THURSDAY, 21 OCTOBER 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA / PRAYERS
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia tau anō te rangimārie ki a tātou. 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.
[Let peace be upon 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.]





BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the House will consider the first readings of the Data and Statistics Bill, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Retail Payment System Bill; and further stages of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill; the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill; the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill; and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. Wednesday's sitting will be extended into Thursday morning.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:Petition of Kylie Whellan requesting that the House established a select committee that considers business related to all New Zealand's children's rights, care, and wellbeingpetition of Julie Zhang requesting that the House urge the Government to resume the parent resident visa or provide other visa options for parents of New Zealand citizens and residents who are already in New Zealand.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:Annual reports for 2021 of the:Parliamentary Counsel OfficeNew Zealand Customs Service incorporating the Border Executive BoardNew Zealand Parole BoardAccident Compensation CorporationDepartment of CorrectionsPublic Service CommissionDepartment of Internal AffairsMinistry for Culture and HeritageKāinga Ora—Homes and CommunitiesSerious Fraud OfficeAgResearchEnvironmental Science and Research LtdGNS SciencePlant and Food ResearchOranga Tamariki—Ministry for ChildrenAnnual reports for 2020/21 of the:Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, andNational Emergency Management Agency incorporating the Minister's reports on non-departmental appropriationsMinister's reports on non-departmental appropriations for:Vote Arts, Culture, and HeritageVote Business, Science, and Innovation, research, science and innovation portfolioStatements of intent for 2021–25 for the:New Zealand Customs Service, and theAccident Compensation Corporationand strategic intentions 2021–25 for the:Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeDepartment of Internal AffairsMinistry for Culture and HeritageOranga Tamariki—Ministry for ChildrenAccident Compensation Corporation service agreement, andOffice of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner corrections to the annual report 2020/21.
SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Building a stronger public accountability system for New Zealanders. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the:COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order 2021COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Using information to improve public housing services, Progress in responding to Auditor-General's recommendations.
SPEAKER: The COVID orders and report are set down for consideration.
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:Education and Training (Freedom of Expression) Amendment Bill, introduction.Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill, introduction.Financial Professional Services Trading Advice Transparency Bill, introduction.Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill, introduction.Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare. Kei te mihi atu rā ki te Kāwana-Tianara hou, ki a Cindy Kiro, i riro ia i tōna tūranga i tēnei rā. 
[Thank you Mr Speaker, and my greetings to all of us in the House. I acknowledge the new Governor-General, Cindy Kiro, who was officially appointed to her role today.]
Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. In particular, I stand behind the steps this Government has taken to support Māori whānau in responding to the impacts of COVID-19. The Government has continually provided support to our Māori communities, including our funding announcements last month that invested $22 million for Whānau Ora commissioning agencies to boost their work on COVID-19; $17 million to help Māori providers adapt their services to support the COVID-19 response; $14 million to help whānau access health services, medications, and hygiene products; $3 million to strengthen the Māori psychosocial response, ensuring whānau have access to mental health and wellbeing services; and $2 million to ensure providers have sufficient money to manage the long tail of the response, sustain their efforts, and prepare for future outbreaks. Having said all of that, we know that there is a lot more work to do, and we are committed to working alongside iwi, whānau, and anyone across New Zealand who can support an increase in vaccination rates. 
Rawiri Waititi: Why did she abandon the elimination strategy when, due to the lack of Government investment in power sharing, Māori vaccination rates are so far behind? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I would challenge the premise that sits behind both parts of that question, actually. We are committed to lifting Māori vaccination rates. Throughout this vaccination programme, we have worked with Māori providers on the ground to make sure that we get alongside those communities. It has not worked to the extent that everyone would have wanted it to, but it has been a programme of work that the Government has got alongside communities on, and, as I said in my primary answer, we know there's more to do and we're doing it. 
Rawiri Waititi: Does she accept that if she hadn't consistently ignored the advice of Māori health experts since the first outbreak last year, the Māori vaccine rates would now be much higher; if not, why not? 
SPEAKER: Order! Order! There's an assertion in the front of that question which makes it out of order.
Rawiri Waititi: Why are rural Māori communities like Ngati Porou having to use crowdfunding to fund-raise for their own mobile vaccination clinics if the vaccine programme and Māori equity are top Government priorities? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as she noted, she herself was in Ngati Porou - East Coast territory and was able to be part of mobile clinics working up there in Ruatōria, also in the Gisborne area, and, I think, at the opening of the Tairāwhiti Arts Festival—there was another mobile clinic there. So there are mobile facilities in the Tai Rāwhiti region. But, again, I don't disagree with the member: we need to do more, and that is what this Government is committed to doing. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Does having prominent Māori political figures actively discouraging people from being vaccinated help or hinder the vaccination effort? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we want the support of every community leader across all groups in New Zealand for the vaccination campaign. We do know that there are hesitant people in a number of communities, including the Māori community, and I want to thank members of this House who have stood up as community leaders. For those who, in the wider community, are not doing that, I ask them to reconsider that approach. We need all hands to the wheel here. 
Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. 
SPEAKER: A point of order related to this latest question? 
Rawiri Waititi: Well, it sounded like an assertion that there are Māori political people out there who are discouraging the vaccination. 
SPEAKER: Well, there are some things which are assertions and there are some things which are matters of fact. My old propping mate Pem Bird, who I played quite a bit of rugby against in the King Country some time ago, is properly described as a leading political figure, and I think, in fact, the member himself will know his history in that way. So it's just a matter of record. A further supplementary question—
Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. 
SPEAKER: No, a further supplementary—we've dealt with that. A further supplementary question? 
Rawiri Waititi: Another point of order, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: I am warning the member now: if this is not a proper point of order, he will have lost his supplementary questions which he would otherwise have. Is it a supplementary question or a point—
Rawiri Waititi: A supplementary. 
SPEAKER: Right. 
Rawiri Waititi: What specific actions has she taken to ensure Māori providers have access to data they need to boost Māori vaccine rates, rather than having to take civil action in court? A matter of fact. 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we work every single day with our team at the Ministry of Health, and through the Associate Minister, Minister Henare, in particular, around Māori health provision to make sure we're doing all that we can within the law to make sure that we support—the roll-out of vaccination data is part of that; so are many, many other things. 
Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I take umbrage to the fact that we've mentioned a kaumātua in this room that has taken a position of a professional physician in that particular community that has created that particular assertion that Māori are encouraging people not to get vaccinated. I think that's absolutely wrong.
SPEAKER: Well, the member will disagree with me on that. I rely entirely on the media reports of the former president or former kaumātua—leader—of his party who has taken a stand indicating that Māori should not accept the current vaccine. I have heard him and seen reports of him doing that, and so it is, as far as I'm concerned, a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion.




Question No. 2—Immigration
2. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his policies?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. I stand by the Government's border policies to protect New Zealanders from COVID-19 and position our economy for a strong recovery. This has meant taking some difficult decisions needed to maintain secure border settings, which continue to protect the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Where it has been safe to do so, we have adopted policies that have taken the pressure off migrants and their employers. I acknowledge some continue to experience difficulties as a result of the global pandemic. However, since closing the border in March 2020, we've issued a range of border exceptions. We've extended the visas of onshore workers and given them more flexibility in their conditions, and we've recently provided an additional streamlined pathway for a one-off residency stream for over 165,000 migrants currently in New Zealand.
Dr James McDowall: Will he consider expanding the criteria of the 2021 Resident Visa to include onshore student visa holders who have previously held eligible work visas but changed to a student visa to simply upskill?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As was mentioned when the announcement for the residency visa was made, it is very broad. We expect 110,000 applicants, meaning 165,000 people currently in New Zealand could be eligible for residency. The criteria are around people who have been settled in New Zealand who have skilled work or have scarce skills in New Zealand, in order to make a commitment to them and to employers who are relying on their skills, especially when the border is closed. The types of people that the member talks about are here as students and have come here to study, and if they find themselves in a position to apply for residency under the normal process, they can take that.
Dr James McDowall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question very clearly referred to those who held work visas and were, in fact, here to work and then they decided to subsequently study. The Minister referred to people on temporary visas coming in here to just be students, so he actually didn't address the question.
SPEAKER: Does the Minister want to further clarify? I thought he had addressed it, but maybe if he wants to make it a bit clearer.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Reinforcement: if they are currently on a visa for study, they are currently on a visa for study and therefore ineligible for the one-off residency. I would again reinforce that if they want to apply for residency at some stage once they have finished their studies and have become eligible for the normal residence process, they can do that, because this is a one-off residency process.
Dr James McDowall: Will he consider allowing eligible applicants who are split from their families to apply from December 2021 and, furthermore, to continue to process their Resident Visa applications if they choose to reunite with their families offshore after applying?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We've made it very clear that anyone who is eligible who is already in the queue with either an expression of interest (EOI) or an application in who is eligible for the residency visa can apply from 1 December this year. Again, with the border closures as they are, it is very difficult to be able to allow people to come in and out of the country, but as we have said, once people get residency, potentially from the residency visa itself, they are able to bring their families in, because they will also have the ability to get residence.
Dr James McDowall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about those who are eligible who can apply, and whether or not he will consider letting them go offshore to reunite with their families. That's nothing to do with—
SPEAKER: Well, in this particular case, that was addressed. It might have had some filling around it, but it was a "no".
Dr James McDowall: Can he commit to resuming selection of offshore expressions of interest for the Skilled Migrant Category at the same time as onshore selections in July 2022?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We have made a decision to not resume EOIs being drawn until we've undertaken a review of the residency settings. That is because the process around the residency visa will be the priority for Immigration New Zealand over the next 12 to 15 months. Depending on how the processing of those goes, we might be able to look at being able to do that sooner, but at this stage that is the plan.




Question No. 3—COVID-19 Response
3. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has he made regarding mandatory vaccination of workforces?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Last week, I announced that the education and the health and disability workforces will be required to be vaccinated to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. This follows on from the Government's earlier decisions for workers in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, our airports, and our ports to be vaccinated. Our education and health and disability workforces have done an incredible job through a very difficult time—a global pandemic—keeping themselves and other people safe. While most of the people working in those sectors are already fully or partially vaccinated, we can't leave anything to chance, and that's why we've made the very difficult decision to make vaccinations for people undertaking those roles mandatory. Vaccination remains our strongest and our most effective tool to prevent against infection and disease, and we need as many workers as possible to be vaccinated to allow sectors like these to respond to the pandemic whilst continuing to deliver everyday services with as little disruption as possible.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What will the changes mean for the health and disability sector?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 is currently being updated and it will require anyone conducting high-risk work in the health and disability sector to be fully vaccinated by 1 December 2021. Under these new requirements, GPs, pharmacists, community health nurses, midwives, paramedics, and all healthcare workers in sites where vulnerable patients are treated, including intensive care units, must receive their first dose of the vaccine by 30 October. These requirements also include certain non-regulated healthcare work such as aged residential care, home and community support services, kaupapa Māori health providers, and non-Government organisations who provide health services.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What will the changes mean for the education sector?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: From 1 January 2022, schools and early learning services and providers will need to maintain a register and ensure that only vaccinated staff and support people, such as volunteers, have contact with children and students. They will need to have their first dose by 15 November. This includes home-based educators and all those support people in our schools and early learning services, such as teacher aides, administration and maintenance staff, and contractors. Secondary schools and kura will also be required to keep a COVID-19 vaccination register for students. Students that don't produce evidence of vaccination will be considered to be unvaccinated. All school employees in Auckland and other alert level 3 regions will be required to return a negative COVID-19 test before they can return to work on the school site. Those who are not fully vaccinated in the period leading up to 1 January will also be required to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. Work is continuing at this point on whether further vaccination requirements will be made for the tertiary education sector




Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Hon Judith Collins: Will she travel to Auckland to announce her enhanced business support package and new COVID protection framework tomorrow?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, no; that announcement will be made here in Wellington. The member will be well aware that travel for members of Parliament up to Auckland and back down to Wellington has some restrictions around it in light of rulings by the Speaker.
Hon Judith Collins: So will she travel to Auckland at all during the current lockdown to speak to businesses struggling after 65 days of lockdown?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister speaks to people in Auckland on a daily basis. Her Ministers are in constant contact with businesses and business organisations across Auckland.
Hon Member: Helen Clark doesn't count!
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Judith Collins: If the Director of Public Health can travel to and from Auckland, why can't the Prime Minister?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've already answered that question in the answer to the first supplementary question. There are restrictions around being able to be in this House. I'm sure the member would be criticising the Prime Minister for not being in Parliament, in the debating chamber, if she was travelling to Auckland.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with Steve Gillett, owner of The Kingslander pub in the Mt Albert electorate, who said a $100 dine and discover voucher is "a brilliant idea, a very positive idea"; if so, will her enhanced business support package be adopting this policy to support struggling Mt Albert businesses?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government has contributed, since 17 August, close to $4.5 billion to support businesses, to be able to support them to keep their staff and meet their fixed costs as well. We are always looking at ideas for how we can develop that response.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with Auckland Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Michael Barnett in relation to his comments yesterday that National's Back in Business plan was a better balance of health and economics and addressed some of the failings and weaknesses in the Government's response?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I've a lot of respect for Mr Barnett, but I'm not sure whether he would have had time to go through all of the mistakes that were in the plan that National released yesterday.
Hon Judith Collins: Well, does she agree with Viv Beck, Chief Executive of the Heart of the City, that the Government needs to take heed of the National Party's plan and deliver for business on Friday?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government has been consistently working with the business community, not only in Auckland but all around New Zealand, to support people to stay in work. Over the last 20 months, working together with business, we have seen the economy grow better than many other countries around the world; we have seen unemployment go to 4 percent—that's 4 percent—which is an incredible result; and we've managed to keep our levels of debt lower compared to many in the rest of the world. We are working closely with business. That has delivered to New Zealand a strong economy, and we continue to do that.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with Retail New Zealand Chief Executive Greg Harford, who said yesterday, "It is really important a date is set for when we start to open up."; if so, when will she announce a date for opening up?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as was covered in the House yesterday, the most important thing in terms of keeping New Zealanders safe and being able to make sure that, as a country, we move forward positively together is getting the maximum number of people vaccinated and making sure that those vaccinations are spread across our communities. Setting a date without being clear about that seems, to me, to be a recipe for disaster.
Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Prime Minister aware that the total of all three rounds for the Resurgence Support Payment in Greater Auckland alone has been around about $582 million to help businesses with fixed costs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, and in fact the proportion of Auckland businesses receiving the Resurgence Support Payment has now grown to around 70 percent of the payments. It is targeting businesses in Auckland who are finding it tough. There is no one in this House who underestimates how difficult it has been for businesses and communities in Auckland. What we do have to do here is stay the course to make sure that New Zealand builds on the gains that we made last year and make sure that we come out the other side of this outbreak strongly. That requires all of us working together, with strong health advice backed up by a good economic support programme.
Hon Judith Collins: Why has the Government still not delivered a system verifying vaccine status, which would allow a million fully vaccinated Aucklanders to safely get back to work?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, on behalf of the Prime Minister, we have a vaccine certificate regime. That is being developed. We have already begun people being able to use and sign up to it, and we will be able to roll that out further in the coming weeks.
Hon Judith Collins: Why, eight months after she told this House, in February this year, it was being worked on, has she still not delivered the system, and why are we still hearing from the Prime Minister that it's being worked on eight months—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there was an excellent presentation given by staff members of the Ministry of Health on exactly how the vaccine certificate programme would work. There are people today who are already signing up for that programme. And there will be more to say about the role of vaccine certificates tomorrow.




Question No. 5—Trade and Export Growth
5. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcement has the Government made about reaching agreement in principle on a free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: Today, we announced the reaching of an agreement in principle on an inclusive, comprehensive, and high-quality free-trade agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom. This deal substantially cuts costs for exporters and businesses and creates opportunities for New Zealand businesses to grow and diversify their trade while boosting the economy as we recover from COVID-19. Alongside the negotiations, our two countries have agreed to work together in the coming months to extend and improve the current working holiday arrangements, and this will be part of a mobility dialogue that will start immediately. We've worked hard to land a deal that benefits all New Zealanders, delivering meaningful access for exporters, businesses, and people, and I want to thank all of those who have been involved in the negotiations.
Glen Bennett: How does this agreement in principle provide meaningful access for some of our key industries?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Just to take an example, our honey makers will enjoy no longer paying 16 percent tariffs on products they send to the UK. Our winemakers will be toasting a reduction in over $14 million worth of tariffs annually, as well as no longer having to face burdensome and costly administrative barriers in the UK market. Our butter and cheese producers will see significant tariff-free transitional quotas, providing opportunity to grow our trade through these periods. But it's not just primary exporters who will benefit from this. We've agreed to cooperation and commitments in digital trade to assist our growing tech sector alongside securing more certainty in market for Kiwi services wanting to access the UK's Government procurement programme.
Glen Bennett: How does this agreement in principle deliver on our trade priorities?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Significantly, this is the first bilateral FTA that we've negotiated in line with our Trade for All agenda where we seek outcomes that will deliver for all New Zealanders. The FTA creates a platform for cooperation on a range of issues important to Māori and will reflect Māori interests in key areas across the agreement such as in the intellectual property, trade, and environment chapters. The deal also contains the most ambitious commitments we have ever negotiated on the environment, including specific provisions on climate change and an agreement to take concrete steps to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels. Additionally, over 260 environmentally beneficial products have been prioritised for tariff elimination—the largest environment goods list ever agreed.
Hon James Shaw: Will enforceable provisions of the UK - New Zealand free-trade agreement align with both countries' climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, and, if so, how?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, while the Paris Agreement and the FTA are two separate agreements, the environment chapter does include provisions on New Zealand's and the UK's right to regulate to meet our climate action targets and wider environmental objectives. In the end, the answer to the member's question lies in the hands of this Government and all New Zealanders to be able to fulfil it.




Question No. 6—Finance
6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Did Cabinet agree on Monday, 18 October 2021 to all of the measures to be announced tomorrow in his enhanced business support package for Auckland; if so, what are those measures?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the question, the answer is essentially no. Cabinet did discuss the enhanced business support package on Monday. A group of Ministers were given power to act to finalise the details of the package. As to what's in it, that will be announced tomorrow.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen comments from Greg Harford, chief executive of Retail New Zealand, in support of a reduced corporate tax rate of 17.5 percent for an estimated 100,000 small businesses; and, if so, will this be included in his package?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We traversed this material yesterday, and I noted to the member that some of the businesses that he's particularly concerned about at this stage aren't making a profit and aren't paying corporate tax. I can tell the member that we will not be adopting that part of his plan.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen comments from Julie White, chief executive of Hospitality New Zealand, in support of a cash rental support scheme for struggling businesses; if so, will this be included in this package?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The package will be announced tomorrow. I think it's really important, though, that when the member addresses individual parts of the package that people support, when one takes a step back and looks at a package that falls into the same fiscal Bermuda Triangle that the National Party fell into at the election, where he thinks he can reduce revenue, increase spending, and slash debt levels at the same time—I'm sure the likes of Julie White and others, while they might appreciate an individual part of the plan, will be really questioning if the plan actually adds up.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen comment from the Business Events Industry Aotearoa in support of the Government underwriting an events insurance scheme; and, if so, will this be part of his package?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The package will be announced tomorrow. We have been working alongside the events sector for some time to support them. The best thing we can do for the events sector is have a consistent position that makes sure that we back a health-led approach with economic supports. That is what will help the whole of the New Zealand economy, as we've proved over the last year.
Andrew Bayly: Has he seen comments from Vicky Beck, chief executive of Heart of the City—
Hon Member: Viv Beck.
Andrew Bayly: —sorry, Viv Beck—in support of a mental health programme; and, if so, will this be included in his package?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The package will be announced tomorrow. We are very well aware of the importance of supporting not only small-business people but all Aucklanders with their mental health and wellbeing. As I answered in an earlier question, more money has gone into that area to make sure that we are meeting those needs.




Question No. 7—Small Business
7. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister for Small Business: What priorities for economic recovery in the Asia-Pacific region were identified by the recent meeting of APEC ministers responsible for small and medium enterprises?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): During the recess, New Zealand hosted a virtual meeting of APEC Ministers responsible for small and medium enterprises. Collectively, we agreed on the need to place small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) at the heart of our economic recovery. Further, APEC Ministers identified two clear priorities. Firstly, we want close attention on the role of digital transformation and digital tools to enable effective recovery. Secondly, the joint ministerial statement identified the importance of supporting the mental wellbeing of our SME owners. This is significant because it is, I believe, the first time that APEC Ministers responsible for small businesses have identified mental wellbeing as a priority for building resilience in the economic recovery.
Jo Luxton: Why is there a focus on mental wellbeing?
Hon STUART NASH: The mental wellbeing and resilience of SMEs and workers must be acknowledged alongside the efforts to improve the financial resilience of their businesses. We recognised that business owners belong to families, participate in communities, and have their own aspirations. The joint Ministers' statement now acknowledges that supporting small and medium business owners' mental wellbeing helps build resilience, engagement, and productivity.
Jo Luxton: What measures are supporting the financial resilience of small-business owners since the Delta outbreak?
Hon STUART NASH: Economic support has protected lives and livelihoods where it is needed most. In total, workers and businesses have received around $4.6 billion in direct financial support during the Delta outbreak, through five rounds of the wage subsidy and three rounds of the Resurgence Support Payment. About 1.1 million employees have been supported by the wage subsidy, plus a further 179,000 people who are self-employed. The wage subsidy has supported around 327,000 businesses. In terms of the Resurgence Support Payment, around 382,000 New Zealand businesses have received help to meet their fixed costs, with payments of more than $1.1 billion. Small businesses have received the lion's share of support: 61 percent by value of payments and 84 percent by volume of payments have gone to SMEs with five or fewer staff.




Question No. 8—ACC
8. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Does ACC take privacy seriously when it comes to sensitive claims?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Yes.
Jan Logie: Does the Minister believe it is appropriate for potentially dozens of staff across the organisation to be accessing sensitive claims repeatedly, even years after a claim has been closed, and without the claimant's specific consent?
Hon JAN TINETTI: On behalf of the Minister, as the Minister, I can't comment on individual claims or complaints. But what I can say is that ACC only provides access to sensitive claims to staff who need it to perform their role. Staff accessing a sensitive claimant's file will include recovery partners who work with them to organise supports and services. Other staff may also access the file—for example, where they need to make payments for services like counselling or transport. But each file is divided into compartments, so contact information and payments are separate from sensitive material relating to a claimant's injury. I am assured that ACC wants sensitive claimants to feel confident their privacy is taken seriously, and is exploring improvements to systems and processes with respect to access to information.
Jan Logie: What is the Minister's response to the recent Public Service Association ACC staff survey, which indicated some staff were uncomfortable with the amount of sensitive claims information they were accessing?
Hon JAN TINETTI: I have sought and received assurance from ACC that only staff who require access to sensitive claims in order to carry out the functions of their role have access. I am assured that ACC wants sensitive claimants to feel confident their privacy is taken seriously, and is exploring improvements to systems and processes with respect to access to information.
Jan Logie: Is the Minister concerned sexual violence advocates are saying, "There is a widespread and systematic problem of ACC staff having inappropriate access to the files of sexual abuse survivors"?
Hon JAN TINETTI: The Minister has sought assurance from ACC and, I reiterate, is assured that ACC wants sensitive claimants to feel confident their privacy is taken seriously, and is exploring improvements to systems and processes with respect to access to information.
Jan Logie: What steps are being taken to ensure staff who are subject to complaints of sexual harassment are not managing sensitive claims, as was reported this week?
Hon JAN TINETTI: As Minister, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual employment matters. However, all ACC employees are police-vetted before they are employed. Only staff who require access to sensitive claims in order to carry out the functions of their role have access.
Jan Logie: Will the Minister direct ACC to work with the sexual violence sector to ensure their privacy practices protect survivors?
Hon JAN TINETTI: I will reiterate that the Minister is assured that ACC wants sensitive claimants to feel confident their privacy is taken seriously, and is exploring improvements to systems and processes with respect to access to information, including those that have suffered through sexual violence.




Question No. 9—Health
9. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: How many people have worked on the health system reform since it was announced on 21 April 2021, and is he confident this hasn't undermined efforts to prepare our health system for COVID-19?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am advised that as at August, 78 individuals have made up the transition unit leading the reforms. Not all of these individuals are fulltime-equivalent. This is in addition to contributions from the core Public Service doing business as usual to support the work programme of the Government of the day. Thousands of other people have also contributed in over 500 engagements. They have included practitioners, support workers, administrators, and NGO representatives. To the second part of the question: yes, the overwhelming message we continue to get from the health sector is the reforms cannot come soon enough and we just need to get on with it.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, in that case, what does he say to the Auckland emergency nurse who told the New Zealand Herald: "overworked nurses fear hospitals aren't ready for the Covid-19 tsunami and often think about quitting."?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, I say that the work being done alongside DHBs to make sure that we have the surge capacity to be able to confront COVID-19 is well under way and is well supported and I have full confidence in it.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many extra fully-staffed ICU beds could have been funded with the half a billion dollars being spent to restructure the health system?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, what I know is that the surge capacity and the availability of beds, I am satisfied with. We know that work has been done since the first lockdown to make sure that there is enough capacity and there are enough beds. To the part with respect to the funding put forward for the health reforms, I'll repeat the part of the question in my primary answer, which was that the overwhelming message from the sector is that these reforms can't come soon enough, and they support what we're doing.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he take up the challenge of intensive care doctor Paul Young to "visit any ICU in the country and find one clinician (just one) who can show their newly staffed beds."?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, my humble yet hard-working colleague Minister Henare has visited Rotorua Hospital and has made sure to visit and talk to ICU workers and administrators and is confident that we have put in place the support that they need to make sure that they can continue to respond to COVID-19.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did his Government wait until month 20 of the global pandemic to set aside managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) spots for international healthcare workers, and is that delay one of the reasons a thousand operations a week are being cancelled?
Hon PEENI HENARE: On behalf of the Minister, we know that COVID-19 has provided particular challenges at the border. We know that as one of our best tools of protection is at the border, and it's important we maintain the integrity of the MIQ system. We have allocated the opportunity for health practitioners to come into the country to make sure that they can continue to support the work that we are doing to respond to COVID-19, and I'm also confident that the current health sector that we have are doing a fantastic job, something that's lost on that member.




Question No. 10—Internal Affairs
10. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What work is she progressing to keep New Zealanders safe online?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The COVID-19 global pandemic has brought to light the ability for mis- and disinformation to rapidly spread online and cause harm. It's a complex issue that jurisdictions across the globe are battling with. As Minister of Internal Affairs, I am progressing with the latest iteration of our Keep It Real Online campaign, targeted at 13- to 18- year-olds. We've released another episode of The Eggplant miniseries, focused on misinformation. It has now been viewed over 90,000 times, and social media content for the new episode has been viewed over 2.5 million times. The campaign explores how easy it can be to take information at face value without checking the facts.
Dr Emily Henderson: How will this work help young people make informed decisions online?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Equipping young people with the tools to determine fact from fiction has never been more critical. I know some schools are currently grappling with combating misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. This will be particularly critical as our year 11 to 13 students return back to the classroom. I encourage schools and students to keep having honest, open conversations about the importance of vaccinations. Engaging tools such as The Eggplant miniseries and supporting material are available online to schools, and I encourage these conversations to occur. While we must protect freedom of speech, we also must ensure people have the tools to determine what is fake and what is real.
Dr Emily Henderson: What legislation is currently being progressed by the House to protect New Zealanders from objectionable content online?
Hon JAN TINETTI: This week, the House passed the second reading of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. The bill addresses online harms at the more extreme end. It makes important changes to protect New Zealanders from objectionable content, such as a terrorist attack being livestreamed online. The second reading was significant because the bill passed first reading with only the support of the Labour Party, but passed second reading with the support of Labour, National, the Greens, and Te Paati Māori. I would like to thank the former chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Barbara Kuriger, for working with me to improve the bill. I would also like to thank the current chair, Ian McKelvie, for progressing the bill. This is an example of this House working together to pass quality, sensible legislation to keep New Zealanders safe online.




Question No. 11—Education
11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Education: When are the more than 200,000 year 1 to 10 students in Auckland likely to return to school, and what risks, if any, to students has he been warned of that could result from missed time in the classroom?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government has not yet made a final decision on when years 1 to 10 students in Auckland will return to learning on a school site. I would note that since our current restrictions have been in place, students have been supported to learn from home, and I want to thank our teaching community for the enormous amount of work that they have done to ensure that those young people are supported to continue their learning when they're unable to be physically on the school site. The Government is aware of the risks of having students away from the school site for a prolonged period of time. That is one of the reasons why we have worked very hard to ensure that schools can stay open over the last 18 months and have, up until recently, had one of the lowest rates of school closure in the OECD. We do have to balance up the risks to children's education with the risks of COVID-19. We are acutely aware of the fact that, for primary school students in particular, when those schools reopen, they will be the highest concentrations of unvaccinated people in the country.
Nicola Willis: What analysis, if any, has he sought to measure the likely impact of schools reopening to years 1 to 10 students versus the harm to achievement and family wellbeing that will occur if schools don't open this year?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Those things are very difficult to measure. In fact, some students continue to learn very successfully using distance learning technology or other means of distance learning. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that, for some children, they do slightly better in their academic achievements through distance learning than they do from face-to-face teaching. However, there are significant social benefits, in terms of kids' social development, of them being back on a school site. It is difficult to quantify those things, though. The Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research have all looked at the impact of the disruption on children's learning last year, where there is some data available, and it found, it would be fair to say, that the overall analysis is variable. Some students did better, and some did worse. But we are, of course, aware that—well, we are committed to getting kids back on to school sites so that they can resume a more regular schooling pattern as soon as it's safe to do that.
Nicola Willis: Does he anticipate that ongoing school closures will increase inequity in students' educational achievement, given the vastly different home circumstances children are now expected to learn in, and the likely impact that this will have?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that is a very real concern. Absolutely that is a concern. It's one of the reasons why the Government has, over the last 18 months, gone to great lengths to try and level some of that playing field, but it is true to say that equity continues to be a significant concern. So we've connected homes that weren't otherwise connected to the internet. We've provided digital devices to children who otherwise wouldn't have access to them. We've produced hard packs of materials that have been posted out to young people across the country, when they've experienced disruption to their schooling, to ensure that they can continue their learning. But it is absolutely true to say that the social and cultural capital of a child's home does have an impact disproportionately on their learning when they are having to do learning from home.
Nicola Willis: Has he heard concerns from Tangaroa College Principal Davida Suasua that many students will not return to school following ongoing closures, saying, "They said, 'We're not coming back.' … It's really disheartening because … these students are very academically able, their pathway was to go to university, their pathway was to a career [and now they're not coming back]"?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I have seen comments like that, and further comments that are similar to that, and those comments are very concerning. I don't want to see young people missing out on their education and the future opportunities that that provides them. One of the reasons that the Government has made the decision now to allow senior secondary school students to return to learning on site from next week is that we do want to decrease the chances of those young people disengaging from learning and not coming back to school, and we are aware that the longer the schools remain closed, the more students there will be in that category. So, yes, that continues to be a concern.
Nicola Willis: Does he expect all secondary schools to reopen for years 11 to 13 students on Tuesday, 26 October, and what will he do if he learns that some schools have chosen not to reopen on that date?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do expect them to reopen; however, within that, schools do have some flexibility, because schools will have to be open for the required number of half days that they have to be open. So there will be a prorating of the number of half days that they won't have to be open, based on the recent level 4 and then level 3 restrictions that have been in place. But, once that requirement to be closed is lifted, they will need to comply with the requirement to be open for a specified number of half days between now and the end of the year.




Question No. 12—Conservation
12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding Jobs for Nature investment that supports the fight against myrtle rust?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Earlier this month, I announced a Jobs for Nature - funded collaboration between communities and scientists in a crucial step in the fight to protect some of New Zealand's best known native plants. We're talking about the iconic Kiwi Christmas tree, the pōhutukawa; rātā; mānuka; ramarama, which is the home of our honey industry where myrtle rust poses the biggest threat. Five million dollars has been invested across two projects: one each in Te Tai Rāwhiti and the Bay of Plenty to focus on monitoring myrtle rust infestations, mapping its spread, and ramping up the propagation of plants showing the most resistance to the disease.
Angie Warren-Clark: What are the details of the project in Tai Rāwhiti?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Whakapae Ururoa: Community Myrtle Rust Surveillance Project will track spread and infestation at critical sites across a 27,800-hectare stretch of the mighty East Coast coastline led by local conservationist Graeme Atkins, who has been monitoring myrtle rust on the East Coast since he observed its appearance a few years ago. The work utilises ground knowledge and biocultural monitoring approaches and will be linked into a localised and national reporting system. Seed collection, storage, and propagation protocols will be developed alongside the mana whenua and local capability developed to oversee the collection and propagation of native seeds across the mighty East Coast.
Angie Warren-Clark: What are the details of the project in the mighty Bay of Plenty?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I'm not sure—
SPEAKER: Is that a valid question?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Sir, I was just going to raise that same point myself. Heoi anō, look, the Jobs for Resistance project in the Bay of Plenty will identify where the most vulnerable myrtle species are in the native forests in the Bay of Plenty region, determining the extent of each population, and record the incidence and severity of myrtle rust within them. This is a project that is a collaboration between Scion and many of the local iwi in the region. Cuttings will be taken and seed collections started, with the intention of establishing a resistance breeding programme. Together, both projects will employ at least 15 people over three years to undertake this crucial work.





SPEAKER'S RULINGS
Interpretation of "Business Attire"
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in interpreting a Speaker's ruling 17/7. I know you may not be used to being asked for sartorial advice, but are Air Jordans an example of business attire?
SPEAKER: Well, I'd tend to say it would depend on the business you were in. The business which Air Jordans are normally associated with, in my interpretation, is not quite the business that we expect to take part in these precincts. I am, however, taking a lot of care around further interpretation of sartorial elegance and business attire in the House. I think it is a case of twice burnt, I'm not going to do it again.





POINTS OF ORDER
COVID-19 Vaccination
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm bringing up a point of order at my earliest convenience, after reading through the Standing Orders. A comment you made, Mr Speaker, around a member, a kaumātua, advising Māori not to take the vaccination, when, in actual fact, there is an article in the Waateanews.com, if that's not a viable source of report, where Mr Bird says, "My body is my body. It belongs to me. It does not belong to the State. I will make the decision for myself. I have my own mind. I am te mana motuhake." Not once in that article does he talk about advising Māori not to take the vaccine. He is pro—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member wants to take that matter up with me further, and we can, I'm sure, produce other reports, I don't want to undermine Waatea News, but it's not my general place of reading and, therefore, I was not relying on that report. I'm just saying, because there appear to be another couple of members who feel like giving assistance on this matter, don't try it.





FINANCIAL SECTOR (CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: 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 Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
We have a climate emergency, and today, with the passing of this legislation, New Zealand is on track to become the first country in the world to implement law requiring our financial sector to explain how it will manage risks and opportunities into the future. This is a landmark day. The financial sector will be required to supply clear, consistent, and comparable information, which will help with the efficient allocation of capital and markets, and over time we will see that this will have an impact on climate risk and opportunity. We will see investment patterns change for the betterment of our climate.
I want to begin today by thanking all of those in the financial markets industry who've worked alongside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), and who've worked alongside the Ministry for the Environment, in the shaping of this legislation to make sure that it achieves its objectives.
I want to thank those who submitted to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and who gave their time and expertise to make sure this law achieved its purposes. And, of course, I would be remiss not to mention the Hon James Shaw and his contribution, as he has championed this project from the start, so I do acknowledge James Shaw's not insignificant contribution, in that respect. I also want to acknowledge one official, actually: Geoff Connor, from MBIE—him and his team. Geoff, now retired, has devoted a good deal of time and expertise to this project. I believe it kept him some time from his retirement, and I do want to place on record my thanks for his contributions.
I want to emphasise this is a big deal. This legislation will make a meaningful difference to New Zealand's ambition to achieve carbon neutrality. One of the most significant risks that our economy faces is actually climate-related risks, and while businesses are at the point now where they acknowledge those risks, we have not seen consistent reporting on them, and we have not always seen good, clear information that would inform day-to-day decision-making, that would inform where investors put their capital now. It has tended to be viewed as a longer-term issue. Well, these risks and opportunities, if they're not accounted for, cannot be accurately priced, investors cannot put their money where their risks are least, and, with it, we have a delay in climate action.
This bill aims to correct the current information gap, and it will do this by requiring around 200 of our largest financial market participants in New Zealand to disclose clear, consistent, comparable information about the risks and opportunities that their business carries so that we as investors, those who relate to financial markets, can make the choices that will shape our future.
There are four main elements to this bill. The first is it introduces a mandatory climate-related disclosures regime for most listed issuers along with large registered banks, licensed insurers, and managers of registered investment schemes.
The second thing it does is it requires these disclosures to be made in accordance with standards that will be issued by the External Reporting Board (XRB). Just yesterday, Minister Shaw and I launched the first consultation on these standards that will be issued by the XRB. They'll be in line with the recommendations of the TCFD, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose work was published a number of years ago and is well known, and they, of course, responded to the Financial Stability Board's request to provide those recommendations. They're now considered international best practice and are being more and more widely adopted. At the start of this month, somebody worked out that TCFD recommendations are now supported across 89 countries and jurisdictions. There are over a thousand financial institutions responsible for assets of nearly $US200 trillion that have regard now to these standards.
The third main element of the bill is the Financial Market Authority's responsibility for monitoring disclosures and enforcing compliance using its existing statutory powers, and the fourth key element is that the XRB will be able to issue guidance material on environmental, social, and governance—or ESG—reporting, and other aspects of non-financial reporting. That guidance will be incredibly important as we transition to this becoming standard practice for businesses. And I expect to see wider take-up beyond those 200 who will be mandated, as investors start to demand clearer reporting, more consistent reporting.
Countering climate change, of course, is a global priority, and this legislation is in tune with a number of international developments in the short to medium term. Other countries are on record stating their ambition to have mandatory disclosure regimes. The UK wants to have this in place by 2025. Australia, Canada, France, Japan, and the European Union are also working towards some form of climate risk reporting for companies. Globally, financial market regulators have increased their focus on climate risks too. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority requires UK-listed commercial companies with a premium listing to disclose against the TCFD recommendations for accounting periods beginning at the start of this year. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has highlighted climate-related risks as a systemic problem in the Australian market and recommended the same TCFD framework be used by listed companies.
We're seeing this more broadly. In the run-up to COP26, the most consequential United Nations climate change conference in years, investors with $46 trillion in assets under management are urging Governments to adopt five key priorities. And it will surprise no one in this House now that they realise the importance of this legislation—that adopting standards in line with the TCFD recommendations is one of those priorities that those investors are recommending as a response to the climate crisis.
The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee made a number of important amendments, and they included excluding smaller listed issuers from the disclosure regime so that it would be a proportionate regime, removing the disclosure explain provisions to achieve clear and comparable records so that we didn't have two duplicate systems running, so that we can compare them all. That means that all entities will be affected—well, we know all entities will be affected by climate change to some extent, so it will be reported proportionately to those entities. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee amendments also remove the assurance practitioner licensing regime whilst maintaining the mandatory disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions so that a fit for purpose regime can be designed.
There was a Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) considered during the committee stage of the House, and I want to thank members for, I think, a high-quality debate. Some disagreed with aspects, but I think it was a good debate in this House, I have to say, and I look to members opposite speaking and I acknowledge their contributions. This SOP amended some provisions that had come back from the select committee, to make sure that they were tidy. The first change closed a loophole around the appropriate measure to assess the economic significance of debt issuers. Another change made it not an offence when an assurance practitioner's report did not meet the applicable auditing and assurance standards. We want an industry of assurance practitioners to build up here who have the capability, and we don't want to be overly punitive at the start of this regime. And, indeed, to that end, another change was achieved with that SOP that increased the time frame for assurance practitioners to send their qualified report to the regulators from seven to 20 days.
I am delighted that we have got to the third reading of this bill, that we will be the first country in the world to put ourselves on track to mandatory climate disclosure regime reporting, and that we will expect our companies to disclose their risks, their opportunities, around climate change—not just in the long term but for day-to-day investors to understand how they are shaping their businesses and how they are taking account of the growing risks to their businesses of being overly dependent on climate-unfriendly technologies or practices. This bill takes an important step to correct the ongoing and systematic overvaluation of emissions-intensive activities. It strikes the right balance between transparency for investors and consumers and proportionate costs on disclosing entities.
Today is a day that we in this House, I believe, can be proud of. We've provided better, clearer information to markets for efficient allocation of capital—not sexy words that roll off the tongue, but they do matter; they do matter. At a time, today, when we pass this bill, we will be voting not just for better information in markets; we'll be voting for a better future for this planet. It will be a win for financial markets and it will be a win for the climate. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Listening to the Minister's speech and I'm so excited by the legislation! We've done so much. New Zealand's playing its part, we've fixed climate change—until we read the legislation and, actually, if the intent that comes from the speech was in the bill, we would be achieving much, much more than we are here today.
I remember when I was studying, when there was enthusiasm for a cause, when one showed leadership, when one actually got up and made the case, they would want to give a reward and it would often be a chocolate fish, and I was going to offer the Minister this chocolate fish that comes from the whips, a seat behind me, until I heard at the beginning of his speech, him say, "This is a landmark day for this Parliament." I've decided to keep the chocolate fish and eat it myself in a moment. The reason for this is, actually, it doesn't do anything in as far as the companies are concerned that are covered by the legislation in how they act when it comes to climate change. It doesn't make them change the vehicles that they drive. It doesn't mean they should fly less if the Government decides flying around the world or just within New Zealand is bad for climate change. It doesn't do any of those things. It doesn't encourage them to meet the Government's commitment of the country being carbon neutral by a date in the future. What it does is gets them to spend a lot of time looking at the effects upon climate change upon their investments and whether or not that may have some impact upon them in the future or not. Doesn't say if climate change does have an impact upon them that they have to or should change what they're doing; merely that they should actually go out and have a look and assess these sorts of things.
In that respect, it's not a harmful bill because, I suppose, the Government has a view that these companies have lots of spare time on their hands. But when the Minister says this is a landmark and that it shapes the future and all the other things that he said, actually, I'm not allowed to say that that's misleading, but it's certainly not giving the clearer picture of what this bill does.
We have spoken at each stage of this about our concerns—National is supporting it, but our concerns are about getting it right, about not overburdening enterprise unnecessarily. That does not say we don't support this, nor that, actually, the entities that are covered by it shouldn't go through a procedure to report. But the problem we have here is that procedure for how they will report is not available yet. The Minister said that yesterday he and James Shaw launched a consultation process. There's a lot of achievement this week! A consultation process on what the reporting standards may be in the future. But, actually, as this has to happen within 12 months of entry into force, we made the case at other stages, and make it again, that, actually, for a number of these entities—which are very large businesses—the time frame with which they'll have to report actually is likely to be too short. I hope the External Reporting Board will take that into account and do its work quickly because actually, yes, it's important that they meet what the law will say that these enterprises, these companies, have to. We also want them to be doing what they need to, which is, actually, employing people, growing their businesses, helping the Government repay some of the debt that they've racked up over a period of time just as a result of COVID.
Regulation is not bad, but bad regulation is bad, and too much regulation does have an impact, it does have an effect. We also made the case all the way through that the public sector and the private sector should be the same. The Government has given a carve-out, an exemption, to its own entities and its own companies, and that actually sends the wrong signal. Now, Mr Shaw said in the committee stage, "Actually, they're covered later on in a different way. We might do some more." But the signal it sends to the private sector is: one rule for you, a different one for us when it comes to what the Government does. The Government says that, well, they can instruct these companies as to what they want them to do with their letters of expectation, but, actually, what it says in this document, in this law when it's passed: if a company doesn't meet the requirements of the law, they break the law. And the Government is really saying to the private sector: one rule for you, a different one for us, we know best. I think it sends the wrong signal.
The final area that we thought actually there needed to be a change—and we put in proposals for this, the House didn't agree—was around the need for those who have no impact on them at all from climate change to still have to go through a lengthy period or process to be able to report that it has no impact upon them. We think, actually, they should have the ability just to explain if it is the case that climate change doesn't have an impact upon their investments—not even their investments, on their business, then just explain the reason why and that would be enough, but they have to go through a process. It could be lengthy, it could be very, very expensive to say, "Nothing to see here." In the case that a company did that, explained it doesn't have an impact upon them and it does, they've broken the law. These are very large companies, many of them listed. Actually, they take their responsibilities seriously. We are burdening some that this legislation shouldn't apply to, but that's just very much the way of this Government, I suppose.
National supports reasonable law when it comes to New Zealand doing our part as far as climate change is concerned. It's a shame that Minister Shaw is jumping on a plane with a lot of other people to fly to the other side of the world and this is all he really gets to wave at them—that New Zealand has passed a law very, very quickly that doesn't actually make companies change what they do in as far as their own footprint is concerned, but all they're going to do is report. In that respect, it's a shame because the Government could have done much, much more here. We will be supporting it because it sends a signal, but merely sending a signal does not mean that this is a good day for this Parliament or that there's a landmark deal. And I'm sorry, Minister, I'm having the chocolate fish.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it's a shame actually that Todd McClay wasn't on the consultation launch yesterday. There were just shy of 600 people. I was scrolling through the list of participants. It's a pretty large group of people interested in where this thing is going and it is a shame that Todd McClay wasn't on it, because then his speech would be better informed and less ignorant than what we just saw.
There are not a lot of good news days when it comes to climate change, but today is one of them. Today is a good news day in the domain of climate change and I want to start by thanking the Hon Dr David Clark, who has led this bill through the House, through to its completion. I am very grateful for the work that he has done as well as all of those people from the financial markets industry who have worked alongside officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as well as the Ministry for the Environment—grateful for all of their hard work to make sure that the legislation delivers on the objectives. I also wanted to thank all of those who submitted on the bill, and obviously the members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, for all of their hard work. 
There were a number of improvements that came out of that process, and I think it is again very good news when you can see how a bill is improved by the quality of submissions that are received both on paper and through that select committee process. So I do want to thank all of those people who actively engaged in it, because it is now a better bill than it was when we started and, as always in these processes, there are areas which were discovered during the process and remedies that were applied towards that, so that is good.
Despite the kind of fairly sweeping generalisations and inaccuracies in the National Party spokesperson's speech just now, I do want to thank the National Party for their support for this bill. It does demonstrate that it is widely supported. It does reflect the fact that when the Government went out in the previous term to consult with the community, saying, "Should we be introducing a mandatory climate-related financial disclosures regime?", 86 percent of private sector submitters were in favour of a mandatory regime. National, of course, purports to be the party of business, so it's good to see that they're not so out of touch with the business community that they weren't able to reflect the enthusiasm with which the private sector has embraced this legislation.
The reason why—and it is unusual, of course, for business to say, yes, actually we would like a mandatory regime that we can all be a part of—is because actually it is now widely understood that climate change does represent a real material risk to business. But it is difficult on a voluntary basis for companies to report, because, in showing the risks that they are exposed to, if their competitor businesses don't also do that then that company, no matter how good its intentions, is exposing itself in ways that its competitors are not. So the reason why mandatory reporting was so widely supported in the private sector was because people felt that it would introduce a level playing field and actually make it easier for them to report. And obviously the financial sector fund managers, analysts, directors and so on are also very interested in ensuring that this information comes to light, because of the very material risks.
Now, I would like to just start with the genesis of this legislation, just to remind the House where this has come from. As it happens, I was at the conference of the parties in Paris. I was in Opposition at the time. I was there as a guest of the then climate change Minister Tim Groser. He had started what is now a longstanding approach to bipartisan participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. Of course, I have continued that in extending the invitations to the Opposition spokesperson to join us along on those, and unfortunately it's been somewhat ungraciously declined this year, which I think is a signal of the kind of backward steps that the National Party are taking when it comes to climate change, desperately trying to get themselves out of the bipartisan consensus that their predecessors were involved in starting.
So I was over there as a guest of the then climate change Minister, the Hon Tim Groser, but of course because I was in Opposition I wasn't involved directly in the negotiations. I went along to the launch of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which was chaired by Michael Bloomberg and Mark Carney, who was then, of course, the Governor of the Bank of England. These two gentlemen are particularly dry, economically, You could not accuse either of them of being radical hippies in any sense, but the language that they were using really was sounding the alarm, and there was a key phrase that I think Mark Carney used. He said that in their assessment, in the assessment of that task force, there are literally of trillions of dollars of unquantified, undisclosed and therefore unmanaged risk sitting on corporate balance sheets as a result of climate change—trillions of dollars of risk that is not known about by the directors or the shareholders of those businesses, and of course that represents a material risk to those businesses themselves. It represents a material risk to the owners of those businesses. Actually, it's so wide scale it also represents a risk to the financial system itself, which is why central banks like the Bank of England are so interested in supporting this climate-related financial disclosures regime and why our own central bank, the Reserve Bank, was so keen for us to adopt this legislation.
That risk falls into roughly two categories. The first is kind of physical risk, if you like: do I have assets that are on the coast that are exposed to sea-level rise or on flood plains; do I have agricultural businesses that will be exposed to risk from increasingly severe and frequent droughts or floods or storms or, in some cases, wild fires and so on. So the physical risks that are associated with climate change.
Maureen Pugh: That's rubbish—you know it.
Hon JAMES SHAW: And of course the second category of risk—coming from the West Coast! The second category of risk is related to what we call stranded asset risk, and that is, of course, that as the world transitions particularly away from fossil fuels or other high emissions intensive industries, my investments in those businesses may actually degrade over time.
Fossil fuels are, of course, the kind of most obvious example of this. We know scientifically that we cannot burn 80 percent of the known reserves of oil and gas and still be able to stay within 1.5 degrees of global warning. But, of course, the valuations of those companies on the stock exchange is based on the idea that you can extract and burn 100 percent of those reserves. So therefore that represents a very significant write-down risk for those companies, and you can see that starting to flow through. Particularly, I think it was BP not all that long ago had a huge write-down of some of their reserves on that basis. And so without being able to assess, to have a methodology for assessing these risks, directors, investors, fund managers, and analysts are in the dark about the scale of the risks that their investments are exposed to. 
What that means is that they cannot price risk, they cannot allocate capital in a way that makes sense. Of course, you know, as the previous speaker mentioned, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not going to continue investing in oil and gas or in other industries that are exposed to those risks, but they can at least price that risk according to the scale of the challenge that is in front of them. But, of course, the safest thing to do is to allocate your capital to low emissions businesses that are resilient to the effects of climate change. 
And so what you will see as a result of this legislation and the standards that are being produced by the External Reporting Board is people starting to make decisions about where to put their money in ways that ensure that it is safe over the long term. Of course, what that will mean is that businesses will themselves start to make decisions about how to reduce their emissions profile, how to build up their adaptive capability and their resilience. That is about creating momentum in the economy away from the very high pollution economy that we've had in the past towards a low or even zero emission economy in the future. 
So in that sense, it is a small intervention. You might think that corporate reporting by itself is, you know, particularly dry, isn't necessarily going to make a difference, but my firm belief and the belief of many people around the world is that it's going to make a significant difference. I commend it to the House.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I didn't sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, but I know enough from just reading what's going through on this bill to know that this bill really should be renamed. I think it should actually be named something along the lines of "Passing on best wishes to James Shaw as he takes off to Glasgow and wants to re-enter and experience the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities in New Zealand as he returns—maybe on his own; maybe leaving the other 14 or so members overseas." I think the process he's going to have to endure in those MIQ spaces will be his reward. So when he gets to Glasgow—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm just going to remind the member that we're debating the bill as agreed by the committee of the whole House. That is not part of this bill, so he should move to the bill.
ANDREW BAYLY: So as I say, there's no doubt that Mr Shaw is going to be able to talk about this bill when he's in Glasgow. The issue with this bill is that we have no issue with an aspect of businesses moving towards meeting their climate change objectives and managing their investments well. The key issue is how that's achieved, and making sure we do it in a practical manner and actually achieving the results we want to see in terms of businesses over time reducing their emissions and helping the country meet its climate change objectives. So there's no issue with that.
The first thing I'd note about this bill is that, of course, it is a legislative solution to the issue. It's not one that's been led or allowed to be led by the industry. I know industry participants have been involved in the process. But in many cases, there are many industries that willingly would do this, but this is a legislative hard nut to achieve that outcome.
So yes, we support the bill, but we do have certain issues with it. I think a lot of that we covered yesterday in the discussion with the Minister. I'm very grateful for the Minister acknowledging the discussion yesterday in the committee of the whole House. At least we found out and got final clarification as to the threshold, after some time, namely that the $60 million threshold at which, if you're a debt issuer or an equity issuer, if you breach that or you have a larger listed element of that, then you will be caught under this provision if your valuation at the date of your balance sheet means that you exceed the $60 million.
So one of the questions we raised yesterday, obviously, was what happens if during the course of the year you trigger the $60 million, but then come back under the $60 million at balance date. It was made clear, finally, by the Minister that it's only at the balance date that the critical period is assessed.
The second one is the area of whether unlisted securities were included in the calculation of the $60 million and, again, finally, we got a result on that. It only relates to listed elements of debt and equity. Never got, actually, a clear definition of what equity is. Equity has many forms, and I think there was, perhaps, a view that equity is a bit too difficult to define, because you can have quasi - equity instruments, and I don't know how this is catered for in the bill. That's the first thing.
The second issue, I think, is the issue around standards, and the Minister pointed this out before, that the External Reporting Board will be the group tasked to actually determine the standards. Obviously, they'll be working off the international task force that's been set to set those standards. Of course, for industries or companies looking at how this might affect their reporting requirements, we now wait to see what the standards are that will be put in place. I would only urge that the standards that are ultimately agreed are prudent and appropriate and do not overreach, and certainly don't go beyond what is actually recommended by the task force. We do have a tendency to take what happens overseas and then actually end up making it more difficult.
I think one of the greatest concerns is whilst we might start out with broad rules that will be helpful, over time what happens is they become increasingly more complex. You just need to look at the Resource Management Act from when it was passed 25 years ago and what it looks like today. I just hope that there's a discipline around the standards that are actually agreed upon and implemented.
Then there's the third issue around who are the assurance practitioners who are going to prepare these reports for the 200-odd entities that are going to be captured initially under this bill. It does come back to what the standards are, because the standards will dictate what are the skill sets of those people, how they're going to do their work—there's a short reporting period of that—and by what means will they be licensed. What requirements will they need to be licensed? I presume the Financial Markets Authority is going to do that. None of that, of course, has been set out yet. Of course, both those elements have got to be done over the next 12 months.
So there's quite a lot of work for this to be put in place quickly in order for the companies, the reporting entities, to actually meet their requirements, which, of course, now under this bill will be required within 12 months. One of the Supplementary Order Papers that we debated yesterday was whether, in fact, they should be delayed, but the Government saw fit to refuse to delay it.
The other issue is this one about why only private businesses are captured by this bill, and the reliance on Crown entities and State-owned entities to be, basically, captured under these requirements through ministerial letters of expectation. Again, we just think that is a wrong approach. If it's good for the private sector, it should be the same rules applied to Government sector organisations. In many cases they are even more well-resourced to do this type of thing. That lack of consistency is an issue for us.
The other final aspect I just want to talk about is the issue of the comply-or-explain approach. What this bill did—and it got taken out during the bill's process through the committee—was the ability for companies to look at their arrangements and say, "Look, I don't think we're necessarily captured under these. We don't have significant climate change issues in our businesses." It might be a totally digital type of business that doesn't have a large footprint, and the ability to be able to issue an explain notice would have been very helpful, and I think a pragmatic option for some businesses—not for all businesses—but it would have been a pragmatic approach. But that was removed during the select committee stage, which means that every single organisation must engage an assurance practitioner, go through the process, the costs involved in that, and the reporting of that.
Of course, this all means quite significant things for investors, because I think one of the issues that's going to arise from this is that these larger entities may look to divest themselves of anything that potentially gives rise to risk. I think the issue that the Hon James Shaw was referring to, which was stranded assets—I think what we don't want to see is businesses deciding not to invest, for instance, in better processes to use coal in steelmaking as a way to reduce emissions over time, as there's a transition to other technologies. What we'll see and could possibly see is there's a general reluctance to look at anything that is perceived to have a significant climate change risk. I think if that leads to that outcome then that will be disappointing, because to migrate to new technologies takes time. I think if this bill cuts across that, then that's a lost opportunity. But anyway, National is supporting this bill and we look forward to seeing how it's put into place over time.





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on a wonderful day in this House where we can support the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
Now, it's also an awesome day when you can see the Minister of Consumer and Commerce Affairs and the Minister of Climate Change come together to work on legislation for our future, work on legislation for the betterment of our environment and our climate. It's been a pleasure to be part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that has tracked with this legislation, has moved its way through.
I want to say a huge thankyou, this afternoon, to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for their hard work, as well as the Ministry for the Environment, but particularly—and I know that the Hon Minister David Clark said earlier that he wanted to thank the principal policy adviser Geoff Connor. Now, Geoff Connor was a champion of this piece of legislation. He walked us, guided us, pushed back, encouraged, and explained all those tiny and huge questions we had. Geoff is now retired, with this piece of legislation as part of his legacy and the work that he's done. So thank you to Geoff Connor for the work that you did for us in this piece of legislation.
But I'm really grateful today that this legislation ensures that our financial organisations disclose and that they take action against climate-related risks and opportunities. Now, the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand said, "New Zealand retail investors want climate clarity"—want climate clarity—and this piece of legislation gives that clarity. So, as a member of the select committee, I'm grateful to the work that we did, the work that this House did, the work that our Ministers have done, and I am glad that we're the first country in the world to bring this into law, and on that, I commend this bill to the House.





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I am delighted, as well as my colleague Glen Bennett, to stand and take a call on this bill. I wasn't a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee; however, I will say that I have had the pleasure of working with the Hon James Shaw on climate change legislation and I know how complex it gets. So I do acknowledge his expertise, as well as the Hon David Clark for the work that he has done on this bill, to bring it to the House and to get it through in what is, I guess, an extremely important area for us all. 
When I read this legislation I thought about climate change and I thought about what I, as a person, could do to support the elimination of climate change or the changing so that we don't get past that 1.5 degrees heating. And one of the things is, if I am lucky enough to have funding or lucky enough to have money to invest, I'd like to know where that money goes. I'd like to know that it's ethical. I'd like to know that, perhaps, when I put that money into something that it isn't going to disappear with stranded assets or, shall we say, go into something that I think is perhaps now no longer a useful investment, but also for me, perhaps, something that I'm not happy to invest in morally or ethically as well. 
So what this bill does is it makes it really clear, makes it really transparent, that large banks, large insurers, large managers of managed investment schemes will disclose where they're investing and what they're investing in. So the information is going to be consistent, comparable, reliable, and clear. It's going to tell us where that money's going and it is going to be a great tool to change the way that we think about our money and we think about our investments. I commend it to the House.





Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker, and sorry to spoil the party. I'll just take a very short call on this, the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There have been a lot of regulations and mandatory regimes passed very recently in this House, and this one looks like an accountant that went and got a marketing degree!
The troubling thing—one of the troubling things—is the significant costs this could bring to business. And with that, obviously, mitigating emissions and looking after the environment, and reducing externalities for business, is the right thing to do and it's important, and transparency on that is important, and consumers will demand it, but responsiveness does not require costly and highly prescriptive legislation like this. I don't even know if this would be illegal under the Plain Language Bill, to be honest! So, look, this is, potentially, micromanaged greenwashing.
And the final thing I'll add on this is that I'm afraid the National Party's stance on this has just been totally confusing. They've given, in every reading of this bill, speeches in total opposition. I'm still waiting for them to actually say something positive about it other than the fact that they're apparently supporting it. So, yeah, totally confusing! But, anyway, as I said, sorry to spoil the party, but we're opposing it.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Oh, what a day. It's a good day to chuck my support in behind this bill, the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Can I say that this comes at a time when the nation is very concerned about climate change, about the impacts that it's going to have—but, more than that, actually, plenty of businesses are, too. Lots of businesses are understanding that, actually, making sure that we are looking after the environment is everything; that, actually, consumers demand consideration of the effects of climate change and how businesses are going to be able to help in that. Businesses that have picked that up and run with it are actually seeing the benefits of that.
What this bill does is it responds to some of those concerns that we as a country, we as a globe, have when it comes to our climate. In fact, we've declared a climate emergency. What this bill is, initially, it is a first in the world. It is the kind of bill that is going to require the financial sector to disclose the impacts of climate change on their business but, more importantly, how they are going to do that.
As I said before, this isn't something new. This is something that plenty of businesses have had to grapple with, as well. I thank all of those people that presented their submissions to the committee, that were carefully considered. This bill is still going to pass. This is a good thing. For that reason, I commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this is a split call. I call the Hon Scott Simpson—five minutes.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Listening to Government members, and particularly the Minister, one would have thought that this was epitome of the Prime Minister's climate change emergency declaration and it was the most important step towards her generation's nuclear-free moment. But once you scrape aside the excited rhetoric coming from Government MPs, and particularly the Minister and even the climate change Minister himself, what's left is actually a small, worthy step forward in climate change legislation, but it's not the great panacea that has been painted by speakers in this debate, either this third reading or earlier stages as this bill has progressed through the House.
So on this side of the House we are supporting it, but we are acknowledging that it is just a very, very small step, because it actually doesn't change anything in terms of climate action. This is a Government that speaks a big game about climate action and delivers almost nothing. In fact, the Minister is on his way to Glasgow very shortly, and I'm sure he will be using this as an opportunity to say, "Look, New Zealand is doing its piece, it's doing our bit, we're doing what we should—what we said we would do." Well, actually, if this is all he's got to wave around, then it will be worthy of Greta Thunberg's further—
Stuart Smith: Admonishment?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Admonishment—yes, admonishment. I was going to say something that was probably unparliamentary, but "admonishment" is a good word, Stuart Smith. "Admonishment" is a good word. 
So what this piece of legislation does is it actually is that small step forward to have 200—just 200—entities report in a consistent, regulated, measured way the risks relating to the investments that they have in terms of climate impacts. Now, that's of itself, not a bad thing, but it's a very small step in the right direction. But it is a part of an evolution in accounting practices, and it's not too dissimilar to the changes in accounting practices that occurred in years gone by in terms of triple bottom line reporting, when businesses started taking into account environmental aspects in their business practices in the way that they reported to shareholders and stakeholders and indeed to customers. And it's also not dissimilar in a way to the changes that occurred in the last few decades around accredited third-party standardisation of a range of factors in business—the International Organization for Standardization accreditation programme, and I can remember being involved in businesses that went through those programmes. It wasn't so much because, initially, the business wanted to do; it was because our customers and stakeholders and shareholders wanted us to do it. An earlier speaker actually made mention of that. So that will be a prime driver. 
What we have seen in other countries is that it's actually often business that leads climate action. That's certainly been the case in the United Kingdom, where they've had the equivalent of our zero-carbon legislation for more than a dozen years now. And any analysis of that legislation in the United Kingdom shows that actually it's not parliamentarians passing pieces of legislation that actually goes to make change in the commercial and business world; it's actually the business sector itself, being encouraged by their customers, by their stakeholders, and by their shareholders that will be leading the call for clear, consistent reporting of what they are doing as a business in terms of their climate action, or inaction, and what the risk or opportunities might be for them as a commercial entity. 
So on this side of the House we are supporting this piece of legislation. We think that it is a small step in the right direction, but not the silver bullet that the Minister or the climate change Minister, James Shaw, would be wanting to make it out to be in terms of his trip to Glasgow and his attendance at COP26 in the very near future. So a small but worthy step in the right direction, nothing to be jumping all around and joining hands and singing "Kumbaya" about, but a step in the right direction none the less.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Happy to rise and take a call, in a sense in support of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I was not a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this particular bill, but I do note that I have had an opportunity to speak on the first reading, second reading, and now third reading of the bill. What it does is seek to make some amendments to three pieces of legislation that currently exist. And, when I reflect right back to the genesis, in terms of that first reading contribution, the focus is around businesses being able to look and report some of those non-financial aspects that are so important, I'm sure, to them but also to us and the position that we have globally looking out as well.
As the Minister has said, this will assist us on our journey on getting to a net zero carbon emission target by 2050. And I guess, you know, we can hear the contributions from members opposite; the reality is that this a new business as usual. This is a new business as usual opportunity in that there is some good work that is being done. Already, there is good work being done in this space, in terms of our NGO sector, and the natural progression, of course, is in terms of our business sector and the opportunities that will be presented as a result of that as well.
It's pleasing to see that, with the select committee process and then with the Supplementary Order Paper process as part of the committee of the whole House, this bill in its current form at third reading does provide an opportunity to, I guess, express in a positive way some of the changes that were considered as appropriate by the committee. I do think that the end result is a tidy bill that, I'm hopeful, will pass its third reading. On that basis, I'm happy to lend my support to it.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
I do want to start out, though, by actually referencing Mr Shaw's speech, where he alluded to National breaking the bipartisan approach to climate change, which is absolutely false. In fact, I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise, but it was at my instigation that the National Party actually got a look at the climate change report before it came out. It was never offered—so much for a bipartisan approach. I had to actually seek a meeting with James Shaw to get a look at that report before it went out, which I think was pretty poor form, actually. Well, you know, no surprises, I suppose. 
But there's been so much made of this by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, who, I'd have to say, has in the last couple of days seemed to have found a new lease on life. Dr Clark—his enthusiasm to take up the full 10 minutes and almost filibuster on every bill he's spoken on is in stark contrast to the other members on that side of the House, who, if they make two minutes, it is actually quite a record. But, anyway, we'll give him marks for enthusiasm—that's great. 
This bill is important, but the importance has been over-exaggerated quite significantly by quite some margin. I think Scott Simpson said it was a small step. I would describe it as one small step for New Zealand, but a giant leap in terms of PR and spin. It will have limited effect, if any, on climate change. This is actually all about having something for James Shaw and the New Zealand Government to announce at Glasgow, rather than anything that will make a material difference along the way. 
There were some significant issues for this bill that we could have tidied up. But, unfortunately, the Government members didn't support those, and I think the Hon Todd McClay made a very good point about those businesses that don't actually have an exposure to climate change or any effect in their business, by either their ownership of property that might be exposed to sea-level rise or flood risk, or their investments and other matters that qualify under the bill. But by virtue of their size, they have to report. By virtue of that requirement, they may have to do some needless reporting. We don't know what the reporting is, because we have to wait and see what the External Reporting Board is going to come up with. What is going to be the requirement, we don't know. 
So we pointed out a few of those issues in the committee of the whole House yesterday, but, instead, we're rushing this through. Quite clearly, perhaps, Mr Shaw is off to the airport at the moment, with his other 19 or so comrades that are off to Glasgow. 
But the reporting standard procedures are important and we should have known about those. I think that businesses will move in this space as fast as their customers demand, as fast as their competitors move—or perhaps a little faster if they see an advantage in it—and as fast as their investors will demand. All those forces are already in play, and businesses, if they are successful in any way—and all these businesses are, or most of them, anyway—are very aware of that every day. A lot of these businesses are financial institutions and insurance companies, and all of those entities are in the business of measuring and assessing risk every day. 
This is just another risk. It's a very important risk, but it is a risk, and to actually package this as a giant step forward in the battle against climate change, I think, is a huge exaggeration. It doesn't serve any other purpose other than to give the Minister and the New Zealand Government something to trumpet at COP26 in a couple of weeks, when we really should have been doing stuff. They declared a climate emergency and have done anything but act with urgency in this space, and New Zealand's emissions, which were tracking down under National, have gone up significantly ever since they took over as Government in 2017. 
So with that, it's a qualified commendation towards the House. Thank you. 





RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm delighted to be the final speaker on this third reading of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Like some of the speakers before me, I've spoken on all three readings of this bill.
I recall, in my first speech, expressing some sadness that the bill wasn't being referred to the Environment Committee. The previous speaker, Stuart Smith, said in reply that it was appropriate that it went to the Economic Development, Science, and Innovation Committee. I'm sure that that is right, but why I thought it would have been a good idea to go to the Environment Committee—although we are very busy—is that, of course, this bill is about climate change, and climate change is something very important for both New Zealand, the Pacific, and the world.
This bill deals with both mitigation and adaptation, and that is through the standards that are looking for risks—so, really, that adaptation-thinking around climate change—and for opportunities, so the mitigation part of it. So it is a great bill that I'm very happy to be speaking on. Like many of the previous speakers have said, we need to tackle climate change in many and varied ways, and this is one of those many and varied ways. 
We've heard from the Opposition—from National, at least—that it sounds like they want to do much more in terms of climate change, and, I think, in both mitigation and adaptation. That brings me great joy. I'm very happy for National in the Opposition to be so ambitious around climate change, and I really look forward to more bipartisan movement in that direction.
What this bill does is it really focuses companies on their reporting requirements. How companies often work is that when you require them to report on something, then that means that they really pay some attention to it and it incentivises change. In this case, it is also useful that we're pricing, really, the risks and opportunities. It is true to say that many assets won't hold their value in a low-carbon world, and so we need to look to incentivise these opportunities. So for those reasons, I'm happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third 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 third time.





REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (RCEP) LEGISLATION BILL
Third Reading
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth: I present a legislative statement on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of our trade Minister in support of the RCEP Legislation Bill. The bill has undergone the scrutiny of the parliamentary process. Its first reading was in May of this year, followed by its extensive examination by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. At the second reading, last month, the select committee recommended that the bill proceed without any amendments, and earlier this week the committee of the whole House made one minor, technical amendment. The Government would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of this bill since its inception—from members of Parliament, select committee members, members of the public, civil society, and business representatives. The wide participation in the development of any bill is important, and even more so with this bill given the Trade for All agenda of the Government.
This bill is required for New Zealand to meet its commitments under the RCEP agreement, and most of our obligations are met through existing legal frameworks and policies, with only a small number of legislative amendments required. Therefore, this bill is an omnibus bill that amends three areas: the Tariff Act of 1988 and the tariff and Customs and Excise Acts of 2018.
Being part of RCEP is important to New Zealand for a number of reasons, but first we consider the broader environment in which RCEP and this bill sit. Across the world, before the pandemic, we were already experiencing an unsettled and unpredictable international environment. There was great pressure on the trading system, with growing protectionism, increases in non-trade tariff barriers to trade, and more overt geopolitical rivalries at play. Now, COVID-19 has impacted us all and, for our businesses, it has created great uncertainty, disrupting supply chains and creating difficulties for exporters. The pandemic has brought home to us the importance of being a champion for international trade and seeking economic cooperation. Against this backdrop, RCEP is important as it will bring real, direct commercial benefits to New Zealanders and companies.
The 15 RCEP parties, when looked at collectively, represent almost a third of the world's population, and for New Zealand, RCEP includes seven of our top trading partners. RCEP parties already take over half of New Zealand's total exports and provide more than half of our direct foreign investment. Pre - COVID-19 trade had been flourishing, with New Zealand exporting more than $36 billion worth of goods to RCEP economies and nearly $12 billion worth of services. The RCEP region will continue to grow in importance for the prosperity and security of New Zealanders. While India's withdrawal from RCEP negotiations in late 2019 was disappointing, a fast-track accession process remains. Should it wish to re-join in the future, it can, and India continues to be of great importance to New Zealand and we greatly value the relationship with it. New Zealand will continue to broaden and deepen the political, cultural, and economic links that we enjoy with India.
RCEP is expected to increase trade flows in the Indo-Pacific. Some of RCEP's tangible benefits will come from providing tariff reductions and removals, new investment opportunities, and new export markets. There are many notable gains in services and investment. China and the largest Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries have made investment market access commitments to New Zealand for the very first time. And RCEP sees the strong benefits for our goods and exports by including provisions to address non-tariff barriers, such as expectations for customs administrators to the release of perishable goods within six hours. But RCEP's benefits primarily come from the single set of trade rules that streamline export requirements, provide greater certainty, and enable higher business confidence. All of these contribute to an improved environment to facilitate trade. These common frameworks will help ensure that New Zealand business becomes part of the wider supply-chain networks within the Indo-Pacific region.
Against the commercial and strategic benefits of RCEP, it is also important to consider the implications of New Zealand not joining the agreement. In this case, New Zealand exporters may be excluded from regional supply chains, representing lost opportunities for New Zealand. Modelling indicates that New Zealand's GDP would be about 0.2 percent lower, or $900 million, if RCEP proceeded without New Zealand as a part of it. Conversely, once RCEP is fully in effect, New Zealand's annual GDP will be between 0.3 and 0.6 percent larger as a result of the agreement, and that amounts to between $1.5 billion to $3.2 billion in annual GDP. As we can see, the trade effects of RCEP will be material, and these economic benefits are not just concentrated on a few exporters, but half of New Zealand jobs come from the tradable sector. And, over that time, the economic benefit to New Zealand from these changes will be considerable.
A second major benefit of RCEP is its strategic significance for New Zealand and the region. The Indo-Pacific is of critical importance to New Zealand, and we have strong people links across the region, visible in the make-up of our multicultural society. It is also the location of all of our current free-trade agreements, from bilateral agreements and arrangements with individual economies to larger ones like this one before us today. At RCEP's core is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The agreement has been ASEAN-led and demonstrates that ASEAN is committed to ongoing regional economic integration, and New Zealand is committed to the objective. Joining RCEP ensures that we will be at the table where decisions affecting our interests will be taken. It reinforces our place in the region and sends an important signal of New Zealand's openness to trade and commitment to the rules-based international trading system. As is in the name, RCEP is a regional comprehensive economic partnership. It provides the framework for increasing economic integration at a time when trends of protectionism are rising. It demonstrates that Governments, even in challenging times, are able to compromise, engage for cooperation, and provide commitments to each other. And these commitments in the trade and economic sector space also bolster New Zealand's ability to engage on the political and security issues that matter to our region.
This leads to the third major benefit from RCEP and its contribution to the recovery of New Zealand and the region from the COVID-19 pandemic. When implemented fully, RCEP will become the largest trade agreement in the world. Given the difficulties of COVID-19 and the challenges for the international trading system, this achievement cannot be underestimated. Right from the beginning of the pandemic, New Zealand moved quickly to keep supply chains open for essential imports, reduce trade barriers, maintain connectivity, and keep air links open while shipping constraints continued. And, as the pandemic continues, New Zealand's response has adapted. We know that trade is a key driver for prosperity, and that is why enabling trade is a key part of our recovery strategy.
The trade-focused support has three main pillars: retooling support for exporters, refreshing the international trade architecture, and reenergising and refocusing our key trade relationships. New Zealand businesses and exporters, in particular, have been facing challenging times, but we've also seen how resilient they can be when the situation is up against them. The Government recognises this, and our commitment to RCEP is part of our response. RCEP will create more security and certainty for New Zealand exporters, forming a relatively more predictable trading environment for our companies. It is in this context of the challenging trade environment that diverse and robust trade relationships are more important than ever. They're important for the resilience of our supply chains and for the economic prosperity of New Zealand and our region.
Lastly, RCEP is an important trade agreement for New Zealand as it protects our right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes. New Zealand's standard exception for the Treaty of Waitangi has been included, and RCEP does not include provisions for investor-State dispute settlements. We retain the ability, for example, to screen investment in sensitive land and assets and regulate for legitimate reasons such as in the interests of health, the environment, labour, and for security. And RCEP preserves rights that New Zealand holds close. New Zealand's participation in RCEP shows that, when New Zealand pursues trade, it does it not just for our own sake; it is a means to an end because, done well, we know that trade can lift the living standards of New Zealanders and secure the future prosperity of our country. In such turbulent times, it is important that New Zealand continues to lead the way as a responsible, proactive, and engaged global participant. This bill will enable New Zealand to ratify RCEP and be part of the agreement and to see the benefits from it. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Today is a great day for New Zealand's traders and exporters, particularly in light of the announcement of the signing of an agreement in principle with the UK. It is only right that we in this House acknowledge the work here by the Minister Damien O'Connor and his officials. I'm sure, though, he would also acknowledge the work of the National Party and the former Ministers like Todd McClay and Tim Groser and the platform that they laid since negotiations began in 2016. So to Minister O'Connor and his officials, who I'm sure are all listening, it's been a long road, but, ultimately, they have signed an unprecedented deal, and we are glad that they have taken the time to serve up a comprehensive agreement, and we offer our congratulations to them. 
We are, however, here today to talk about the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and for our Parliament to ratify this deal and bring its implementation one step closer. In opening up access to 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, RCEP will bring tremendous opportunities to manufacturers and producers across the country. It will cover trade in goods, trade in services, investment, economic and technical cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement, and other issues. It also recognises ASEAN's centrality in the emerging regional economic architecture and the interests of ASEAN's free-trade agreement (FTA) partners. 
While RCEP, though, is a good step forward, when we hear what was negotiated with the UK and the scale that that opportunity brings, it pales in comparison. New Zealand already has FTAs with RCEP members but was able to achieve new market access into Indonesia with a range of our products. It's a solid agreement, but it's not spectacular. It will be supported by the National Party, but India needs to be included in this membership and we need to keep at it and bring India in. It is, after all, a $2.8 trillion economy and the world's second largest population. India, by the way, is now wishing to conclude a comprehensive FTA with Australia, which it began negotiating in 2011, and likewise, the UK is now pushing an agenda.
RCEP's conclusion without India means New Zealand needs to start applying far more effort on improving our trade position with that country. Since the last National Government, this Government has engaged in almost no ministerial engagement with India. It was both illuminating and disappointing to have heard that from Meka Whaitiri in this House during the committee of the whole the other night. Her representations indicated there is seemingly no urgency from this Government. That needs to change if we're going to land an FTA with them as a priority.
RCEP is less comprehensive and ambitious than the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership but is none the less useful in that it brings together a number of New Zealand's key trading partners. As I've mentioned, there was some additional market access to Indonesia and the agreement on the clearance of perishable goods will be welcome to our exporters. In a world of rising protectionism, it's heartening to know or to assume, at least, that the ratification of this deal will be supported by member states and political parties here in New Zealand, with the notable exception of the Green Party. 
Currently, we export $82 billion in goods and services every year and trade supports 600,000 jobs in New Zealand. That's partly due to our country's liberalised trade agenda, but also to the agility and ambition of our exporters, particularly our primary producers. If its intention is achieved, RCEP will promote economic integration, establish a consistent framework of rules, and increase market access for world-class goods and services that we produce here. That opportunity will come with the RCEP agreement. It's expected to significantly reduce complexity and compliance costs for exporters through a single rulebook that covers all 15 markets.
RCEP's entry into force will occur 60 days after the date on which at least three non-ASEAN signatories and six ASEAN signatories have notified their intention to ratify. New Zealand will join Japan and China as three non-ASEAN signatories who have completed their domestic processes, and several other ASEAN members are reported to be very close. The National Party welcomes the ratification of this deal, and I commend this bill to the House.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, well, that was a great speech, great reading, there. Next week, she'll be on to chapter books. But, look, this is a great bill, and it is just another step forward and part of the response to COVID, because we know that trade is such an important part of our response to COVID, led by our primary industries. And, as was noted, it is a largely Pacific partnership, but India is an important part of the picture. We look forward to, hopefully, opening negotiations with India on that fast-track process referred to by Minister Kris Faafoi.
The other thing to note is this is yet another example where the Treaty of Waitangi has been recognised as a protected part of New Zealand's law and that the New Zealand Government is permitted, under this Treaty, to do things which would otherwise be in breach of free-trade agreements, because the Treaty is given precedence, and that's a great feature emerging out of our trade negotiations, and, of course, another piece of the puzzle, along with the free-trade agreement that has been agreed in principle with the UK.
We look forward to our borders being opened up to much more free-flowing trade in the future and a strong economic recovery led by this Government. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It's a very important piece of legislation; you wouldn't assume so—anybody listening in—from the way that Duncan Webb just started his speech. He's lucky he is an MP, because as a comedian he would be actually looking for the wage subsidy! The reason I say that is that this House hasn't had enough opportunity to celebrate high-quality trade deals in the four years that Labour has been in Government. This is the first one, actually, that really has been concluded that has had any real negotiation by the Government—or that was started before they were there. The other one, of course, was that one that they campaigned against and held signs against—the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—and they changed the name and then accepted it when they came to Government. 
I'm glad that the vast majority of members of the House support this, because New Zealand is a trading nation—600,000 jobs; all of the produce that is made, manufactured, and grown in New Zealand. We are not a country that is wealthy, and without good access to foreign markets, we would be much, much poorer for it.
We'll hear in this debate, as we did in other stages, that the agreement could have been more, and in some areas probably should have been, but we'll recognise how challenging it is to negotiate a multilateral agreement, as this is, across a number of countries. The very good news is, although we haven't heard it from members opposite, that the majority of the members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), we already have trade agreements with, many of which are better than this—some of the TPP members, the ASEAN countries, and so on. But every piece of agreement negotiated that actually moves New Zealand forward, opens a door—even if it is only slightly—for New Zealand exporters, gives them assurance, and creates a rules-based system, is worthwhile.
I want to caution, though, those who trade with India and have listened to the debate, the Minister previously in earlier stages, and then members of the Government now, when they talk about India. They say they want to welcome India back to a fast-track system; it will not happen. The reason it will not happen is because, actually, the only way that New Zealand will have a trade deal with India of any worth is a bilateral one. There have been many, many negotiating rounds, because there is a trade agreement with India on the table. It is a bilateral agreement. It is not an agreement with many other countries involved. It is not the TPP. It is not RCEP. It is a bilateral trade agreement. There will be more than nine rounds. It is very difficult and very heavy going. 
That is now where the Government should put its effort and its emphasis: a bilateral agreement with India. The reason for that is: if India was to come back to RCEP, we would get some gains, but they will not be the same gains as we get as a bilateral agreement. When we hear that they are looking towards the UK, India, and Australia, it would be extremely bad for our exporters if Australia or the UK had a trade agreement with India before New Zealand does. So it is one thing to say, "Well it's a shame they've gone away.", as the Minister said, reading his speech in a previous debate, "The door is open for India". We're not a large country. An economy like that does not need a trade deal with New Zealand, as few countries in the world do. The only way we've ever had trade deals presented to us is from Ministers getting on planes, or Zooms at the moment, and going and continuing to return and make the case of why a high-quality free-trade agreement (FTA) bilaterally is good for both sides.
That is why there was a FTA announced in principle with the United Kingdom today, because when the UK announced that they were looking to leave the European Union, do you know who the first country to turn up there was? It was New Zealand—New Zealand Ministers. And New Zealand Ministers went again and again and again to make the case, as they had, under the previous Government, to the European Union—spent more time overseas than in New Zealand, in the interests of New Zealand exporters, to make sure we got a free-trade deal with the UK, because every single country was knocking on their door. So today is a good day for New Zealand exporters and it is a good day for New Zealand consumers, for New Zealand workers, and for our economy, because a deal that was started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government with the United Kingdom has been landed. It won't be perfect, but it is a very good step forward. The next one has to be the European Union and then, finally, the Government should also be able to do two things at once: they should be talking to India and putting every single effort in they can.
As far as RCEP's concerned, I am very pleased that Indonesia is part of this. New Zealand started a trade dispute formally with Indonesia, I think, in 1993, 2003/1993, with Indonesia over the export of some horticultural products, particularly fresh vegetables and beef. Our exporters were treated very badly. Our beef exports to Indonesia were about, sometimes, second highest of any country. They diminished quite, quite significantly because of barriers that Indonesia put in place. We took the issue to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, at every step of the way, the WTO found in our favour. What this agreement now means is we have a rules-based system—as well as the WTO, which doesn't always work effectively well and is very slow—to address concerns we might have with a country like Indonesia. I had the opportunity to visit there a number of times, as trade Minister, to make the case to allow them to, you know, let our beef come back in there. It is a country of younger people who are starting to get educations, who will grow in wealth very, very quickly—maybe not the same wealth we see in other trading nations of Europe and so on, but it will grow quickly. It is a very large population. They will want the protein, the goods, and some of the services that we produce in New Zealand, and they will want them in abundance. We will only be able to rely upon Indonesia as a market, so that New Zealand companies will invest effort and time and the resource into growing relationships with other companies in Indonesia, if there is a fair rules-based system to be applied there. 
If the WTO hadn't worked as well for us, or as quickly as we'd wanted, RCEP is a step in that direction. But I would encourage the Government and the Minister to do much, much more in this space. We are only as good as our last trade deal. We now have a new one today which is better than RCEP, because it was bilateral, started by the National Government, continued and finished by a Labour Government. It is good for New Zealand. That Minister now must use the UK agreement as the framework, as the benchmark, as the minimum that he seeks from other countries. The negotiation with the European Union must be as good as the UK one, otherwise we have missed an opportunity with the EU. As far as India is concerned, it is a very good place to start with that negotiation, because when the UK goes to India and says, "We want a free-trade deal as well.", they will talk about the deal they got with New Zealand. As a starting point, we should do the same thing. If this Government can deliver a high-quality deal with the European Union and with India in the last two years before the election, they will have done a good thing for New Zealand exporters, they will have done a good thing for the New Zealand economy, and the country, our exporters, would start to forgive them for the hollow protest they made over TPP for many years, holding up signs saying that it was a bad deal, and the moment they got to Government, they changed one word in the name and they accepted it.
The final point I'd make to the last speaker, Dr Duncan Webb, is around the Treaty of Waitangi clause. It is good that it is there, but the Government shouldn't take responsibility for that, because it has been in every single deal that New Zealand has signed for some period of time. Irrespective of the Government, when we go through a negotiation, we explain our special position when it comes to meeting obligations under the Treaty. It doesn't give us the opportunity to break free-trade deals, but it does give us the opportunity, in our own way, to meet any obligation we may have through the Treaty. It has been negotiated in all those deals and should be in future. It is a good thing it is there. It is not a surprising thing it is there, because, actually, it now becomes a mainstay of the agreement New Zealand negotiates.
This is good that we are supporting this, because it is good for our exporters. It opens a door just a little bit further for us on the world stage, particularly when it comes to South-east Asia, a market of growing importance to New Zealand. But we shouldn't rest on our laurels and congratulate ourselves too quickly or too often or too much in this House; you've got to move on to the next trade deal, which has to be the European Union and it has to be India, and I'd love to hear from the Government where to after that. Thank you.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. I just want to address a couple of the opening comments from the previous speaker that's just sat down, the Hon Todd McClay. The irony of the previous member's comments speaking around energy and alternative careers for the previous member that sat down before him—perhaps if he was a greater trade Minister, he'd be the trade spokesperson for the Opposition. But nevertheless, we will carry on.
This bill gives effect to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. As noted earlier, RCEP is a treaty-level free-trade agreement agreed by 15 countries: 10 ASEAN, as well as Australia, China, Japan, and South Korea. This bill supports the Government in our plan to be able to secure our recovery. The Government has committed to leveraging our successful COVID response to position New Zealand globally as a safe and secure place to trade with, to invest in, and—eventually—to visit again.
We will continue to pursue high-quality and comprehensive trade agreements that diversify our trade relationships, as seen in the historic free-trade deal with the United Kingdom announced today. Once fully implemented, RCEP will be the largest trade agreement in the world, so I congratulate the Minister and his officials for getting this far.
The Minister acting on behalf of the Minister who is not in the House—acting on behalf—said in his speech, "In such turbulent times, it is important New Zealand continues to lead the way as responsible, proactive, and engaged global participants. This bill will enable New Zealand to ratify RCEP to be part of the agreement and to see benefits from this." So, on that, I support this bill, and I commend it to the House.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just before I take that member's call—apologies to the member—I just remind the member who's just resumed her seat that she does not refer to a member who is absent from the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I'm pleased to take a short call for the Green Party on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. I also note an element of irony that the Hon Todd McClay was talking about Ministers spending a lot of time overseas in the interests of New Zealand exporters and yet the National Party has criticised the Hon James Shaw for going overseas to represent New Zealand and get a decent climate agreement. Somehow, trade agreements are more important than climate agreements. That's certainly something I don't agree with. I also like to acknowledge Golriz Ghahraman, the Green spokesperson on global affairs and trade, in lockdown in Auckland, who would normally be speaking on this bill. 
To make it very clear: the Green Party supports trade. We are a small island nation. Trade is a crucial generator of our economic wellbeing. We need to import a whole heap of things that we don't manufacture here—from electric vehicles to medicines, personal protective gear—and we benefit from that bigger global market for the food, fibre, and other products that we produce. Half the jobs in Aotearoa New Zealand are in the tradable sector and, as the Minister noted, our trade has been really critical to New Zealand's economic performance in relation to COVID. The Greens want trade that is fair, that is inclusive, and that is sustainable. We want trade rules that protect and allow us to reinforce our climate commitments, workers' rights, human rights, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi; not agreements or trade rules which cut across those. 
The Trade for All agenda, which the Greens have engaged with, does have a basis for a new way of negotiating these agreements, but it's unfortunate that there are very few of the principles in the Trade for All agenda which are reflected in the RCEP agreement. And it's critical that we move to that new way of negotiating agreements and the provisions in them because, as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) and the massive demonstrations around the world and here in Aotearoa showed, there is no public confidence in agreements which are negotiated in secret where you've got big corporate interests having access to the negotiators in a way that the public doesn't have, where those who aren't participating have to rely on leaked texts rather than a transparent way of negotiating. So that sort of an arrangement does not provide a basis for public confidence. 
This RCEP agreement, which is across a region covering almost a third of the world's population and a region which takes more than half of our exports—because India has withdrawn we don't get the market access there, because India saw some of the disadvantages of this agreement. The major benefits, therefore, because we already have free-trade agreements with a number of our trading partners in the region, will potentially be in the non-tariff areas—areas like the more consistent rules for customs so that for our perishable products like horticultural goods, flowers, seafood, there's a commitment to move them on within six hours of being landed so that those are fresh when they go to market.
The Green Party opposes this bill for a number of reasons. The type of economic growth which trade agreements have encouraged to date is not sustainable either in an environmental or a social sense. You've got a very complex range of chapters, so there are very complex trade-offs which impact on Government. In her submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, law professor Dr Jane Kelsey quoted the Asia-Pacific arm of the International Trade Union Conference and they said of RCEP, and I quote, "the RCEP [will] hinder our efforts to build back better after COVID-19 towards a sustainable, inclusive and resilient world by escalating the division of labour in global supply chains, privatisation of essential services, and the dominance of corporation on our governments. Public services as well as the government's ability to regulate in the interest of [our] people would be weakened. Therefore, the agreement is clearly against our prosperity in future." 
So there's nothing in this agreement which guarantees any benefits to small and medium enterprise, to indigenous peoples, to women, or to workers. Yes, there is the standard Te Tiriti o Waitangi carve-out, but the Waitangi Tribunal has highlighted that that is not adequate and Government needs to go further. The Greens oppose it because there is no chapter on environmental rights. In terms of our criticisms of the CPTPPA, we criticised that because the language in it around environmental issues wasn't able to be enforced in the same way that the chapters were that protected the privileges and rights of investors. Here, Aotearoa New Zealand, when the negotiations started in 2012, did seek to include a stand-alone environment chapter but the other 15 countries—there couldn't be agreement on that so there wasn't the stand-alone chapter. So we have only passing references to environmental issues. Certainly, there are some reservations to protect our ability to regulate for our own domestic environmental objectives, to manage our exclusive economic zone, conservation areas, biosecurity, and food safety, but we only have a really weak promise from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that they will continue to seek outcomes for trade and the environment in its ongoing trade policy work across the region. No commitments to actually seek to strengthen environmental objectives and the environmental rules around trade so that we're not impacting on nature.
So yes, this doesn't include the heinous investor-State dispute resolution clauses, which have been so problematic in other agreements; yes, we can still use the Overseas Investment Act to screen overseas purchases of New Zealand land and assets; but this whole thing around the investor-State dispute resolution procedures—that is the only one of the Trade for All principles that has made it through into this agreement. So this whole lack of a commitment to strengthening international rules to protect nature, to protect workers' rights, to protect the rights of indigenous peoples, to better safeguard Te Tiriti o Waitangi—that is missing and those are some of the reasons why the Green Party is opposing it, and, finally, because there's been no public or public sector input. Certainly, there's been an examination in retrospect by the select committee, but no public input into the negotiations, no transparency around the drafts, so no ability, really, to ensure that it was in the wider public interest, so the Greens oppose this bill.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party today in support of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill. It is a wonderful day to speak on this particular piece of legislation, and that's because we've heard the wonderful news of the agreement in principle between the New Zealand and UK Governments for a free-trade agreement, which would forge stronger ties with the world's fifth-largest economy.
I really do have to take my hat off and say that this is fantastic news. It's not often that I find myself in agreement with the Government on an issue, but on this particular issue it is excellent work. When this deal is done, we're expecting that it will boost exports by up to 40 percent and our GDP to about $1 billion. Our New Zealand farmers have helped us through the COVID recovery. It is wonderful that we have some of the finest produce in the world and that the UK will soon be able to have more of that fantastic produce, and I'm glad to see our tariffs being dropped in that particular work that's been done.
We are a small island nation, and we're a trading nation. ACT has always proudly been the strongest proponent of free trade in this Parliament. We welcome today's news, but we also welcome RCEP: the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and I'm happy to see it being ratified. But we must ensure that this isn't the end and that we continue to strive for further liberalisation, with agreements with the European Union and the US. It's also important that we're signing these agreements and coming to agreements in principle in a time when we're seeing countries turn inward, against each other.
The ACT Party believes that our foreign policy should seek to uphold the safety of our citizens, and reflect our interests and our values on the world stage. It's important that we're part of a rules-based order, because we are a small island in the Pacific and a small trading nation; we do need a rules-based order. It's important that we're part of agreements where we can help shape those rules. That's the importance of us being part of RCEP. It's important for our peace and security as a country, but it's also important for our peace and security as a region of the Asia-Pacific. That is important for the stability of the businesses, the everyday New Zealanders who get up and create jobs and opportunities for other New Zealanders right here, and that they have stability and have growth in more export markets going forward.
There is a huge business benefit that comes by having more free-trade agreements and more export markets. As I say, it creates more jobs and opportunities, and, in fact, for people who may never have had them. It takes a lot of skill and effort and hard work and determination to create a business. I'm proud that we're signing agreements that give those businesses more opportunities to sell their goods and also sell New Zealand on the world stage. It's good for all of us in society.
Importantly, regional trade agreements help for stability. In particular, they help to limit the threats that we may face from other countries—other countries that may, in the future, seek to wish us harm. It sends us a message: we are part of a block of people who wish to have rules imposed that we all agree with. That is important for our stability, but it also sends the message that we're open for business and we welcome opportunities to have more interaction with other countries, and I think that's wonderful.
So RCEP, in particular, is about 30 percent of the world's population within the countries of this agreement. That's 2.3 billion people that we can trade with and around 30 percent of the world's GDP. More than half of New Zealand's trade and foreign direct investment flows through the Asia-Pacific, so this is a huge agreement. Importantly, it provides that framework of rules, for stability, for jobs, and for growth. I commend this bill to the House, but I once again just want to say well done on the UK - New Zealand free-trade agreement. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the previous speaker, Brooke van Velden: welcome aboard; if you keep going with the communal action, you may find you like it.
But what I really want to do is congratulate the Minister for this wonderful and innovative piece of work. When I look at the history of New Zealand as an import-export country, we have been innovative from the beginning, whether it was Māori supplying the markets in New South Wales in the fledgling economy, before the Treaty was signed, to the famous 1882 refrigerated ship full of our lamb and beef.
As the member for Whangārei, which is a primary production hotspot, and also the proud possessors of the best and deepest import port in the country, I really, truly commend the Minister for continuing to lead and innovate, as New Zealand always has, and I commend this bill to the House.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill, especially on a day, when you think about it, this RCEP—really, I guess negotiations on this would have started in the early 1970s when the British booted us out. And it's ironic that the day we put this bill through its third reading is the day we sign another free-trade agreement, which really gets us back into a situation in Britain which we were last in in 1972. I find it really quite intriguing that the team that get behind these things and have done the work—and I think we've got to realise and congratulate all those people since those early 1970s who have got involved in trade negotiation, as Ministers who have got involved in the negotiations and gone around the world, working their way for New Zealand—to see what we've been able to achieve in the way of free trade agreements and other kind of trade agreements that have kept us in the market so well and so strongly. And they're to be congratulated on that because I think it's pretty special.
So this is really where we got to, this bill, as a result of being thrown out of Britain or Britain entering the EEC. And one of the ironies of this that I must talk about for a minute is that if you looked at our meat industry in the early 1970s, which was probably our second biggest industry after wool—of course, dairy has long since gone past that, and one or two others; well, tourism was there until last year—that the meat industry in those days was largely owned by Britain. Now the biggest meat industry export market by far is China, and, interestingly, our meat industry is now, to a large extent, owned by China. So there's a bit of irony in what goes on in trade in the world. So it really points to the issues that the ACT speaker, Brooke van Velden, was raising, which is that we very much rely on rules-based trade deals, which enable us to keep our place in the world irrespective of what's going on around us. It's hugely important and it's even more important at a time like this, where getting access to markets and retaining access to those markets, and actually being able to get our product to those markets, is hugely important. So, I think it's exciting that we've got to this point with this agreement, and we've heard a number of people with a lot more knowledge of trade than me talking about it earlier in the evening.
The countries involved in this trade agreement are very important to New Zealand, and when you think, as I said earlier, that we primarily relied on Britain in the early 1970s—we're now very big in Asia. A lot of our Asian countries and friends are now our largest trading partners. One of the exciting things about this agreement is that it brings Indonesia to the fore and we end up—I think Indonesia is still one of the great opportunities we've got in Asia, and so that's quite an exciting opportunity and we need to move on with our negotiations with Indonesia. But even more importantly, I think, is the fact that India has pulled out of this agreement, and I think it was Todd McClay earlier who was talking about the importance of New Zealand getting on and negotiating some sort of trade deals with India. A huge opportunity for New Zealand, and one, when you think about it, that a lot of the requirements India have, we can satisfy. But we've got to realise also and, of course, to satisfy those markets, that we're a very, very small part of the world market for anything. Particularly, this agreement—like many of our others—primarily deals in agricultural products and so it's really important that that we continue to negotiate our way through these trade agreements at the top end of the agricultural market, because we can supply about 40 million people with food. If you look at some of these countries and some of these cities, actually, they're almost that entire market.
So it's particularly important for New Zealand that we continue to sign these agreements. I, again, just want to congratulate all those people: the officials and our trade negotiators, who are internationally recognised as the best there is for the very reason that we heavily rely on trade to keep ourselves going. So I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to many more coming through the House as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What an exciting day it is to be able to rise and speak on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement at the same time as we are announcing, with the UK, a free-trade deal where, in principle, that will see the entire removal of tariffs. 
Coming from a region of Hawke's Bay where it is the backbone of our regional economy—trade; growing, growing export businesses—I had the pleasure of meeting with the first Recognised Seasonal Employer workers to arrive in our region this week, who will be picking some of the apples that will be going to some of the existing countries that we already trade with. It is an enormous achievement, when we think that this trade deal, when it is ratified, will be the biggest one in the world, and that is something that everyone in this House can be proud of. 
It is an exciting day, it is a special day, and I'm thrilled to be able to speak on it. I commend this bill to the House. 





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I just want to compliment the previous speaker from the National Party, Mr McKelvie—just the value of having someone with a good history in this House who is able to put things into perspective. So I congratulate you on that presentation. 
I just want to acknowledge also another group of people, particularly those sitting in Auckland who are now in, I think, their ninth week of lockdown, and it's going to be very hard for those watching up there to understand the enthusiasm we're all feeling at the moment. But perhaps they can just put this into some perspective, because one thing that COVID has taught us is the importance of supply lines, whether it be the ability to get the goods into New Zealand, whether it be the ability to get goods around New Zealand, or to manufacture here. So I think that there is an awareness of trade that may be one of the positives that will come out of this COVID we're suffering at the moment. Today, this RCEP, alongside the free-trade agreement that's been announced with the UK—these all give us opportunities now to grow and, more importantly, for everyone in New Zealand to be part of. 
Another irony, or something we should celebrate, is we're going into Labour Weekend. Labour Weekend is where we do celebrate the labour—and I think one of my colleagues pointed out that when we do thank our farmers for what they're doing, we need to also thank those that allow those farmers to do that, who are those labourers who are up at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. So everyone not only plays a part in this; everyone stands to benefit from this. 
So it is a good day. I think we are now looking for good news across the board and, more importantly, something we can all, as New Zealanders, celebrate. So wherever you are, whether you're stuck in your ninth week in Auckland or whether you're looking at getting up at 3 o'clock in the morning to milk even more cows to produce more milk for trade, or to shear more sheep, this is a day that I think we can all be proud of and be part of, and I commend this bill to the House. 





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill, and yes, it is a good day. Mr McKelvie's had a bit of praise in the last few minutes. I was sitting in select committee with Mr McKelvie this morning when we both realised that our members' bills had actually been drawn out of the ballot, so it has indeed been a good day. Nothing better on a day like this to see this trade agreement being ratified in the House. It's a plurilateral agreement that affects—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Say that three times fast!
BARBARA KURIGER: Exactly. It's easier than saying the name of the other bill that we've been talking about this week, about live streaming. So it's plurilateral, it's 15 countries, and it's extremely important to New Zealand. All of us over here on the other side of the House, in the National caucus, are not always complimentary of everything that goes on on the Government side of the House, but when it comes to trade, it's very, very key that we all work together on these trade agreements, because at the end of the day this has been our bread and butter in our country for a very, very, very long time. The trade must get through.
It was mentioned before—it's always mentioned, actually—that during COVID-19 agriculture and our horticulture and our other rural exports have played a big part in keeping New Zealand financially afloat. But, also, we have had some supply chain issues, and I would like to make note just at this point in time of the shipping arrangement that Fonterra made with Silver Fern Farms back in 2010. Some of our bigger organisations are making some arrangements that make sure that they build relationships with shipping companies to make sure that whatever happens, our trade does get through. We are a little country at the bottom of the world and it would be very easy to leave us out at times, and it's very definitely satisfying to know that our trade is still getting through.
The other thing just to mention, actually, while we're talking about trade, is we had some presentations this morning around cooperatives in select committee, and there are some people in the House at the moment who were there. It's amazing how many of our big companies are cooperatives. When you look at the whole chart of all the logos, and we think about the likes of the Fonterras and the Zespris—and also some of our energy companies are also cooperatives—there's a good model there that actually helps us trade with, and don't underestimate just how much money that is actually bringing into our country to meet all of the needs that we require as a country to meet.
So National knows that trade, international trade, is vital to our economic success because it underpins our business and it creates jobs and it lifts wages. That's who we are, and that's how we've always done things. National is unashamedly supportive of free trade because it supports 600,000 jobs across the country and it's responsible for delivering a higher standard of living and a better quality of life for all New Zealanders. There is new market access for New Zealand goods, through this agreement, for exporters to Indonesia through tariff elimination on a number of products: anything from sheep meat to beef to fish to fish products, liquid milk, grated or powdered cheeses, honey, avocados, tomatoes, persimmons—the list is not exhaustive, but it just goes to show what a fruit bowl and a food bowl New Zealand is.
It also does get to show that the world really appreciates the food that we produce here. Long may we continue to be proud of that, because in my two roles as agricultural spokesperson and energy spokesperson, I have a current saying that says: if you can't grow it or you can't dig it or dig for it, what is it? If it's not a fish—and you could argue that a fish is also grown—there's very little else left. We look around, and I can't see anything in any room, most days, in front of me that doesn't come from either agriculture or something that's made from the earth, and that includes our cellphones and our electric cars and everything else we have. So it's really important that we remember that, and if we're going to do any sort of education in our schools—really good to remind or to teach students where things come from, because everything is in a space where it gets taken for granted. We get a lot of that through trade.
A bit of a background to this bill is that negotiations began in early 2013, when the New Zealand Government sought public submissions during February and March of that year, engaged with the public, engaged with Māori and a wide spectrum of stakeholders over the course of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations. It was concluded by and signed in a virtual ceremony on 15 November 2020, and India withdrew from RCEP just in the negotiations in November 2019, although I have listened to Ministers speaking since that point in time—and I know that the Hon Meka Whaitiri was saying the other day that those conversations are still going on and that those conversations are still alive.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Could those two members conversing please separate themselves appropriately.
BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So there is a hope, I believe, in listening to the Hon Meka Whaitiri the other day when she was speaking about the trade bill, that India is not at all off the table and that we just need to continue building those relationships with India and, over time, India might likely end up in this trade agreement.
Something that most people don't know about India is that it's actually the biggest milk producer in the world, but, actually, a lot of that is masked by the fact that most of the cows that are milked in this world are done by a lot of women, actually, who own two or three cows in little villages in India and Africa and around the world. So while we think of trade in terms of the Fonterras and the Zespris, there is a lot of production that goes on around the world just actually keeping villagers fed and alive.
So a single set of trade and investment rules across the entire region, with this bill, increases certainty for all the players, reduces complexity that comes from different rules with different partners, because all that needs negotiating. So the more people you can have round the table and the less variation of rules, the simpler it is for our producers to get the product to market. The regional-wide value chains, when you've got so many people working together—you know, the world population is growing; it's not shrinking. So if we can actually get our food producers working together—we're not each other's enemy, even though we have barriers between our countries and we do have a lot of negotiations around trade. It is important that we work together, because between all of us, we feed the world. In New Zealand, we can't feed the world.
I'm going to stop now because I don't want to hold this bill up, and I'm looking at the time, so I'll take my seat and commend it to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.
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.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 October 2021.
The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.