which is the decommissioning one on the gas. You have one incident, and everybody else is bad and everything seems to need to be banned under the edict of this Government. 
So for the policy to be given effect by this bill—and this is from the regulatory impact statement—is there analysis available on the size of the potential costs and benefits, and the answer is yes; and (b) the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial, unavoidable loss of income or wealth, and the statement says that the analysis noted "rural communities where livestock exports are a source of income would suffer economic losses. This would likely have flow on effects to wider primary industry businesses related to the trade e.g. vet services, transport companies, stock handlers etc." Exporters and related businesses would suffer grave economic losses that would likely result in their businesses ceasing to operate. 
Now, animal exports have done and can be done safely, and there were a number of conditions that the Ministry for Primary Industries put in when they went through, like having focused maritime inspection of livestock carrier ships entering New Zealand to transport livestock by Maritime New Zealand as a safeguard; restricting stock density on vessels to 90 percent of the current limits; increasing requirements for voyage recording, including daily vet reports during voyages; and increasing minimum fodder, as I said before. So who would really want their livestock to turn up overseas in less than a good state, because it's not going to be an export business for very long. 
I just want people to know that, hopefully, during the select committee process, we will be able to have time to hear all the arguments and look at what the general live animal export official assurance programme in this country by the Ministry for Primary Industries actually does. I just want people to know tonight that the Ministry for Primary Industries have put some extra conditions on exporting livestock. It was actually the Government that decided to make the move to ban this approach, and that is why National is opposing this. But we will work constructively at the select committee, and in the last bill we talked about tonight, we managed to make some changes at select committee. So here's hoping. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. 





JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The previous speaker did talk about the fact that this is something that has been happening for some time, and she is quite correct in that. But it doesn't make it right. Just because it's something that we've always done doesn't make it right.
It's not as simple as the cows—let's say we're talking about cows, cattle—being walked off the paddock and on to a ship for a lovely cruise. They do spend quite some time having to be fed certain foods and getting ready to be able to adapt to the ship. And yes, the travel on the ship. But yes, the member was right—you know, there are procedures in place, there are checks and balances in place. But we in New Zealand here, we pride ourselves, we pride ourselves on our clean, green image. We pride ourselves on the way that we farm our animals. They're pasture fed, they're this, they're that, and the other thing, and we do look after them. I just don't see how this fits into that picture.
You know, the member previously did talk about the people who lost their lives. And, actually, I think that's a really important thing that we do acknowledge here tonight. She was right that that hasn't been talked about enough. It's been mostly about the animals and their welfare. So I do also wish to acknowledge those that lost their lives on that particular ship.
But we've deliberately put in place a transition period where this won't come into effect until 2023, to allow those that are going to be impacted—and there is definitely an impact, a cost for some farmers, exporters, importers, etc. But that's why this two-year period has been put in place: as a transition, so people can adapt their business models and look to do other things, whether it be different types of farming or something else that doesn't include sending animals off for live export. So I commend this bill to the House.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Hang on, Mr Speaker—it's costing me a lot of money, this one. [Removes facemask] Ha! I've got it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was a bit intrigued listening to the Minister—hang on, I can't hear. I was a bit intrigued listening to the Minister, because I'd set out with a view as to what I was going to say, and I was really quite interested in some of the things the Minister said in her introduction to this bill. As Barbara Kuriger has said, we're opposed to the bill for a number of reasons, and I'm going to outline some of those as I go along.
I think we've got to remember—and the previous speaker, Jo Luxton, talked about it—that just because we've always done it doesn't mean we should always do it. I quite agree with that, but, of course, we wouldn't be in the position we're in in New Zealand today if it hadn't been for the live import of stock into New Zealand via the very same method that we're now banning the export of them for.
One of the funny things about this place, of course, is that you get to speak third or fourth or fifth on a bill. Almost everything that needs to be said has been said. So I'm going to take a slightly different tack on this issue, because I think there's some issues that haven't been considered in the course of us getting to a point of banning the issue. I think it's quite clear, for me, that it was always the intention of this Government to ban the live shipment of livestock, as they call it. In fact, there's four different types of livestock involved in this: cattle, sheep, goats, and deer, I think it is. So those are banned from, effectively, live shipment. I take it it doesn't mean they can't be shipped by plane if necessary, because there are numerous other livestock types that are shipped by plane, the most notable, of course, being horses to Australia to try and win the Melbourne Cup, which is not far away. Of course, in the last couple of weeks, we won some pretty big races in Australia, including a $12 million race last Saturday.
So the export of livestock and import of livestock into New Zealand has always been a very important part of New Zealand's way and how we go about things. Sometimes the good intentions of legislation have unforeseen negative impacts on society and the animals concerned, and that's almost certainly the case with this bill, because if you think about our place in agriculture in the world—and the Minister did appease me to some extent by talking about genomic export and stuff like that, which is all very well for big, highly technological, competent industries, but many parts of the world that farm livestock in this form are not in that position. Therefore, the acquisition of a real cow, for example, is much more important to them or much more useful to them than, in fact, other types of technology and science.
So I think that one of the real issues of this bill is the fact that we were able to benefit other food-producing nations by exporting a better class of livestock to them and enabling them to either milk them or breed—whatever they want to do with them—in a manner they couldn't have otherwise done. I know the argument that the Minister put up, and I think so did Barbara Kuriger to some extent: that there are farmers who are opposed to this bill, and opposed to it for the reason, basically, that they see those animals going to another country and competing with our exports of milk or of any other product, for that matter. But when you think about it, we in New Zealand are capable of producing enough food to feed about 40 million people. There are bigger cities than that in China by far, and, of course, they've got to then feed themselves, those countries. So I think that's one aspect of this bill that I think will undoubtedly lessen the world's ability to produce food.
The other issue I want to raise with respect to the live shipments of breeding cattle is that the dairy industry inevitably will always have surplus heifers. Those heifers have, over the last few years and in increasing numbers, been exported, creating advantage to other countries in the world and creating advantage to those people involved in the business in New Zealand, whether they're vets, transport companies, feedlots—whatever they are. Those cattle or those heifers born in that dairy industry are now going to end up as four-day-old bobbies. I don't think that's a great livestock or animal welfare benefit to the country or to the world, actually. So it has a negative effect, and the reason that that's going to happen is because they have no value to the New Zealand beef herd, because, effectively, people aren't going to take on something that's half as efficient to deal with an issue that otherwise could have—so it's no good us thinking that they're going to end up in the beef herd, because they won't. So there's always some negative impacts, I think, that come about as a result of good intention.
Now, the other thing that's been raised tonight is the issue of, I guess, acclimatising those cattle, and how we can't get them acclimatised to going on ships and things like that. But a considerable effort is put into acclimatising those cattle that are then shipped across the world on a ship. So when us humans go on a cruise, we don't go and spend a couple or three weeks in a hotel on our way just to get acclimatised to being locked in a hotel while we're locked on the cruise ship. But they do. So the heifers do actually exactly get that treatment in New Zealand, so they're slowly educated into getting on those ships.
So I think the issue that raises for me is that if we'd wanted to, we could have put measures in place to very effectively and efficiently export livestock to other parts of the world for breeding purposes. The other thing we could have done—and I know that people think this is too hard, but we most certainly could have had a significant influence on the treatment of those animals when they got to their destination. In fact, it would have done probably a great service to some of those countries to have been involved in the acclimatisation of those heifers and the assimilation of them into their new environment, because it would have got them treated better, it would have got a better result for the people who took those animals at the other end, and I think it would have made quite a bit of difference too. So we could have, if we wished to, in my view, turned this industry into a showcase and enabled a whole lot of benefits to food production around the world that we now will not be able to achieve.
So there's some interesting issues for us to discuss at select committee, and I look forward to that discussion, because I think the Minister, in her opening remarks, raised a few interesting issues that could be teased out further. But I guess the thing about this bill is that whilst Barbara Kuriger was optimistic that we might create change at the select committee, in fact, the bill says very clearly that it's going to prohibit the export of cattle, because it effectively bans completely people making applications to export animals. So it's not going to happen. So in respect of the discussion we have in the select committee, unless that clause is removed from the bill, nothing's going to change. So that's a pretty clear signal that the Government has no intention of either listening to submissions or changing any part of the bill for the better in the long term.
So on balance, I think it's a shame we've gone down this path. I think we could have done better with it. I think we could have done better for world food production, I think we could have done better for animal welfare, and I think we could have done better for our farming community in New Zealand. Finally, I think that all these issues, all these matters that make up things like live export of animals, export of anything we choose to do as a country—because at the end of the day, we are very good as a trading nation. We are very good as a farming nation. We're the best there is, actually, and I think we should maintain that. The crux of this bill is that the Government are of the opinion that we can't maintain that unless we pass a bill banning the shipment of livestock. I don't accept that. So I think the National Party—we don't agree with it, and we'll look forward to whatever discussion does take place at select committee. I'm not optimistic we'll change it, though. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to begin by touching on a point Mr McKelvie raised when he said that we have relied on the importation of livestock to kick-start, I guess, our agricultural sector way back when, and he's not wrong. But history also shows us quite clearly that thousands of people and animals died on those ships to New Zealand. I would like to think, I hope, that we have come a long way in terms of our knowledge of animal rights, animal welfare, and animal safety. He also talked about New Zealand's way and our place in agriculture in the world. Well, the point behind this bill is that we are in a time where we're facing increased scrutiny of animal welfare, including from the countries that we export to. The continued export of livestock may be a risk to New Zealand's brand. So the time has come to have this discussion and to reconsider whether this is something that fits within our brand as a country. It's about our reputation, including as seen by our exporters.
I've also seen, since the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1, stories from farmers who previously exported livestock on ships overseas and they acknowledged that it was quite distressing not being able to know, once their livestock left their farm, whether or not their livestock were on those ships or not. They found that incredibly distressing and that led them to looking further into the exporting of livestock.
Since 2015, we've exported close to 200,000 cattle, which have been shipped to countries including Mexico, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka. The majority, though, 94 percent, go to China. All farmers care about their animals and to not know where the animals have ended up, they've acknowledged, is actually something that they find quite distressing. While there are rules about the welfare and conditions of livestock on export ships, including the space per animal, the amount of water required, there are still livestock that die. So excluding those who died on Gulf Livestock 1, 70 cattle died between 2019 and 2020, and after arrival there were 39 deaths recorded. That is why I commend this bill to the House.





TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's my privilege to take a call on this bill, and acknowledging that I'm replacing Chlöe Swarbrick, who is our usual spokesperson, but Chlöe, along with many of our Auckland MPs, is doing her bit to keep Auckland safe—in particular, her electorate of Auckland Central.
This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to ban live export of cattle, deer, sheep, and goats by sea. The ban was announced earlier in 2021 by the Government, and the ban is intended to come into effect on 30 April 2023, a transition period of approximately two years after its announcement. This is being done to allow time for those affected to plan.
Many of the people that we interact with think the two years is too late and would have preferred to actually just get on with it. But I did note that previous spokesperson for animal welfare Mojo Mathers actually has brought this up about 10 years ago. So I wanted to read a quote from Mojo from around about 2013, which places the position of the Greens: "In New Zealand animals work very hard for us. They form the backbone of our economy, with animal products forming 45 percent of New Zealand exports last year. As well as food, fibre, entertainment, and income, animals provide us with companionship, affection, and security. We should, as an absolute minimum, ensure decent lives for them. And quite apart from doing the right thing for animals, our reputation as an ethical food producer relies upon this."
The Green Party envisions a world in which animals are recognised and treated as sentient beings with intrinsic worth; that domestic animals, including farmed animals and other animals in captivity, have a high quality of life; and that people act compassionately in their interactions with animals.
I want to acknowledge the previous speaker who—and I've seen some of these news articles of farmers who have been concerned about live exports, concerned about where their stock have ended up, and the condition of their stock as well. I hope in the select committee process that we will get to hear from those people as well.
But I also—because I get that some people are all about the economics and all that kind of thing as well, but there is a way to actually move the genetic material without actually having to transport animals. I get we've done what we've always done, if we always do what we've always done, we should always do what we've always done. But actually, there could be better ways to do that. So I hope in the select committee process that those voices that actually show that there could be a different way to do this also make themselves available to make submissions as well. There are also questions like if you're exporting genetic material or live exports anyway, that you're actually giving over your competitive edge; you are giving animals to people you might be competing with anyway. So hopefully that gets picked up by the select committee as well.
Live export subjects animals to cruel and inhumane conditions with few safeguards for their welfare. Once overseas, animals are outside our jurisdiction, and New Zealand cannot guarantee their safety and humane treatment. Several high-profile and tragic incidents over the years at sea and at destination have highlighted the validity of these concerns. The practice is also a significant ongoing risk to New Zealand's international reputation, and like everyone around the House, I acknowledge those lives—human lives—that have been lost in the transport of live exports as well, and noting that in the last Parliament, our spokesperson Gareth Hughes, who's now on the board of Save Animals from Exploitation, brought this up a number of times in the media, recognising the sometimes appalling conditions that workers have on some of those ships as well, but also the impacts on animals. So we would have liked to have this banned years ago, and also to not have the transition period, but we are where we are right now.
Back in 2008, because of appalling conditions, New Zealand decided we would not allow live exports for slaughter, and yet we continue to do live exports in general. So this bill is catching up, and we welcome that. We know the reports that the voyage is very harrowing for the animals; the high stocking densities, heat stress, unnatural diet, and rough seas can make the voyage acutely distressing for animals, with some dying during the voyage. The movement of the ship, especially when large waves slam into the side of the vessel, is highly stressful and may result in injuries. Some animals are shipped while pregnant, and some of these give birth on board the ships. Animals spend weeks on board ships; long distance transport is stressful for animals. Animals transported by sea, for example to China, could endure a voyage of around 17 days.
As we've talked about as well, it can also be quite fatal. So, like on 2 September in 2020, the Gulf Livestock 1 capsized and sank off the coast of Japan on the way to China with a shipment of New Zealand cows. All 5,867 of those cows died on board, but there are many other examples of just how risky live exports by sea are, especially when unplanned delays happen. In 2003, Saudi Arabia rejected a shipment of over 57,000 New Zealand and Australian sheep on board the MBIE Cormo Express on alleged disease grounds. After two months at sea, and with the ship unable to port, around 6,000 sheep died on board. Live export can be fatal for humans; we've heard that. Gulf Livestock 1 tragically resulted in the loss of not only animal, but human lives.
Most ships are not designed for export. Recent analysis undertaken by The Guardian revealed that live export ships are at greater risk of sinking or grounding than standard cargo vessels. Arriving alive doesn't mean animals don't suffer, and it's important that they are not suffering in pain as well. The journey also doesn't end once they are there; we don't know what's going to happen to them once they get off the boat, and so that's important to actually keep that in scope as well.
I also wanted to give a shout-out to all the activists that have been campaigning for this for quite some time—in particular, in 2019, when animal welfare campaigners came to Parliament to hand over a petition signed by more than 30,000 people to end live exports. I think it's really wonderful to see all of this and to see that this mahi has created this change, and I would like to acknowledge all of those activists, and I hope that they will continue to keep up the struggle for this kaupapa.
Just in my closing moments, I was wondering what I could offer to this conversation—probably two conversations. I've probably got time for one conversation. I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Sami, and they're the indigenous peoples—and they are pastoralists; they have a very close relationship with reindeer. They go across Norway, Finland, and into Russia. I talked to her because I was interested in terms of their way that they look after their animals and their relationship with their animals as well. Because even though we've had agriculture here in the way that we see it in the last couple of hundred years max—100 to 200 years—the Sami people have been looking after reindeer for 10,000 years.
When I asked her about this, she said this to me: "The environment is very sensitive, so we have to learn to listen, which means people tend to be quiet. We have a special connection with reindeer; without them we could not have survived here for 10,000 years, because on the tundra nothing is grown. Reindeer give us everything: clothing, food, eating the stomach gives us much-needed minerals—we use every part. My grandmother made even her own soap with reindeer bones. We do not own them, instead we say that they are owned by the wind. We do not farm them because they are free-grazing animals who are meant to wander. We migrate with them. It is a colonial way to see animals as lesser. Animals are equal to people; they are our first priority. When they suffer, we suffer." Thank you, Madam Speaker.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party tonight in opposition to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. But I also rise in opposition on behalf of my colleague Mark Cameron, who, sadly, can't be with us tonight because he's stuck up in Northland under the alert level 3 restrictions. And I do wish that he could be here tonight to give this speech on behalf of ACT, because I know that he would give it great gusto. 
Mark is probably the best person placed in Parliament to talk on this bill, because he is the authentic voice of rural New Zealand—you know, whether it's just having his gumboots in his office as a constant reminder of the livelihoods of farmers or the messages that our caucus receive when Mark is not here in Parliament, milking his cows in the Far North. And I know even during these COVID restriction times, Mark has been diligently looking after his animals on his own farm, like farmers up and down New Zealand have been doing during the COVID restrictions, and I take my hat off to them working. While others can do remote work, these people are using their hands and feet to make sure that we have livelihoods in New Zealand. 
But, of course, farmers up and down in New Zealand care about animal welfare, because it is their livelihoods. You know, it is what makes our country work. And it's also that unless farmers are looking after their animals, they don't have good produce for the next year. It is in every farmer's best interest to give good conditions to their animals. So animal welfare is extremely important. But why are we bringing this bill to Parliament? And I think we need to acknowledge every time that we bring a new law to this place: what is the problem that we're actually trying to solve? What is the proposed solution? What are the benefits and the costs? A very basic question, and ACT has analysed all of these and, I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't stack up as a good law to be made. 
So for context, in mid-2019 Cabinet asked the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to lead a review into the export of livestock because they were concerned about the reputation of New Zealand as a responsible exporter of animals. And I note that MPI recommended that either we had a full ban on live exportation or an increased regulatory system to manage any risks. Now, livestock export is controlled under the Animal Welfare Act, and that's what this bill seeks to change. In New Zealand we currently have regulations about animal exportation. There are conditions for animal welfare on the voyage and for animal welfare at the destination. But we have to be clear: we can do better for the conditions of animals. We can do better to improve animal welfare. But this bill seeks to do the heavy-handed approach, which is the ban. There would be a full cessation of trade from 30 April 2023.
But if we look at MPI's analysis of what the impacts of that actually would be, the economic loss to farmers and the economy would be significant. I'll read a few points, if I may, from the MPI analysis, and it says, "Live animal exports provide a boost to New Zealand's economy and rural communities. Any move to prohibit the export of livestock would cause an economic loss to these groups and make recovery from COVID-19 more difficult in the rural communities where livestock exports provide an additional source of income. For some individual businesses, that impact is likely to be significant." It also goes on to say, "The direct value of New Zealand's livestock exports was $261.5 million for the year ending December 2020." It also says that "MPI's view is that reputational impacts are real but difficult to quantify. These risks should be taken seriously, but can be managed through enhancing the regulatory framework." 
The problem is even worse than that, though, because if we truly do care about animal welfare standards, we do have to acknowledge the part that New Zealand plays in ensuring that we are upholding better standards around the world. If it's not us that are providing livestock to other countries for their breeding programmes, somebody else will very quickly fill that void. Trade will simply go offshore. The problem won't go away. But actually, being in that space allows for better animal welfare conditions than what the alternative would be. People do need food. People do need animals to breed. And if we can be part of that, we can uphold better animal welfare standards, but also ensure that our farmers have ongoing livelihoods that won't be affected. I don't want to see countries with poorer welfare standards filling the void that New Zealand currently plays in that market. 
We also just have to acknowledge that COVID has been a very, very tough time for all people, but it has been hard for farmers too, who have been constantly working through this time and not getting a huge amount of credit from the Government, to be fair. It just feels like there are regulations and red tape constantly being placed upon our rural communities. But our farmers have pulled us through and this is a time when we should have their back. COVID is not a time when we should be placing more restrictions on their ability to pull themselves through this time. We don't want to create more pain and hurt farmers any more. 
In summary, there's just a few points that I'd like to make. We can do more for animal welfare, we do need to be clear, but there was an alternative that could have been reached. And when there is an alternative, why should we go with the heavy-handed approach that will hurt farmers? If I put it plainly, in the words of my colleague Mark Cameron: "Far out! What a fiasco." So, in summary, ACT stands in opposition to this bill. Thank you.





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, and I look back to the early to mid-1990s, when I was a rural reporter for the Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune—I was actually the agricultural editor—and I used to go out and cover the live export trade that was actually booming in Hawke's Bay at the time. They had massive feedlots out at Tikokino, and it was a pretty booming industry, but I can recall also then that there was a bit of controversy around it as well, because I used to get quite a few front pages. When I look back and I look to now, I think, really, the time has come when the banning of live ship exports of animals for breeding is coming to an end.
Unlike the negative side, the other side of the House, where they seem to think the poor farmers won't survive over a two-year transition period out of live exports, I have far greater confidence—far greater confidence—in our farmers, and when I'm going to be sitting on the select committee, listening to submissions, I'm going to ask a lot of questions from farmers about, "Really, do you think this is something for the future, or do you think that we can do more with our livestock and grow our rural economy better and stronger with better reputation, without the need for live sheep exports?" Thank you, Madam Speaker.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in opposition to this bill, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, in its first reading tonight. We've heard some pretty pathetic contributions from the Government side and the Greens tonight about why this bill is so necessary.
But let's go back to the beginning and how this all started. It was back on 2 September last year, when the live export ship the Gulf Livestock 1, which had just left Napier on 14 August, was traveling north-west in the East China Sea when it was capsized in strong winds and heavy seas, whipped up by not one but two typhoons. So this was an extraordinary weather event that this ship was caught in and it was only less than two days from its destination. Now, the ship was carrying almost 6,000 head of cattle and 43 crew. That included 39 Filipinos, two Australians, and two New Zealanders. Only two survivors and a body were ever found by the Japanese coast guard, and, sadly, only one of the survivors actually lived. 
Now, we've heard a lot about the 6,000 head of cattle and the loss of those beasts, and, actually we heard about the loss for weeks—it went on for weeks. The issue was kept alive—I heard the speaker from the Green Party talk about the activists. It was kept alive by activists and the Greens, who used that tragedy as an opportunity to keep the story alive and to promote their tree-hugging, leaf-eating lifestyles, and showed no respect for alternative views. And that is all we were asking for: a bit of respect for how other people choose to live their lives. But, no, they don't want anything to do with eating meat, they don't want anything to do with cows, and they certainly don't want anything to do with supporting New Zealand's primary sector in this country. But what we didn't hear about was the loss of those poor souls that went down with the ship. I'd like to pay tribute tonight to Lochie Bellerby and Scott Harris, our two Kiwis.
Now, as a result of the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, there was a review undertaken, and that was done by QC Heron. It is interesting that out of that review came four recommendations—four. They focused on the maritime inspection of livestock carrier ships entering New Zealand. They suggested restricting stocking densities on vessels to 90 percent of former limits. And it increased the requirements for voyage reporting, including the daily veterinary reports on those voyages, and, as Barbara Kuriger mentioned, about the fodder requirements, the feed stores that were to be left in reserve in case these were delays during the voyage. So this Government carried on with the review and then that review went off to the regulatory impact statement for this bill.
There were two options that were open to the Government, and one of them was to improve the quality of those transitions on to the journey of the exporting and on the boats, or to ban live exports altogether. So what did this Government do? It took the lazy option and it banned a $261 million opportunity for this country. It said thanks to the 5,000 farmers who for the last 10 years had been supplying breeding stock for live export, and it just said, "Sorry. We're going to give you two years." And the farmers are supposed to feel grateful that there are two years to transition away. This Government has no idea about how to grow an industry, and it is constantly ratcheting things back and making it harder. The only thing this Government knows how to do is to kill the economy, and instead of working with the shipping companies, working with the farmers to make sure that we are the very best livestock exporters in the world, this lazy Government simply bans another income earner for New Zealand.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Kieran McAnulty—five minutes.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I wish to start my contribution tonight by acknowledging a constituent of mine, whom I won't name, who lost a dearly loved family member in the tragedy that has been expressed tonight. I'm sure the condolences of this whole House go to them and the other family of the other member that was lost in that tragedy. But it is, I believe, disingenuous to suggest that it is solely because of that tragedy that this piece of legislation is being proposed tonight. This legislation is much more far-reaching and much more looking into the future.
There is a clear distinction on display tonight between the conservative side and the side that actually wishes to reform this nation to one that is prosperous for all New Zealanders. And they may scoff, which they do, but this is the Government that produced a plan to increase primary production exports by $40 billion in the next 10 years, and animal welfare plays a key part in that. They live in a dream world: they believe that staying where we are, and treading water, and not changing, and not reforming—
Barbara Kuriger: Didn't say that. Didn't say we couldn't change.
KIERAN McANULTY: —and not trying to keep ahead of the curve, and not trying to get ahead of our competitors, will earn us more money in the future. It will not. This is a competitive market, and Barbara Kuriger should know that our value that we extract from our exports is purely dependent on our reputation on the international market, and animal welfare is a huge part of that. It is an increasing part of that. We cannot expect that our reputation as an exporter will remain just as prevalent when countries like Ireland and much of the EU and parts of South America and even the US, who has poor animal standards in part of it, are catching up with us.
And I say to that side, they do not represent all farmers. They may believe they do, but many farmers from my electorate have contacted me and said this is the right move. This is where we need to go. We need to keep New Zealand ahead of the curve and at the pinnacle of animal welfare and at the pinnacle of international primary exports. I say to them, continue as you are; we will continue to look at the future. We will continue to deliver for rural communities and for primary exporters by making decisions like this and keeping New Zealand at the forefront of primary exports.





ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I rise with pleasure to take a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. We're not scared of this "just transition" conversation in Taranaki, we're quite used to it. In Taranaki, the conversation—we're at the pointy end of much of it. It's not just about a zero-carbon economy, but also a sustainable future, a thriving economy. So we're used to this and we're not scared of the conversation. So, you know, we've got a lofty goal, we're ambitious for our primary industries. We want to be known as the most ethical producer of food on the planet, and we want to be known as being able to use cutting-edge science to replace old ways of doing things with something that is better, such as using dairy cow genetics and germplasm—I didn't know what that was until today, but there you go, we don't need to go any further into that one.
All I need to say is that we're not scared of setting these lofty goals for our primary industries and then supporting our industry to shift using world class, cutting edge science. So the other thing about this bill is the opportunity to have a just transition, to give our farmers the time and the support to move. We want them to be able to honour the commitments that they already have overseas. We want them to be able to sustain and grow their relationships in foreign markets, and we want them to be able to shift their business model so that we can reach that goal, that lofty goal that they deserve us to be striving for and working to support them to do, and that is, like I say, to become the most ethical producers of food. I'm really looking forward to seeing this go through select committee and to be able to make sure that we can support our primary industries in the best way possible, as they deserve. I commend this bill to the House. 





PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak in opposition to this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. As many of the speakers have already said, the catalyst for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) review in September 2020 to look into animal welfare assurances for safe transport of livestock by sea was the terrible maritime tragedy that was the Gulf Livestock 1. I want to acknowledge the sinking of that vessel as a terrible maritime tragedy as it sailed into Typhoon Maysak, south of Japan, when the engine stopped and the vessel was hit broadside by a powerful wave. Over 40 people lost their lives and, of course, the 5,800-odd cows.
I particularly want to acknowledge the Bellerby family from Southland. Lochie Bellerby was a young man in his 20s from Te Ānau who lost his life in that. Lochie was described as an adventurous and hardworking young man. I had the privilege, at that time, of meeting with his father and his sister. I want to acknowledge what incredibly brave people they were and resilient as they tried to cut through that dreadful bureaucratic red tape to try and expand the searches for the much loved brother and son. So I acknowledge the terrible tragedy that that sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 was.
It's interesting, though, that MPI does not include the loss of those 5,876 as being killed through animal welfare mistreatment. It was a terrible maritime tragedy. It caused the catalyst, as I said, for this review, which the Government could have picked up on—the options that were made available, the options, as my colleague has talked about, to expand the regulations and expand some of the requirements for animal welfare. National would have willingly backed those improvements. New Zealand has incredibly high standards of animal welfare in transporting livestock. But we could see where there are areas where there could have been improvement.
But as my colleague Maureen Pugh said, this Government took the lazy option of banning. The banning is an option that this Government takes frequently. They banned coal mining so that we could import more coal from Indonesia. They're banning the export of livestock, and it is just virtue signalling. They are not going to improve animal welfare. I've had discussions with farmers, and I've asked them what it means to bring this ban into place, and my colleague Ian McKelvie has already touched on it.
So when this virtue-signalling Government wants to talk to lots of overseas entities that we export to, how are they going to explain the massive increase in animal welfare when what this means is there will be a whole lot more four-day-old bobby calves killed? I don't see that as improved animal welfare, and I'll be interested to see how this Government spins it—because spinning is, of course, their pastime, and I'm sure they'll try and make something of it. So instead of those animals being exported to other countries where they could be used for breeding stock and they could be used to feed more people in this world, we are going to ban it and have them killed as four-day bobby calves.
There were other things that could've been done, but they required the Government to take a look at a complex issue. This is a complex issue. It would've required some work to have a look at it. They could've focused on some of the things that were brought in in 2020, in October, and seen those as ways in which animal welfare could be improved on. They could've worked with Federated Farmers instead of surprising Federated Farmers with this outcome. Federated Farmers have pointed out that our trade in this sector operates to some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.
So it could have been a shining example to the world of how well we treat our animals, but instead they took the easy option to ban, because banning is what they do best. They could've focused on greater inspections of livestock in ships entering New Zealand. They could have, as my colleague said, restricted stocking density by 90 percent, which would have matched the Australian regulations. They could have increased the reporting from vets, and they could have increased the minimum fodder requirements should something go wrong and the voyage have unplanned delays. But, again, instead of working with the primary sector on a complex issue to bring about workable solutions, they chose banning it—banning it, that will shut off around $261 million of revenue. At a time when we are going to have our greatest level of debt in this country ever, they are going about their way to ban and restrict our revenue. It defies belief that we can be entering such a period of extreme debt and at the same time be virtue signalling with bans that decrease our revenue. But I guess that's because that's the sort of fairy land that this Government works in.
I listened to a number of the speakers say, "Well, I've read about this and I've heard that this happens." On our farm, we exported livestock, so I haven't read about it; I've seen it. Then I went and spoke to farmers that are doing this live export and asked them what would be the impact. That's how I heard that there would be more bobby calves killed. So instead of these lofty aspirations that we've heard from the other side, lofty aspirations about how wonderful this is going to be for our livestock welfare—I even heard from one member on the Government side say how this would be so much better, banning sheep. Does she even know that the basis of this tragedy was cows, not sheep? If she was the reporter for some Hawke's Bay newspaper, I'd doubt very much if they got much accurate out of that reporter.
The issue here is that the Government has taken the lazy way out. They have not worked with the primary sector. They have not tried to save a source of revenue for this country. They have not tried to improve animal welfare by doing things that take a little bit more time and a little bit more work. They have brought in another ban. It is simply not good enough to say that this Government is doing wonderful things with the primary sector and has lofty aspirations for the primary sector. Well, if that's the case, why the heck have 30,000 people come out for groundswell events to tell you to stop imposing unrealistic regulations on their primary sector? They must be mistaken—all 30,000 of them must be mistaken. They can't have picked up on your lofty aspirations and your wonderful ideals and your virtue signalling over animal welfare, or that 30,000 group of farmers wouldn't be out trying to get your attention and trying to engage in meaningful debate with you to try and find workable solutions. National opposes this bill.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Well, what can I say, really? It's been a night of quips, a night of just the same old, same old lines being rolled out, like "knee-jerk reaction", "virtue signalling", "Government edicts made on one single event". But we know, on this side of the House, that we're doing the right thing by our animal welfare system. We've got farmers on this side of the House, we've got people who work in primary industry, we've got friends and whānau who are engaged, even, as inspectors on these ships. So we're not here tonight to debate this, because we know that we are doing the right thing by our farmers, we're doing the right thing by our animals.
For me, as I listen tonight—I heard from the Opposition that we can get better at animal welfare. I heard lines around "If we just do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always got." We need to do the right thing—and I always heard a lot around money, around money. We create $33.7 billion in income through our animal system over a year, and so I think it's OK for us to ban this. I haven't heard anything from the Opposition tonight about anyone who's going to repeal this bill if you get into Government, heard nothing about that, so I think, quietly, you're going to make a fuss, you're going to make a song and a dance to appease your small audience, but you aren't talking about repealing this when you—if ever you—become Government again.
So for me, I'm glad this debate is over and we take it to select committee, where we're going to have deeper discussions, we can engage our communities. Because this side of the House, we're committed to our rural committees, we're committed to our farmers, and I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.





DIGITAL IDENTITY SERVICES TRUST FRAMEWORK BILL
First Reading
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): I present a legislative statement on the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.
As we move into an increasingly digital world, it's important that Kiwis are able to prove who they are in a trusted, safe, consistent, and digital manner. We know that Kiwis find themselves more and more online, and sometimes there are challenges in proving who they are. We know that some folks don't trust current systems; others are not sure how to use them. And sometimes the systems to operate digitally just do not yet exist, and people are required to turn up to prove their identity, in person, with physical copies of documents.
Digital identity services give people the ability to easily share trusted information about themselves so that they can access the services that they need. They basically give people more control over their own data: who they share it with, and what they choose to share about themselves. We're talking, essentially, about critical infrastructure for the 21st century: the provision of secure, people-centred, interoperable digital services, such as social protection, healthcare, and finance. Digital identity has the potential, then, to deliver significant benefits to both the economy and to society, in both the public and private sectors.
We've seen this emphasized through the COVID-19 pandemic, when remote access to important services became critical. I think of things like the wage subsidy. For many New Zealanders, they learnt, they worked, and they were educated online. By modernising our approach to digital identity, we can build resilience in our system and set people up to be able to prove their identities online and share information online in a trusted way for future situations, no matter what they might be.
This framework set-up enabled by this bill creates a consistent, secure, and trusted approach to delivering digital identity services. One way of thinking about it, really, is as a set of agreed rules that accord with best practise, and if a provider wants to become accredited, they have to meet those standards to become an accredited provider of digital identity services under the framework. So those requirements that they'll have to meet will be set out in rules and regulations, and the focus of those rules and regulations will be on privacy, confidentiality, security risk, information and data management, and the sharing and facilitation factors associated with it. To ensure that the rules reflect best practice, a governance board will be set up to oversee the administration of those rules and also to consult with the right stakeholders when any changes need to be made to those rules. That includes stakeholders like the Privacy Commissioner or others who have already been accredited as trust framework providers.
In the contemporary era, we also need to make sure that the digital identity system for our country takes account of and reflects Te Ao Māori perspectives and approaches to identity. To that end, the bill establishes a Māori advisory group to advise the board on Māori interests and knowledge. This is recognition that we want to have a partnership arrangement with Māori and to uphold Te Tiriti—the Treaty—in these arrangements. So the board is required to seek the advice of the Māori advisory group that will be set up on matters of tikanga Māori and Māori cultural perspectives, and it will also have to consult more widely with people or groups that have expertise in Te Ao Māori approaches to identity, so that they are considered in the ongoing development of the trust framework.
To guarantee enforcement and to protect the security and privacy of trust framework users, the bill also establishes a trust framework authority. Now, that authority will be responsible for reviewing accreditation applications, but also for conducting investigations into potential rule breaches. And, indeed, if it finds a rule has been breached, it will have the power to issue a public warning or to suspend or cancel the accreditation of someone who has already been accredited or an organisation that's already been accredited to the trust framework.
The bill does also complement, I have to say, other work that I have under way in terms of a consumer data right, which will also give people more control over their own data and the way it's shared and used. These two things will work hand in hand, and I expect to have more to say on that later this year. But you can think of use cases like banking and banking data being shared with third party applications. That's one possible application of a consumer data right.
Through this legislation, though, we're also supporting efforts to reduce harm to New Zealanders that are posed by cyber-threats. We know that malicious activity online is becoming more and more prevalent, so it will be important that digital identity services have sound, consistent security systems based on best practice, and that will be reflected in the accreditation standards that are to be met. It's particularly important to note that because we are in Cyber Smart Week, this week—and I draw members of the House's attention to that important week of the year, where we're reminded to keep our cyber-hygiene up to date and to look at the advice that the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) provides for all members of the public and, of course, members of this House to follow to ensure that they are engaging in good cyber-hygiene practices. But I digress.
What we're proposing here is a giant leap forward for the digital economy as a whole. It will enable things like the sharing of health information, providing proof of qualifications, making induction processes in workplaces, onboarding for new jobs, much easier. There are a range of use cases which will likely be enabled by the use of this trust framework. The digital identity sector is ready and willing to provide these services, but what we've heard is that for interoperability, innovation, and collaboration to work best, it's important to have a clear, consistent, and coordinated approach. And that is what this trust framework achieves.
Part of what we'll see as a result, of course, is a better user experience. There'll be less need for physical documents for customers of institutions who are accredited to the framework. Customers will be able to be surer that their personal data is being handled safely, that shared information is in safe hands. Those things will be a real benefit to consumers.
It's also a fact that not all sectors will be able to pick up the benefits of this framework immediately; they are moving at different paces. And so that's why the bill makes accreditation to the trust framework an opt-in matter from the start. That ensures that providers can still deliver products to market while they work towards becoming accredited.
There is a wider benefit to this framework. It's estimated that around $1.5 billion worth of value might be added to the economy just through the increased security that this framework would provide. That is without counting the potential productivity improvements that may result from using online tools that are associated with identity. Now, that $1.5 billion figure for improved security through avoided losses is a conservative estimate, so it may well be worth more than that to our economy. So I hope all members of the House recognise that both social and economic benefits accrue to the use of such a framework. This bill will help realise those benefits.
As I work to close, I want to also acknowledge that this digital trust framework bill brings about mutual recognition with the Australian Trusted Digital Identity Framework. There's an attempt to coordinate to make sure there's interoperability there, and that was a pledge made—that there was an intention for this to happen—between our Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister in 2019 and 2020. Overall, it's fantastic news for the future of trade between our nations, that interoperability. 
Finally, I want to stress that this bill is one part of a wider digital strategy for Aotearoa that's being developed by this Government. It's a crucial pillar, though, because it helps support trust, which is very important to that strategy. Kiwis can trust that such a framework will facilitate safe and secure handling of their personal data online. Many benefits accrue to that. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)