TUESDAY, 26 JULY 2022
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi, kuo mau ta'imālie 'i ho'o 'ofá. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu. Ke ke malu'i 'a e Kuiní, mo tataki mai mu'a 'emau ngāue 'i Fale Aleá. Ke fai'aki 'a e poto faka-'Otua - 'a e 'ofá mo e 'ulungāanga malu, ko e 'uhí ko e mo'uí mo e nofo melino 'a e fonuá. Pea 'oku mau kole 'a e ngaahi me'á ni 'i he Huafá ho'o 'Aló ka ko homau Fakamo'uí. 'Ēmeni.





BY-ELECTION
Tauranga—Samuel Uffindell
SPEAKER: Members, I have received from the Electoral Commissioner a writ declaring that Samuel Julian Uffindell be elected at the by-election for Tauranga.
LIST MEMBER ELECTED
New Zealand Labour—Daniel Rosewarne
SPEAKER: I have also received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring that Daniel Peter Rosewarne be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon Kris Faafoi in his list seat. I understand that Captain (Retired) Daniel Rosewarne is present and wishes to make the Oath of Allegiance. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.
MEMBERS SWORN
The Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Daniel Rosewarne, who then took his seat in the House.





OBITUARIES
John Gordon Elliott QSM 
Hon Bruce Windsor 
SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 12 July 2022 of John Gordon Elliott QSM, who was a National Party member representing the Whangārei electorate from 1975 to 1981. During his membership of this House, he chaired the Education Committee and the Violent Offending Committee. 
I also regret to inform the House of the death on 13 July 2022 of Hon Bruce Windsor Cliffe, who represented the North Shore electorate for the National Party and then for United New Zealand from 1990 to 1996. During his membership of the House, he chaired the State Enterprises Committee, and was Minister for Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance, Associate Minister of Finance, and Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand Limited and Television New Zealand Limited.
I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy to the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to their memory.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Members, there is quite a lot of general business. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK: Petition of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society requesting that the House double the extent of wetlands by 2050, create a wetland protection and restoration plan, provide $100 million in funding for wetland restoration, map coastal wetlands, include wetlands in the emissions trading scheme, and stop the introduction of consenting paths for wetland destructionpetition of Rosalina Ngakopu requesting that the House extend the income-related rent subsidy to Wellington City Council housing tenantspetition of Jackie Foster requesting that the House inquire into the adequacy of the Independent Police Conduct Authority's response to a complaint laid by Jackie Foster in 2021petition of Leon Gibson requesting that the House urge the Labour Government to permanently cut fuel taxes across New Zealandpetition of Brigitte Sistig on behalf of Repair Café Aotearoa New Zealand requesting the House urge the Minister for the Environment to bring in "right to repair" measures so it's easier and cheaper for New Zealanders to get items repairedpetition of Joan Perry requesting that the House urge the Minister of Health to provide multiple sclerosis patients with access to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in New Zealand.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:Annual Report for 2021 of the Lakes District Health BoardStatement of performance expectations 2021-2022 for New Zealand Health PartnershipsStatements of performance expectations 2022-23:Fire and Emergency New ZealandResearch and Education Advanced Network New Zealand LimitedCallaghan InnovationCivil Aviation Authority of New ZealandNew Zealand Green Investment Finance LimitedNew Zealand Lotteries CommissionClassification OfficeFinancial Markets AuthorityNetwork for LearningMaritime New ZealandTe Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, andSocial Workers Registration BoardStatements of corporate intent:AgResearch Ltd 2022-2026National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research 2022Institute of Environmental Science and Research 2022-2027Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited 2021-2027Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research 2022-2027Plant and Food Research 2022-2025, andNew Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd (trading as Scion) 2022-2025Statements of intent: Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd 2023-2026Callaghan Innovation 2023-2027, andNew Zealand Defence Force 2021-2024Agreement between New Zealand and the European Union on the exchange of personal data between the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the authorities of New Zealand competent for fighting serious crime and terrorism, together with the national interest analysis.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the2022-23 Estimates for Vote Business, Science and InnovationReports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2022-23 Estimates for:Vote Internal Affairs [Excluding those appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities]Vote OmbudsmenVote Parliamentary ServiceVote Office of the ClerkVote Prime Minister and CabinetVote Public Service [Excluding Supporting Implementation of a Social Wellbeing Approach appropriation]Vote StatisticsReport of the Justice Committee on the petition of Scott GuthrieReports of the Petitions Committee on:the petition of Ankit Parikhthe petition of Ben Leighthe petition of Kathryn McGarvey, andthe petition of Kenneth OrrReport of the Primary Production Committee on the 2022-23 Estimates for Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety, andReports of the Regulations Review Committee on the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 13 and 20 June 2022.
SPEAKER: The report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration.
The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill, introduction.Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's policies and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government's decision to extend the reductions to fuel excise duty, road-user charges, and half price public transport by more than five months until the end of January next year. Petrol and diesel prices have increased by 32 percent and 74 percent respectively in the year to June 2022, as the global economy enters this new phase of the pandemic and ongoing impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is felt. Extending the 25c per litre reduction reduces the cost of filling up a 40 litre tank of petrol by over $11 and, for a 60 litre tank, over $17. Half price public transport sees an average person save $25 a week. From Monday, New Zealanders will start to receive the cost of living payment to help them through the peak of the global inflation storm. An estimated 2.1 million people aged 18 and over are eligible for an extra $27 per week over a three-month period, paid in monthly instalments. There is no easy fix for the cost of living, but we're taking a range of actions to ease the pressure on families. 
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that those three policies of extending the fuel excise and road-user discounts, the public transport subsidies, and the cost of living payment will make the Government's deficit larger than it would have otherwise been, therefore increasing the fiscal impulse and adding—rather than reducing—inflation to the New Zealand economy? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two responses: the first is that, of course, Treasury has already—and this is in the public domain—made clear their position that it is possible that certain forms of untargeted stimulus that particularly is putting money into people's wallets, if it is untargeted and long term—like for instance a tax cut for those on $180,000 or more, or perhaps the kinds of tax cuts proposed by the ACT Party—yes, would be inflationary. Of course the cost of living payment is targeted and short term. I also—generally, when it comes to Government spending—would refer to the statements made by the Treasury at the time of the Budget, which talked about the fiscal impulse for each year being slightly more contractory than forecast at the half-year update, as the Government's year-on-year contribution to aggregate demand decreases more relative to each preceding year, indicating that, overall, fiscal policy is dampening inflation pressures. 
David Seymour: So do those three policies of extending the fuel excise and road-user charge discount, subsidising public transport, and a cost of living payment add to the Government's deficit, and therefore make the fiscal impulse and inflation larger than it would otherwise be? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I refer to the first answer that I provided. Secondly, I would point to the fact that, when it comes to Government spending overall, we have maintained the position of reducing down, of course, Crown spending relative to GDP and have kept it relatively in line with previous Governments, and it is set to return again to that as a percentage. And finally, I would also point out the fact that we are looking to return to surplus a year earlier than, for instance, the National Government after the global financial crisis, and many would argue that this is a larger and more impactful economic crisis. 
David Seymour: Does she believe that her finance Minister's monetary policy remit to the Reserve Bank is timely and specific enough in its goals for returning to under 3 percent inflation and, if so, how would she define the "medium term"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the first part of the member's question, of course, when it comes to the remit around inflation, that remains unchanged. We, of course, after previous reviews, have added the role of the Reserve Bank looking at unemployment. We are not the only country, of course, to have dual mandates, but it is still for the Reserve Bank and its implementation of monetary policy to achieve those goals and those dual mandates. 
David Seymour: So is the remit to the Reserve Bank specific and timely enough, and, if so, how would she define "medium term"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When the member asked whether it is specific and timely enough, of course, it is set down that we have these reviews of their remit. They are going through that process. Whether or not the member believes this will give an opportunity for the Reserve Bank to look at some of its monetary policy through COVID, well, that is ultimately a decision for the bank. They are not constrained in their ability to review their own decisions and use of monetary policy through that period. The review of the remit is a specific process that is already set down.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her decision to visit the UK, Spain, and Australia, opening up opportunities for New Zealanders to live and work more easily in those countries, and, if she does, was she dismayed that migrants worldwide picked New Zealand as the second-worst place in the world to migrate to, under her Government, while she was away?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by ensuring that New Zealanders have opportunities to increase their skills and, of course, bring those skills back to New Zealand, an opportunity that, I note, the member took up—I believe, residing for a period in Canada—in the same way that I did. New Zealanders have consistently asked for, though, increasing access to the UK through the working holiday visa. That is what we have fulfilled, and I note that it has been widely welcomed.
David Seymour: Will the Prime Minister accept that there is a labour crisis in New Zealand right now, with sectors from schools to hospitals to horticultural harvesters screaming out for workers, and, if she does accept that, why does she think it has happened?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member references the skills shortages that, I note, many countries are experiencing presently, and that was one of the things that I took out of the time that I spent in the UK and Australia. They are experiencing similar issues. In the UK, I saw some estimates being reported recently of up to 50,000 nurses short of what is required to fulfil their needs within the NHS. The question is: what can we do about it? We've worked very hard on ensuring that we encourage those who are already registered, for instance, in New Zealand to return to the nursing workforce. We've done a lot of work to increase those who are in the construction and housing sector. We've increased the number of apprentices. We've subsidised employers to take apprentices on. We've made the first year of trades training and post-secondary education free. We've created the accredited employers scheme to make it easier to access and to go through the immigration process. We're not the only one, but we are doing things to improve the flow of skilled labour into New Zealand.
Hon Michael Wood: Does the Prime Minister think that labour force pressures would be eased by policies such as lowering wages for migrant workers and lowering the minimum wage?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do note that those are amongst some of the policies of ACT. I also do not believe that we will be able to answer some of those domestic skills gaps that we have in New Zealand if we were to make it more expensive to train and get post-secondary skills. And that is exactly what the ACT Party has proposed.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that practically every sector in New Zealand is facing a critical labour shortage, and, if so, why does Immigration New Zealand require each and every accredited employer to individually demonstrate that there's a labour shortage for them with their own labour market test?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And once they're an accredited employer, they go through a shortened process, to ease what previously had been a very bureaucratic process. But, if the member is arguing that we should return to the policy of old, where we have no regard to our own domestic workforce, we do not work with our sectors to increase the training of New Zealanders, we have no regard to whether or not we have the infrastructure or housing to support a growth in population—in fact, our entire economic strategy is growth in population and growth in housing prices—that is not a strategy that is good for New Zealanders, and that is why we have changed it.
David Seymour: Why does the Prime Minister defend immigration policies set up when hundreds of thousands were queuing at the border still when those queues ain't there, the world's changed, and New Zealand is desperate for workers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because I reject the claims that the member is making. Our goal, and indeed our policy, is to support employers who are seeking levels of skills that we do not have access to in New Zealand and to make it easier for those employers. Where we are putting in greater tests is where we have traditionally seen lower-skilled, low-wage work, which does not help the rest of our overall population if we continue to seek low-skilled migrant activity in New Zealand. It's not good for migrants; it's not good for New Zealand.
SPEAKER: Before we go on to the next question, I am going to remind people in the gallery that being there is a privilege and part of the rules are that people wear masks. The masks should be worn over noses and certainly not as necklaces, as, in some cases, they are being.




Question No. 2—Finance
2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand reported last week that the Consumers Price Index for the June quarter was up 1.7 percent, taking the annual rate to 7.3 percent. This level of inflation is putting pressure on households in meeting their costs of living. The quarterly rate of 1.7 percent was lower than the March quarter and economists believe that June will represent the peak of the inflation cycle, albeit that inflation is expected to remain elevated above the levels we've seen in recent years, for some time. New Zealand is not the only country experiencing higher prices driven by global factors. Inflation is at 9.4 percent in the UK, 9.1 percent in the United States, 8.1 percent in Canada, and at an average of 9.6 percent across the OECD. We are well positioned to support New Zealanders dealing with the global cost of living pressures, thanks to our economic plan and responsible fiscal management that have delivered record low unemployment and debt levels that are among the lowest in the OECD.
Barbara Edmonds: What steps is the Government taking in response to the impact of global cost of living pressures on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government is acutely aware that many New Zealanders are doing it tough, and we are taking action to support them. We've boosted the incomes of seniors, students in low-income families, while a million New Zealanders are receiving the winter energy payment. From next Monday, the targeted cost of living payment will deliver around $27 a week for low and middle income New Zealanders aged 18 years and over who don't get the winter energy payment. In response to high fuel prices, which have been significantly driven by the war in the Ukraine, we have cut the fuel excise duty and road-user charges, and halved public transport costs. Last week, we extended these reductions until the end of January next year to give people certainty over the coming months as prices continue to move around at the pump. As we've acknowledged many times in this House, 2022 is a tough year and it is a volatile and uncertain environment for Kiwis. However, we are in a strong position to deal with this and we are supporting those most in need.
Barbara Edmonds: What measures are being taken to address the underlying causes of high prices and its impact on the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are doing what we can to ensure New Zealanders are paying a fair price. For example, we're taking action in the supermarket sector to boost competition and get better outcomes at the checkout, we're closely monitoring margins in the fuel market to make sure savings are being passed on at the pump, and we are looking to the longer term by reducing our dependence on volatile commodities like oil by decarbonising our transport fleet, including through initiatives like the clean car discount. We have also put in place our immigration reset to allow us to attract workers to get the skills we need. And we have restarted schemes such as the working holiday visas to help the recovery in tourism and hospitality. The Commerce Commission is carrying out a market study into building materials and this will confirm what many New Zealanders believe, I am sure—that we do pay too much for our building supplies—and we do need to take action in this space as well. There is no single or easy solution when it comes to cost of living pressures and the impact of the global inflation spike here in New Zealand, but we will continue to support New Zealanders to respond to these challenging times.




Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular the Government's recent work to reconnect with the world, including recent trade missions and business delegations to Japan, Singapore, Australia, and the United States of America. Supporting New Zealand businesses to access these large and important international markets has helped to promote a number of trade and tourism opportunities that will support our trade recovery strategy. Trade delegations have included representatives for New Zealand's dairy, Māori businesses, food and beverage, technology, tourism, and energy sectors. In addition, during a recent trip to Europe the Government signed a major free-trade deal with the European Union which will see export revenue to the EU to grow by up to $1.8 billion annually on full implementation. This free-trade agreement (FTA) builds on the UK FTA the Government recently signed, which will see a boost in New Zealand's GDP estimated between $700 million and $1 billion. This work by the Government is key to supporting our economic development and trade agenda.
Christopher Luxon: Can she confirm that inflation has now been above the 1 to 3 percent target for 15 straight months?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously the member himself can see where inflation levels are sitting, but I would also point out that there had been periods where not only has it sat within those bounds, we've also seen—importantly for us as a Government—wages consistently outstrip inflation. That of course remains an important goal for us and we are set to see that trend return in the incoming period.
Christopher Luxon: When should Kiwis struggling with record increases in the cost of living expect inflation to be back below 3 percent?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is all forecasting. It's incredibly difficult at this period of time to, with specificity, determine where inflation is likely to land. Because, as much as there is a crystal-ball gazing and a lot of revisionist history on the other side of the House, we all remember that it wasn't that long ago that we expected double-digits unemployment and a potential collapse in the housing market. That is not what has occurred, and instead we see, the world over, significant increases and inflation. The member will see the same forecasts I do—the predictions that we will see it begin to decline but still remain higher than we usually have it in New Zealand, but it will then continue to trend down. But again, they're forecasts.
Christopher Luxon: What impact, if any, does she believe Government spending of $127 billion in the coming year—$50 billion more than just five years ago—will have on inflation and interest rates?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, here, I just again point the member to the fact that New Zealand is not alone in this experience. The fact that the member keeps coming back to the decisions made by the Labour Government in New Zealand, in my mind, tends to lend itself to an argument that we are the only ones having this experience currently. Canada, the UK, the United States, Australia's on the up; you even see in the likes of Korea, in parts of Asia, very similar increases in inflation, either at the same rate we are or higher, or trending up. Again, I refer back to my earlier answer on what Treasury has said around the Government spending, and I would also point the member to the fact that a large amount of our spending in the last Budget was on cost pressures. And I ask him again, what will he cut?
Hon Grant Robertson: What goes? What goes? What goes?
Christopher Luxon: We can give you a list.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, do—we're waiting.
Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Two things: one, there shouldn't be any chipping from over here. But, two, the Prime Minister shouldn't ask someone who is not in the position to answer questions.
Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with former Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler, who said global supply chains and the Ukraine war "are not in any way the main drivers of inflation"; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I've seen a number of opinions and reckons on the current global situation, and I've seen a number of views on what different central banks should be doing.
Christopher Luxon: Was former Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler wrong when he said, "The main reason why we've had this surge in inflation is the extraordinary monetary and fiscal stimulus that's been applied"; if so, why?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I've also seen a number of different views on the contributing factors to what we are currently seeing. What I can see now is the member is now acknowledging a global set of circumstances. Again, our job is to make sure we can do what we can to support New Zealanders through this period. I also do not resile from the decisions that we have made to support businesses who went through an extraordinary time—extremely tough—and I totally reject any suggestion that they showed anything other than resilience.
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there was widespread support for the fiscal measures to support businesses and households through COVID-19, including calls from some for more support than what the Government gave?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I absolutely recall that and of course I stand firm on the view that the decisions, for instance, around monetary policy and the decisions by the Reserve Bank are their decisions—they are independent. But the line of questioning from the member Christopher Luxon today suggests to me that he believes we should have had higher interest rates through that period. 
Christopher Luxon: Will she back National's call for an independent public inquiry into the Reserve Bank's monetary policy response from March 2020 until late 2021; if not, why not? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I mean, firstly, the first principle here, I would argue, of course, is the independence of the Reserve Bank. The second point I would argue is that the member's question suggests that there isn't the possibility to scrutinise the decisions of the Reserve Bank and the governor at different points. The governor goes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, if I recall, every three months. Every decision is subject to scrutiny, and, of course, separately. The remit has a statutory review currently under way, which there is the possibility for submissions on. There are ample opportunities to raise these kinds of questions. 
Chlöe Swarbrick: Would the Prime Minister welcome a review into the economic response to COVID-19, say, by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that I've been calling for for the past five months? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I actually refer here to an answer that was given by, at the time, the Minister for COVID-19 Response: there have been ample inquiries, reviews, and analysis across the COVID-19 response. Does that mean that there isn't more that we should reflect on in what has been one of the most significant health and economic crises that we as a nation have experienced? Yes, there will be. But I think it's about making sure we do it at the right time in the right and most effective way. We are still in the middle of a response—particularly through winter—so it is about making sure that we choose the most appropriate time. 
Christopher Luxon: Is she concerned that relying on the Reserve Bank to review its own performance is unlikely to be as robust as an independent inquiry, and don't Kiwis deserve to understand how Government policy has contributed to the cost of living crisis? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Here, I believe, the member is asking me: do I think that we should maintain the independence of the Reserve Bank? Yes, we should. 
Christopher Luxon: Is she really saying it's impossible to assess the performance of the Reserve Bank without compromising its independence? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The board, of course, has a role here, as does a number of other opportunities for the Parliament to add the scrutiny. Again, there seems to be—also the other point that I would make here is that there seems to be a lot of hindsight and revisionist positioning here. 
Christopher Luxon: It's costing us a lot of money. Why won't the Government agree to look critically at its own mistakes and do everything possible to prevent a repeat of the current situation, where Kiwis are suffering because—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to ask the member to rephrase his question right from the beginning. 
Christopher Luxon: Why won't the Government agree to look critically at its own performance and do everything possible to prevent a repeat of the current situation? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the member is asking us to resile from all of the support that kept people in jobs, that kept businesses operating, and that made sure we supported our health system, and there are always things we could do better and we will always be willing to reflect back on them. But do I resile from the support that was provided to the New Zealand businesses who kept our people in jobs? No. And will I ever call them soft? Never. 




Question No. 4—Conservation
4. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by the Government's position in the 2017 Speech from the Throne that there will be no new mines on conservation land; if so, when does the Government plan to implement a ban?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Yes. Earlier this term, we announced a significant work programme to reclassify 2.5 million hectares of stewardship land as a means to further protect land with conservation and cultural values. Stewardship land makes up about 9 percent of New Zealand's land area, with almost 30 percent of the land administered by the Department of Conservation. The reclassification of stewardship land is an important step to protect conservation values from the adverse effects of activities on conservation land, which includes mining. There is still a process to work through to further develop and fully implement the broader policies of having no new mines. As a Government, we remain committed to ensuring mining only happens where and when appropriate, and according to robust regulatory standards. This includes properly protecting the biodiversity, cultural, historical, and scientific values found from public conservation land.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Will she consider establishing a moratorium on new mining activity on or under conservation land until the review of stewardship land is completed, as a step towards implementing the commitment in the 2017 Speech from the Throne; if not, why not?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can commit to is the work that we are currently doing with regards to stewardship land and the policy objectives. Because what this means is with 16 percent of the West Coast, for example, of the South Island likely to be reclassified as national park, this will mean that new access arrangements to mine Crown-owned land may no longer be granted on that land.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does she support blasting and mining for gold under the habitat of an ancient and threatened species such as Archey's frog—which is very sensitive to vibration—as OceanaGold wants to do with its Wharekīrauponga mine in Coromandel?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We all know that Archey's frogs are at risk. That application is before the council at the moment and may or may not be publicly—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I think the member's trying to refer to something which is before some other judicial body, which she's allowed to do. But I want to listen really carefully to it, and I can't if there's so much noise from my left.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The application is before councils to make a decision on whether that will require resource consent and be publicly notified. If that is the case, I have been assured by the Department of Conservation that they are working through the pile of information that has been submitted with that application, and they will be making a submission to that consent application.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Will the department be free to make the submissions it would like to under the Resource Management Act on OceanaGold's proposed Wharekīrauponga mine—unlike under a previous National Government, when the Minister influenced departmental submissions?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I take my role seriously with regards to this, and I am working alongside officials in this particular matter.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that with a biodiversity crisis, there is a need to act with urgency to ensure that conservation land and the habitats and ecosystems it supports are protected from the impacts of new mining activity?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by the work that the Department of Conservation are doing, given that the process that has brought us to the reclassification of stewardship land has taken nearly 30 years, and I applaud the work that they are doing in this regard.
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Question No. 5—sorry, a point of order.
Chris Bishop: I wonder if you could go away and just reflect on one of the supplementaries—I think it was the second to last supplementary from the Hon Eugenie Sage—then in relation to an assertion in the supplementary question about the actions of a former National Government with regards to the Department of Conservation. Sir, you've been very hot on the fact that members are not allowed to assert things as fact that aren't, in fact, facts in supplementary questions. That clearly was an example of that, and it wasn't brought up by you.
SPEAKER: I don't think I need to go away and look at it. Speaker's ruling 191/2, I think it was, makes it clear that other parties shouldn't be brought in unnecessarily into questions. I did think about it, but then I thought about the actual principle of what was being said, and Ministers giving their department's opinions or instructions is not what I would see as a negative thing; it's what their job is.




Question No. 5—Housing
5. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to enable more homes to be built across New Zealand?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Last week, I announced the first seven successful projects to be funded by the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF), the Government's $1 billion contestable fund. Through these IAF investments, we are laying the groundwork for thousands of new homes across Aotearoa by providing much-needed funding for essential housing infrastructure like roads, pipes, flood management, and other key infrastructure. But this is just the beginning. We have to build our way out of the national housing crisis we inherited, and we're working closely with councils and developers to progress further investments to enable more development of homes where they are most needed.
Terisa Ngobi: Which areas are set to benefit from the first announcement of IAF funding?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Seven centres will benefit from the first round of IAF funding, including Rotorua, Ōmokoroa, Napier, Kaikōura, Gisborne, New Plymouth, and, of course, Ōtaki. The IAF process means that we get the best value for our investment, rather than a blunt, one-size-fits-all approach. In Ōtaki, an application from Māori land owners, the Kāpiti Coast District Council, and private developers will see $29.3 million of IAF funds committed to upgrading water supply and roading, enabling an estimated 1,000 papa kāinga affordable and market homes. In Rotorua, we are investing $85 million in stormwater solutions which the Rotorua Lakes district council considers will enable over 3,000 homes in an intensification project.
Terisa Ngobi: What responses has the Minister seen to the announcement?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Mayor of the Kāpiti Coast District said the Government's IAF announcement was a "transformational investment" for a community in need of housing. The Mayor of Western Bay of Plenty, receiving almost $38.4 million for the Ōmokoroa intersection, said, "After being [proposed] by various Government's over a 12-year period, to finally have it delivered, I wouldn't say it's miraculous but it's a word similar to that." And the Mayor of Rotorua said, "Government coming in with this [investment] is eyewatering. It brings it forward, and we can get going. It's great news for Rotorua. We have to build our way out of this housing crisis."




Question No. 6—Finance
6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ that "it's clear that New Zealand has a serious home-grown domestic inflation problem that needs to be dealt with"; if so, what steps, if any, other than temporary reductions to fuel excise and a temporary cost of living payment, is he taking to deal with this problem?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the member's question, it is worth noting this quote was in an article by ANZ saying that the June quarter's 7.3 annual inflation rate looks to be the peak in the current cycle. I do agree that our current inflation rate needs to be dealt with, and that's why the Government, at least, supports an independent Reserve Bank which has the tools to deal with this, just as every other central bank in the developed world is looking to do. To answer the second part of the member's question, I thank her for her acknowledgment of the important role of the cuts to fuel excise duty and the cost of living payment for helping New Zealanders to deal with the current inflation spike. To bring the member up to date on some other steps—and at the risk of incurring the Speaker's wrath—we have introduced or are continuing an equivalent reduction in road-user charges; half-price public transport until 31 January next year and then permanently for community services card holders from 1 February; increases to Working for Families, superannuation, student allowances, and main benefits, which kicked in from 1 April, on top of increases in earlier years; indexation of benefit payments to the average wage; working with the supermarket sector so that Kiwis finally get a fair—
SPEAKER: Order! I am looking down at the lengths of what the member has in front of him, and I think he's done enough.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister understand that the measures he's just outlined address the symptoms but not the causes of domestic inflation, and what is he doing to address the surge in domestic non-tradeable and core inflation?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Just to take one example, one of the things I mentioned was the work that we are doing in the supermarket sector. For too long, across many Governments, New Zealanders have paid too much for their food as a result of not having sufficient competition in the sector and not giving people a fair go in areas like the wholesale market. The Government—this Government—is addressing that.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister understand what non-tradeable core inflation is, and if so, could he explain why he thinks the prices of hairdressing and personal grooming services have increased by 6.1 percent in the past year, and any relationship that has with the war in Ukraine?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously for the member's benefit, when we talk about non-tradeables and domestic, they are not necessarily the same thing. We don't break non-tradeables down by their inputs, for example. So if we were to take one example: building materials, which significantly contribute to issues around housing within inflation, 90 percent of the construction products that are used in New Zealand come in from offshore. Yet that is counted within non-tradeables.
Nicola Willis: Would the Minister care to explain why rents have increased by the highest on record in the inflation series?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the member opposite might be able to help me with that, which is the fact that houses weren't built under her Government's watch, to the extent that we have had to play catch-up, so that supply of rentals are simply not there. That is not to undermine the fact that many New Zealanders, including those who rent, are doing it tough at the moment, and that's why this Government has been providing support to low and middle income New Zealanders rather than proposing tax cuts for the most wealthy.
Nicola Willis: Has the Minister noted the stance of the incoming Australian Labor Government, who have outlined $11.5 billion in budget reductions, stating, "[They cannot] throw money around and [...] be blind to the consequences.", and when will he start applying some fiscal discipline in New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In the Budget that the Government put down in May, we outlined a path that would see expenditure as a percentage of GDP return to the long-run average of around 30 percent. It always takes a careful balance when putting a Budget like this together. What this side of the House won't be doing is claiming that we can—at the same time—cut taxes, reduce debt, and increase spending. Paul Goldsmith's Bermuda Triangle is alive and well in the National Party.
Nicola Willis: Does he consider that the Reserve Bank's money-pumping decisions have, in any way, contributed to record-high inflation, and, if so, why isn't he prepared to expose its decision making to independent scrutiny?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister has already covered this in answers that she gave earlier on. The Reserve Bank's decisions are already open to independent scrutiny on a very regular basis including by the member at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What I can commit this side of the House to is respecting the independence of the Reserve Bank and also sticking by the position that we had on fiscal policy—unlike the member's party, who are flip-flopping around and are now telling New Zealanders that, should we ever, God forbid, end up in another pandemic situation, they can't be relied on to support businesses and households.
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just reflecting on Speaker's ruling 191-2, which you mentioned earlier, it says you cannot, as a Minister, bring a political party into an answer when they have not been mentioned in the questioning. I'm wondering how Paul Goldsmith's Bermuda Triangle, or any other of National's alleged policies, were relevant in that answer. Is that not a breach of 191-2?
SPEAKER: No, it's not.




Question No. 7—Police
7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made on tackling gangs and intimidating behaviour across New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Last week, the Hon Kiri Allan and I announced a suite of measures to help police respond to gang violence and intimidating behaviour in New Zealand. Recent brazen gang activities have been totally unacceptable and our communities deserve better. Police asked for legislative changes that will give them more tools to crack down on violent offending, and the Government has responded to that. We've announced a balanced package based on evidence of what will work.
GINNY ANDERSEN: What will these targeted measures include, and why are they necessary?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The targeted measures include a new offence in the Crimes Act that could carry a penalty of up to five years in prison if a firearm is discharged with the intent to intimidate; providing police with additional search powers targeting gang members during a gang conflict; ensuring police can seize stashes of cash; helping them to crack down on money-laundering by adding more valuable items to the list of high-value goods that are prohibited to cash sale; and expanding the range of offences that could result in the impoundment of cars, motorbikes, and other vehicles. We want to hit the gangs where it hurts by taking their guns, their cars, and their motorbikes and making it harder for them to launder money. [Multiple members interject]
SPEAKER: Order!
Ginny Andersen: What feedback has he received since these measures were announced?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Police Association welcome the announcement, saying—and I quote—"the Government is obviously listening to Police and has picked up on several key concerns around gang intimidation and illegal gang accumulation of wealth." Crime and justice expert  Jarrod Gilbert also commented on the measures, citing that the creation of a new firearms offence would likely fill a gap in existing legislation by strengthening penalties available, and it appears eminently sensible. It is worth noting, however, that the support for the package has not been unanimous, and we've had less favourable feedback on the measures from associates of organisations such as the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, and the National Party.
Ginny Andersen: What further work is being explored to help prevent crime in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: While the tools that I've outlined will help the police to keep communities safe, there is also work under way across agencies to address some of the drivers of crime, in particular the drivers of youth crime. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Truancy. It's getting worse all the time.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We know that early intervention, rehabilitation, and reintegration has the most effective route to sustain long-term harm reduction. I agree with Paul Goldsmith that school attendance is one of the things we need to be focused on; it's a shame the last Government made such a hash of it.




Question No. 8—Prime Minister
8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and policies?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can she stand by her Government's policies on the rising costs of essentials for whānau, such as kai, given that food prices rose by 1.2 percent in June and are 6.6 percent higher than a year ago?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because, of course, we are working very hard as a Government—where we have the ability to—to ensure that we are bringing down those costs where they are related to systemic issues like, for instance, competition in our grocery sector. You can see we've been very forthright in that area, undertaking the market study with the Commerce Commission and working to very quickly to implement their findings. We hold deep concerns around the impact of lack of competition in New Zealand and the fact that it is impacting on whānau thorough food prices. Secondly, you can see with our cost of living payment, which comes in on 1 August, we are producing a time-limited payment to try and ease the burden of the cost of living increases for this period on whānau—$350 for anyone on $70,000 or less. We hope that, too, will have an impact.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is her response to the 76 percent of people who in a recent poll said they supported Te Paati Māori's policy to remove GST on kai, which would offset the impact of inflation on food prices?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I'm really genuine in the consideration that we have given this issue, because you will have seen that in the past, the Labour Party has policies around, for instance, GST on things like fresh fruit and vegetables. There have been concerns all the way through whenever such policies are raised that it cannot be guaranteed that such reductions will be passed on in the long term to consumers and whānau—and I genuinely hold that concern, particularly given some of what we've seen the Commerce Commission point out is happening within our grocery sector. The second concern is just the fact that we have a very simple, broad-based GST system. So what have we been doing instead? Trying to lift the incomes of families. That's income increases through the minimum wage, our commitments to public servants receiving a living wage, the increases in main benefit rates—and you can see the significant impact we've had there—and family tax credit, which goes to working and non-working New Zealanders. All of these things are designed to give greater dignity to New Zealanders to determine their own decisions in addressing their family needs.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is she doing about the fact that the People's Inquiry into Student Wellbeing found that tertiary students spend more than half of their income on rent, and two-thirds of students can't afford basics such as food, bills, and healthcare?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, this is an area where we have been making changes because we've identified that there is a need to increase the support for our students. That's why we made the first year of post-secondary education free. Apprenticeships are also free. We've also increased student support since 2017—it represents, roughly, a 50 percent increase in the amount that students who are eligible are receiving—and also their ability to borrow. We have made changes. We accept that there is more to do, but the changes we've made have been significant.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does she agree with Bernard Hickey that Governments should call on boards and company owners to return as much of the $20 billion in COVID cash handouts as they no longer need to fund anti-poverty programmes, given that the handouts, the money printing, pushed up asset values of households and businesses by $824 billion?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We simply ask those who sought the Government's support that was available to make sure that they complied with the conditions that we set down. That, of course, is, obviously, what we asked of those who were ultimately required to pass on, for instance, things like the wage subsidy to ensure that they maintained a connection between their employees to the job market. You can see the difference that it made.




Question No. 9—Biosecurity
9. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What measures are being taken by the Government to protect the country from foot-and-mouth disease?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Over the past month, I have instructed officials to take a number of measures additional to the already robust biosecurity system we have in place in order to protect New Zealand's economy from foot-and-mouth disease. After the announcement of foot-and-mouth outbreak in Indonesia, we launched a foot-and-mouth readiness task force to ensure our preparedness work is refreshed. I also instructed Biosecurity New Zealand to conduct an on-the-ground audit of the palm kernel supply chain in Indonesia in order to ensure practice in this supply chain was meeting our strict health standards. It was found to be meeting our standards, but we'll continue to monitor that. We also provided Indonesian authorities with personal protective equipment, disinfectant, backpacks for sprayers, and other tools to assist with Indonesia's on-the-ground response as well as providing technical expertise. Other additional measures we've put in place include a new wide-reaching awareness campaign targeting travellers before they travel to Indonesia through in-flight announcements and on arrival at international airports. Every passenger arrival card is examined and those assessed as a risk are directed to a different process of questioning, baggage search, and disinfection. This means that should passengers transit other airports, risks are still addressed. We're also providing regular updates to primary sector partners and the country's veterinary network, and working with primary sector partners to ensure their farmers remain vigilant. We're committed to doing what we can to keep foot-and-mouth out of New Zealand.
Angela Roberts: What engagement has the Government taken to date with international partners to protect the country from foot-and-mouth disease?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Biosecurity New Zealand's experts are providing me with regular advice on the foot-and-mouth situation as it is overseas, and based on this advice, we will continue to adapt our approach. This includes working closely with our counterparts in Australia, who have also stepped up their biosecurity measures following the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Indonesia. We're in constant contact, sharing information and advice on our respective biosecurity responses. And, as I noted in the primary response, I instructed Biosecurity New Zealand to conduct the on-the-ground audit of palm kernel supply, and we've provided equipment and advice and expertise to the Indonesian Government to help them battle this.
Angela Roberts: What Budget support has been provided to protect the country from foot-and-mouth disease?
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Government has made significant biosecurity investments in recent years, including the $110.9 million in Budget 2022. This included $21.2 million to boost critical diagnostic surveillance and investigative capability and heightened readiness for foot-and-mouth and other high impact animal diseases. This Government is committed to protecting New Zealand's economic security.




Question No. 10—Health
10. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his statement that the health system as a whole is coping, when he told this House recently that more than 20 percent of emergency department patients are waiting longer than six hours, and reports that some people are being forced to wait in leaky tents in hospital carparks?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I stand by my statements, behind a system that is facing the worst winter flu season it has faced in living memory, an ongoing impact of COVID-19 pandemic, and some of the worst levels of staff absenteeism our system has also seen. In the face of all of that, front-line nurses, doctors, front-line health managers are doing an absolutely outstanding job to make the decisions they have to make every day to make sure that the patients who turn up on their doorstep are getting the care that they need.
Dr Shane Reti: Why, then, did he say on national television that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation was "speaking in forked tongues", and does he think nurses working hard in a struggling health system appreciate the Minister of Health, who disparages them in the media?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have not disparaged nurses in this country, who do an absolutely outstanding job, and I had the great privilege of meeting a group of them last week to talk about the experiences that they're having at the moment with the incredible pressure that they're under. But I simply make the point that at a time when the Government is working very hard to lift pay and conditions for all health workers—including significant pay increases for nurses, compared to, you know, the previous nine years when nurse pay went backwards in real terms—and having reached an agreement with the union representing most nurses, that that union then walks out of the agreement and then later complains that not enough is being done to lift nurse pay. I stand by the actions of this Government to work very hard to make sure that nurses get paid fairly for the work that they do.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that he recently received a letter from 12 emergency department doctors in Palmerston North Hospital reporting that some patients with major trauma were being forced to wait in wheelchairs for up to nine hours; and, if so, what part of this is a health system that is coping?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have received notifications of a variety of things in the last few weeks, all of which I've then sent to the appropriate authorities for investigation. At this point, the advice I've received from Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand and from the Ministry of Health is that all appropriate steps are being taken to ensure that all patients in hospitals are getting the treatment that they need, under very difficult circumstances.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he name one health waiting list that is better today than it was five years ago when Labour took office; and, if so, which one?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I can help that member with is to point out that we are in the third year of a global pandemic that has put extraordinary pressure on our health system and every health system. And so in 2020, we saw waiting lists grow, and then as a consequence of the $282.5 million that this Government allocated, we saw waiting lists come back. Then we had the Delta outbreak at the end of last year, the Omicron outbreak at the beginning of this year, and further pressure this winter, and that has put further pressure on waiting lists. What I'm very pleased about is that Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, when they were in their interim phase, established a clinical leadership team led by Andrew Connolly to get to work on the waiting lists, and last week the chief executive of Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand issued a directive to all hospital leaders on a series of measures that they must take to reduce waiting lists. I'm satisfied that everything that can be done is being done.
SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I'm just going to talk to Mr Doocey. Interjections are to be rare and reasonable, and the member knows that he should not be making interjections in the second person, which he has been repeatedly doing today. Feigning ignorance, if that's what the member's doing, of what he is doing when he is reprimanded doesn't cut it with me.




Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)
11. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): How is the Government supporting schools to prepare for term 3 winter illnesses and protect against COVID-19?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): We know that winter illnesses historically peak at the start of term 3, and we have also been experiencing high numbers of cases of COVID-19 around the country. With schools returning this week, we have provided supports to them to help keep their students and staff safe. Last week, I wrote to boards of trustees of schools reminding them that the Government strongly encourages mask wearing. The public health advice continues to clearly show that mask wearing is a strong tool in the defence against the transmission of COVID-19 and other airborne respiratory viruses. That is why the Government is providing 10 million free child masks for terms 3 and 4 and continues to make adult-size masks available to schools for staff and older students. These masks are in addition to the 24 million adult-sized masks and nearly 4 million child masks already provided to schools this year.
Shanan Halbert: Why was a mask mandate considered as not necessary at this time for the school environment?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Schools implement their own mask-wearing policy, reflective of the current case rates in the school and community, and I am confident in their ability to do so. The ministries of health and education provided advice that mandating mask use is not necessary at this time, but it has strongly encouraged as much use as possible. We understand that mask wearing poses implementation challenges for schools—for example, younger children and students with learning support needs are unlikely to be able to comply with the mask mandate. There are also situations in schools where mask wearing might not be practicable, where it will have a significant impact on teaching and learning. We recognise that schools are best placed for managing mask requirements flexibility, to retain an appropriate balance of safety and minimise disruption to students' learning. Schools have this, and I back them.
Shanan Halbert: In addition to free masks, what other supports are in place?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Funding is being made available for urgent ventilation property improvements, and a supplementary heating payment will help schools with their energy bills when balancing heating and ventilation this winter. A further distribution of CO2 monitoring devices and portable air cleaners, at no costs for State and State-integrated schools, has been confirmed and will occur early in term 3. We are confident that schools are able to implement appropriate health assessments based on public health advice, and that is reflective of the needs of their school community. I want to take this opportunity to thank our teachers, principals, and parents, who are doing a fantastic job. I'm pleased we're able to provide this extra support to help them get through winter.




Question No. 12—Education (School Operations)
12. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What percentage of students attended school regularly in term 1 of 2022, and what actions, if any, has she taken, since seeing this data, to urgently reduce truancy? 
Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): Term 1 data for 2022 shows that, nationally, 46.1 percent of students met the criteria for regular attendance, which is attending school 90 percent of the time, or nine days out of a fortnight. This is a decrease from term 1 data from 2021, which showed 66.8 percent of students attending regularly, and it is reflective of the current COVID-19 outbreak that is affecting the country nationwide and of parents keeping their kids home from school. The Government has a razor-sharp focus on supporting schools and communities to work with their students to encourage regular attendance at school. The actions we have taken and continue to implement every day include rolling out the 13 actions in the Attendance and Engagement Strategy for tackling the decade-long decline in regular attendance and engagement in schools, supported by the $88 million of targeted funding on the ground. We are redesigning the Attendance Service to bring it closer to the schools and communities that it serves. These contracts are being developed as we speak and will be complete by December. 
Erica Stanford: How can she say that this is COVID-driven when the data shows that only half of the increase in non-attendance between term 4 last year and term 1 is driven by sickness, and children isolating at home are marked as attending? 
Hon JAN TINETTI: I have warned the member before not to cherry-pick at the data to make a political point. She is comparing oranges and apples. I would like to turn out—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JAN TINETTI: I would like to point out that term 2 is our flagship data for attendance reporting. We have a longitudinal series of data that digitally dates back to 2011 and prior to that for term 2. Terms 1, 3, and 4 data is still short, only beginning in 2019 and heavily impacted by COVID, which is why I say that comparing term 4 to term 1 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and those of us with that knowledge understand that. 
Erica Stanford: Is the Minister saying that we should be disregarding the term 1 data showing that 102,000 children are now chronically truant from school, up from 68,000 in term 4? 
Hon JAN TINETTI: What I am saying is to be careful about making those comparisons. What I will say to that member is that if she wants—[Multiple members interject]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. If the members want this question to continue, they will be quiet. 
Hon JAN TINETTI: What I will say to that member is that if she wants to disregard the concerns that many parents have around the seriousness of COVID-19 or the compounding factors that families are experiencing which are contributing to the lack of regular school attendance, then she is going to see that situation worsen. That is something that I am not prepared to do. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that the level of chronic absence in New Zealand schools began to increase significantly around the time that the Attendance Service was fixed by the last National Government? 
Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, I can confirm that. In 2015, the then National Government took that service and took it further away from schools, which meant that the chronic absences in this country skyrocketed. That is something that this Government will not tolerate any longer. 
Erica Stanford: Can the Minister tell this House how many truancy officers are employed now compared to under the old system? 
Hon JAN TINETTI: That is data that I do not have right in front of me at this time. If that member wanted that specific—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I indicated to members that if they wanted this question to continue, they would be quiet, but they clearly don't. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: No, no—the question's finished. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it isn't. 
SPEAKER: The question has finished. That concludes oral questions. 
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we still have one supplementary question remaining. 
SPEAKER: The member might have. 
Erica Stanford: Supplementary question. 
SPEAKER: No, the member will resume her seat. I made it very clear to members that if they weren't quiet, the question would be finished. They weren't; it was. 
Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, I hope the member's not going to argue with me, because he's running a real risk of leaving the House. 
 





URGENT DEBATES DECLINED
School Truancy—Release of Attendance Data
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Erica Stanford—[Interruption] Do members want the answer to this one or are they going to chip me again?
I have received a letter from Erica Stanford seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the release of attendance data. School attendance is undoubtedly an important issue, but an accumulation of data on an issue is not a particular case of recent occurrence. Speakers' rulings 204/4 and 204/5 apply. The application is declined.
I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2).





EDUCATION AND TRAINING AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
In Committee
Part 1  Substantive amendments to principal Act
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House in committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). We come first to Part 1. I call Chris Penk.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister can provide a summary of this part for the elucidation of the committee. When he is able to do so, we will welcome any thoughts he can provide on that, particularly in the context of the legislation as a whole, and the regime that the Government is planning to implement thereby.
Hon Member: Madam—
Hon Member: Oh, apologies.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, somebody needs to seek the call.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Just to invite the Minister, as I did about 30 seconds ago, to actually provide some information about the bill, as is traditional, of course, in this stage.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Page 1.
CHRIS PENK: Page 1—very good. Page one is actually just the title, so there's not much useful there. Arguably, there's actually not much useful in the rest of it, either, but if the Minister would care to actually defend it at all, that would be very welcome. 
So I notice, for example, that the direct engagement would actually be helpful, and what we're seeing, obviously, is a bill that's intended to promote various positive aims, but it seems to me that the reduction of competition and the increase of prices in the early childhood education sector is evidence to the contrary. So I'd be grateful for any thoughts that the Minister may deign to give this committee in terms of justifying the policy positions in Part 1 of the bill.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to question the Minister—and I'm sure there'll be no surprises on this—around the Supplementary Order Paper that was introduced by the Minister and then incorporated in the bill, the one that we spoke about and deliberated on at select committee, around network planning for early childhood. I want to start by questioning the Minister around my tabled amendment to this part of the bill.
The changes that the Minister made to this part of the bill will extend the start date, effectively, of network planning to 1 February. Now, he did this after consultation with the select committee and representations that I'd made to him, in that the 1 August date was unworkable because there were many early childhood education providers who were in the middle of building and wouldn't make that date. It was a great thing that he went away and changed that to 1 February. The problem, though, lies in the fact that—and I have made this clear to the Minister and he hasn't taken it into account—over the December/January period, the Christmas period, basically Auckland Council shuts down and the ministry shuts down. So my amendment goes to this very point and asks the Minister to push the start date out another six weeks to account for this. The reason is that the early childhood providers are not able to apply for a building or resource consent or a CPU—a certificate of public use—from the Auckland Council between the dates of approximately 1 December and mid-January, and even into late January it's a bit patchy because of a lack of staff that are around. They need those sign-offs in order to get their licence application ready to give to the Ministry of Education on 1 February, and they've lost six weeks.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Health and the public health entities that are required to do sign-offs for that licence are also closed for applications between, again, approximately 1 December and mid-January and, again, are a bit patchy towards the end of January. So that whole six- to eight-week period is lost because the applicants won't be able to get the documents they need in order to get their licensing application ready for submission to the ministry. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education themselves close off for receiving applications for licensing around 1 December for six weeks, and, again, have about a quarter of their staff from mid-January onwards for a little while.
So that whole period is effectively a dead period for applicants wanting to get their licence into council. So this amendment asks that the Minister push out the date for another six weeks to account for this loss in time. My question to the Minister is: did he receive representations around this, why hasn't it been taken into account, and will he support our amendment to make this bill better and fairer for applicants who have effectively lost that six- to eight-week period? Will he consider the amendment? I have other amendments that I will talk to but those are my questions for now.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government doesn't support the amendment that the member has just spoken to, for one simple reason, and that is I think the member suggests by the way she speaks that if centres haven't applied for their licence and got their licence by the date in question, suddenly it's all over for them. In fact, it's not. Centres will still be able to apply for licences after that date—they will just have to follow the new process. 
The process is designed to stop the proliferation of services that attract Government subsidies in areas where there isn't sufficient demand for them. We know that when demand is spread across centres that are struggling to survive, educational quality for children suffers. So these provisions are designed to ensure that where Government subsidies are being applied—and these are quite significant subsidies that get applied to early childhood education services—there is actually a need for them, acknowledging that there are some services that are currently under construction that won't have had the opportunity to be able to comply with the new process because it was introduced after they had started building their services. We have allowed for that in terms of the time frames in the bill.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the Minister mostly misunderstood my point, but kind of got there at the end, and still didn't make any sense. The point is that this is around those providers who have already started construction and are trying to get their application in before the deadline so that they don't have to apply and get caught in this dual licensing scheme that the Minister has set up. He himself pushed the date out from 1 August until 1 February for that very reason: to allow them to get their application in before the dual licensing system sets in. What I'm trying to explain to the Minister is that he did not give them a fair amount of time, because, included in that time that he's given them—acknowledging that he wanted them to get their application in before the 1st, because they're already under construction—they've lost six to eight weeks. The period that he's given them—the period of grace that he's given them—isn't the period that he thinks it is, because it loses six to eight weeks. My question to him is: why wasn't that taken into account? Has he listened to the early childhood education providers who are under construction at the moment, who are crying out, saying they're not going to meet the deadline, and are concerned that they won't be able to meet the dual licensing criteria?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As I indicated to the member just before, those are issues that the Government considered; that is the reason we have affixed a longer date to this particular deadline. I am satisfied that the new deadline gives centres a sufficient, fair opportunity.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on, I want to talk to the Minister or get him to answer some questions around land that is compulsorily acquired that centres are on.
There has been a recent occurrence of a centre which is close to the Minister's electorate—a centre called Little Footprints—and there will be others who get caught up in this, who have had their land compulsorily acquired by legislation because New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are building a road through where their centre is going to be. So they are forced to move and they want to relocate up the road. Under the current legislation, it is our understanding that they will be caught up in the new dual licensing requirements, which seems extremely unfair.
My Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 183 is requesting that centres who find themselves in this situation are exempt from the legislation if they're moving within a 10-kilometre radius. I'm happy to go back and forward with the Minister on this and reduce that if required. But it is my understanding that they will be caught up in this legislation, including the one that's close to his electorate, which many of his constituents actually attend—as I found out—who haven't yet had to move, but they will have to move in the next few months. They only want to shift up the road—less than a kilometre, as it turns out—but under this current legislation will have to apply for a first licence or pre-licence and may, in fact, miss out if the Minister decides that there are enough services already in that area.
So I want to ask the Minister whether or not he will support our SOP. This will go for any early childhood centres in the future who are caught up in this compulsorily acquired land situation where they won't be required to then apply for—they'll just be able to move without having to apply for the two licences in the future. Keen to know if he's heard from anyone else in the same position, if he's heard from Little Footprints, and whether or not he will support our SOP in this case.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I am very happy to comment on that. I am aware of the centre in question which is being captured. The land is being acquired for public works associated with the flood protection around the Hutt River. I think it is important that centres that are captured by those circumstances, that allowance is made for them.
The advice that I've got at the moment is that we don't need further legislative change or amendments to this to be able to do that. We certainly will be looking to ensure that where services are forced to relocate for circumstances beyond their control—so where land is compulsorily acquired, for example—they are able to transfer their service to a different site as close as practical to the existing site that they operate on.
What we don't want to do is create a system of tradable licences, effectively, where people can relocate a service well away from where it is at the moment; 10 kilometres, if you think about it in the context of the Hutt Valley, that's still quite a large area that a service could relocate within. So that service could relocate from Melling to Naenae, for example, and still be within 10 kilometres—which wouldn't be the intention.
So we will certainly be making sure that services—I have made a commitment that I will make sure that services like that have the opportunity to relocate given that it's beyond their control that they have to vacate their current site.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to echo the comments of my colleague Erica Stanford and also say thank you to the Minister for his comments in relation to this issue.
It is, I think, an anomaly that is produced by the amending legislation that we're going through. People have their own views about the substantive amendments that the Government is advancing, but I think we can all agree that centres like Little Footprints, which Stanford and I have visited to learn more about this challenge, through no fault of their own, are being, essentially, unfairly put in the situation where they are put at a disadvantage because of, in this case, the RiverLink and the Melling works. They have been advised by the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GRWC) that GRWC needs the land by 30 June 2023, when the RiverLink Melling interchange will finally be under way—God willing—and so of course they wish to move.
In relation to the Minister's comments around 10 kilometres, I think I'm right in saying, Ms Stanford, that National would be more than willing to enter into a dialogue or discussion around the precise kilometre basis to get this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 183, potentially 3 kilometres or potentially 5 kilometres. If the Government wishes to move an amendment to that, that would be fine, but I would just encourage the Government to accept, now, this SOP.
I think it is a sensible SOP. It just says that the section applies to any licensed early childhood service when the premises are required by the Crown or the Public Works Act and the operator of that service may relocate, acquire another service or establish a new service, or have that licence transferred by notifying the ministry, and it has to be within 10 kilometres. As I say, we're more than happy to enter into dialogue in relation to the precise kilometre distance for this. I think it is a sensible amendment.
The Minister has just indicated to the House that his advice so far is that there's not any particular legislative change required. I would be interested in some further comment as to why that is particularly the case. But I would encourage the Government to accept this SOP because, at least in the case of Little Footprints—and potentially unknown other numbers of other early childhood education (ECE) services out there—it would provide some surety and some comfort for them. It's obviously a pretty difficult time for them, and then if this became law they at least would have the backstop of knowing that if, in fact, the non-legislative options don't work, there is at least that legislative backstop and they will, in fact, be able to proceed and transfer their licence so they continue to provide quality ECE services to the tamariki of the Hutt.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Further to that, I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on how his officials have told him that these centres will not be caught up by the legislation, because it has been our advice and our reading of the bill that they will be caught up. So I would like the Minister to just elaborate on the exact part of the legislation that means that they won't have to apply for both licences. If he could specifically point us to the part of the legislation that shows that they won't be caught up, that would be very useful.
I guess the second part is he's given us his word that he will make sure that this doesn't happen in the future. But I guess if the legislation, quite clearly, in our view, shows that they will be caught up, how can he give us that guarantee? What will put in place, exactly, if not legislation—how will he make it clear, put it in writing, put it somewhere, that these centres will not be caught up.
So two parts to that question: firstly, if he can point us exactly to the advice that he's had showing that they're not going to be caught up in this legislation, and, secondly, if he's not going to accept our Supplementary Order Paper 183, then exactly what will he do to ensure that they are not caught up and that they will be exempt? Just saying to us that that's going to be the case is somewhat comforting—you know, I take him at his word—but it would be nice to know exactly how that is going to happen.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just to be clear, I didn't say they wouldn't be captured; what I said was that in order to facilitate them relocating, I did not believe that additional legislative change was required in order to be able to facilitate that. So in operationalising the implementation of the legislation, we will be able to make provision for that. So that's the discussion that we've had.
I haven't had written advice on it, because it was a verbal discussion that we've had so far. In the event that further change is required, then we can bring that forward, but the provisions in this legislation do still allow for Government to make operational decisions about how they are implemented.





PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister could give us a bit of a general overview, an introduction to the legislation. Because during the submissions we had quite a lot of concern, particularly around the early childhood education (ECE) work—it was a solution looking for a problem, when in fact there are a number of real problems in the ECE sector. And so I'm interested to hear from the Minister how he thinks this legislation might help some of those real problems, like child-to-teacher ratios, there's major issues there; pay parity, where the Government has actually caused more harm than good; quality assurance—spot checks are not occurring regularly; high costs to parents, and certainly in these times of inflation and the cost of living crisis, that's particularly relevant. The administrative burden on teachers and centre managers; the restrictions on the use of the six-hours per day skill shortages; and the disparate issues around being able to access qualified teachers and many simply burning out and leaving.
So these are real problems in the ECE sector looking for solutions. And I would be interested to know from the Minister, in a general introduction of this legislation, how his amendment might in some way address any of those. Because with the network planning, Minister, all we are seeing is the likelihood of reducing competition and increasing prices for parents, along with the Minister having more control about being able to decide what happens where; and, also, the Minister giving himself the ability to make whatever changes, whenever he wants to, to the conditions on an ECE licence. So real problems that we would like the Minister to perhaps outline how this legislation might address those.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I take the Minister, can I just advise the member that in the committee stage she is to deal with matters that are in the bill. It is OK to refer occasionally and briefly to measures that do not fall within the scope of the bill, but a large part of the member's question related to matters that are not included in the bill. I have been trying to follow, so I think I've got it about right. However, if the Minister wishes to address any of the measures raised, then it is up to him. I call the Hon Chris Hipkins.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you've just made the bulk of the point I was going to make, so I won't re-canvass that. But if the member wants a general introduction to the Bill, I refer her to the legislative statements presented during the first and second readings. That is the point of those debates.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am speaking to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 162. The background to part of this is that we approached the Minister to advise him that the two-year period between the two licences that the early childhood education (ECE) centres would need to apply for was never going to be enough. It currently stands at around about 15 months, if you're lucky, to get a resource consent and building consent for a project, and then at least another year at least of spades in the ground and actually building.
Now, we had this discussion at the Education and Workforce Committee where I quite clearly put this to officials and said to them "The two-year time frame is not enough." And the response that was given to me was, "Well, the developers and the ECE centres could always apply for their resource consent and their building consent before they apply for their early childhood first licence." I made the point back to them: "Well, you name me one developer, one early childhood centre that's going to put $100,000 to $150,000 at risk with a building consent or a resource consent before they know that they've got a licence to actually go ahead and operate an early childhood centre.", and they didn't budge on that. So the upshot of that was that I went to the Minister and he graciously, in his office, let me explain this case to him.
Now, I notice that the changes that have been made in the SOP have pushed this out to three years, and I just want to get the Minister to explain to us why he made that decision and what will be the requirements within that three-year period around milestones. So at what point will the developer or the early childhood provider need to show certain things have been done? Like a resource consent, a building consent, a spade in the ground, Gib up—I mean I don't know what the Minister is thinking around those milestones. So if I could just get him to explain the three years and the milestones that will be required by the developer or the early childhood centre along the way.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, indeed we are extending the time frame required from two years to three years. There will be milestones that the licence holders will be required to meet during that period of time to ensure that they're not simply engaging in anti-competitive behaviour—i.e., getting a licence in order to stop someone else getting a licence, in order to shut them out of the market. So milestones will be set out. They're not set out in legislation, but they will be set out in the operational part of the process as the new legislation is implemented.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): The point of my question, Madam Chair, was to find out what those milestones were going to be, what he's thinking they would likely be, and at what points they would likely be. If he'd care to elaborate on that, it would be very useful for the developers.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): They have not yet been finalised.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move on to the part of the bill that deals with the early childhood network planning and not just the Supplementary Order Papers. My first question, I guess, is around the data. I just wanted to know from the Minister what data he will be relying on in order to determine where a centre is required. How will that data be gathered, how will it be analysed, and who will it be analysed by?
While I give the Minister time to read his papers, a further question I would like to ask is: what are the Minister's priorities when it comes to deciding an application? I'll give the Minister an example: if a large early childhood education (ECE) provider turns up to the Minister or to the ministry and hands them a pile of research that they've spent a considerable amount of money on, showing that there is a need for a certain type of service in a certain area—because that ECE provider has undertaken a great deal of research showing that there is a need in that particular area—how will he balance their data against the data of the ministry? The reason I'm asking that is because all parents know very well that you don't necessarily put your child in an early childhood centre that is necessarily close to your home. Quite often, you put your children in early childhood in a centre that is close to where you work or on the way to work, or somewhere else.
Now, there are companies out there that are able to provide this data to early childhood centres, and they will do so at considerable sums of money. The Minister's data—that's why I asked the question before that; what data is he relying on? How will he get data to show where parents actually want their centres to be? And, furthermore, what data will he be provided by the ministry as to what type of service parents want? Now, there is a plethora of service providers out there, providing everything from a Montessori down to a community service based ECE centre, and everything in between. So the question to the Minister is: will the ministry be able to find out data that tells the Minister where a centre needs to be and what type of centre it needs to be? Secondly, when an early childhood provider turns up with data showing that exact thing—that they've spent a lot of money on—how will he balance what they're saying against what his own officials are saying? Will he use consultants to analyse that data? How will he balance the two?
And I'll keep going because he's still not ready. Furthermore, I guess the next question is: how long will the Minister wait between receiving the first application for a centre in a particular area and approving, or not approving, that particular one that he's received? Will the Minister wait until he receives more applications for a particular area, so that he's got a number to choose from? How long will he wait for there to be more than one? How long will it take to process the application? And, really importantly, I guess, if a provider turns up, first out of the blocks, with a whole bunch of information saying, "This is where a centre is required. Here is all the analysis I've done. Here's the type of centre that parents want. Here's where they need it—on their route to work or somewhere else." and then another four centres come in, late to the party, a month down the track, and don't have any data themselves but are relying on the data that was already provided by the first provider, how will the Minister balance those applications? Clearly, one has done a lot of work, but he might prefer one of the others—for various reasons that only he will know. So how fair is it that providers who don't do any of their own data analysis can ride on the coat-tails of one who did, and how will he balance that out?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): All of the issues that the member has just raised will be covered in the national and regional policy statements that the legislation allows for. So the requirements around what an applicant will need to demonstrate will be set out. The time frames for the processing of applications will be set out in the national and regional policy statements. So that's not the subject of the primary legislation, which is what the committee of the whole House is currently debating. And, of course, it will be open to successive Governments to be able to set out different national and regional policy statements. I'm not in a position to answer for what future Governments may or may not do with that ability, but what I can indicate is that there is consultation happening at the moment, which is a matter of public record, which sets out the current Government's thinking around that.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I'd like the Minister to explain how this legislation around network planning is going to improve the quality of those existing centres in areas where there is no more need for a centre and, therefore, a licence won't be granted.
The network planning legislation that's put in front of us also, for a centre who is in an existing area that the Minister may decide no more centres are required in, will have a huge impact on a business in terms of the value of that business, and I want to know from the Minister what research or what evidence or any advice he's had around the effect on those existing businesses, or the ones that he grants licences to in new-build areas—the likely increase in value to their businesses given that there will not be any competition allowed in their area, therefore forcing up the value of their business.





PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister could give some clarification, for those that have got existing licences, as to what might trigger the Minister to make whatever changes he wants, whenever he wants on their conditions of the licence, given that this is something that will make their security at real risk, and therefore their ability to be able to borrow more money—to be able to know as directors of that centre what they might be able to do in future in terms of greater size, taking on more students. So can the Minister give some indication of what might trigger him to change conditions so that centres at least have some kind of security around knowing what they might or might not be able to do to give themselves better security, given the wide-ranging powers he is giving himself in this area.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I move, That the question be now put.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to turn my attention and ask the Minister if he could elaborate a bit about the police-vetting requirements in terms of applications for non-teaching and unregistered positions within the early childcare education environment and whether or not he believes that that's going to create an onerous burden on applicants into the system. The last thing we want to do is to place that burden on our existing police resources. Does he think that there is some leeway that can be given there? Because we see that most people will provide a police vet on their application or with their application—and whether we can streamline that process in a better way so that we're not unduly adding a cost to the application which could also then be a barrier to applying for those roles, which I reiterate are non-teaching and unregistered positions. 
The other question I have, while I've got the talking stick, is in terms of the criteria around locations or localities, is: how can the Minister give some reassurance to the customers of those early childhood centres that the ability to innovate, the ability to be creative in how centres deliver services to families, is not going to be stifled by the mere fact that they have the controlling interest in an area? And what guarantees can he give that there will be that ability for those centres to provide that innovation, if you like, but other ways of doing work as usual—and maybe providing what would normally happen as a consequence of competition in the market? So does the Minister believe that that might create a kind of—I don't want to use the word "lazy", but maybe a bit more of a relaxed approach to the long-term future of some of those centres, and that we do end up dumbing down as a consequence of that lack of competition?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): If I perhaps just work backwards through those issues, in terms of the room for innovation and the room for different types of services, network planning certainly does not prevent that. And in the operational guidance that will be issued and in the national and regional policy statements, I think it will be clear that there is still room for innovation and for different service types in different areas where they're offering something different that its current centres don't offer. 
In terms of police vetting, I can tell the member that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Police have had a good conversation about the police-vetting processes and there is some further development happening there in the space of police vetting, which the Minister of Police is leading, which will ensure that that process is continuing to improve. 
In terms of the issue raised by Penny Simmonds in her questions, she is simply wrong. In fact, in terms of her assertions around what the bill does, she has a particular clause of the bill that she believes supports the assertions that she has just made. I certainly don't believe that it is in the bill, that existing centres would be covered, but if she has a clause in the bill that she believes does do that, then of course I welcome her pointing that out.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): To back up my colleague Penny Simmonds, I think her point was around the Supplementary Order Paper that is now included in the bill in terms of new section 17A, in clause 5B, which is around network planning. We have always been concerned around the fact that in section 17A it states that "(2) the Minister may, at any time (a) impose new conditions on the approval, or (b) amend or revoke any existing conditions.", which is a huge red flag especially if you're talking to the lenders, because nobody is going to lend to a provider when the Minister can change his mind halfway through on any conditions that he imposed at the beginning.
We know this because we spoke to the banks, and they said quite clearly that this is a red flag and they are unlikely to lend on this. Now, when I took this to officials and brought it up with them in select committee, they said to us, "Oh, no, it's fine. It'll only ever be driven by the applicant—if there is a change driven by the applicant." So I drafted Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 182, which goes directly to this and, basically, says that if that is the case, and if what the officials are claiming is true—that it will only ever be driven by the applicant—then let's put it in the bill.
Supplementary Order Paper 182 requires the words "at any time" to be replaced with "with the consent of the applicant". So if it's driven by the applicant, he needs to consult with the applicant, and the applicant needs to consent to those changes—if it's true what the officials told us in select committee. This SOP is very important for the reasons I've already outlined. It's a huge red flag for the lenders. It's a huge amount of uncertainty. It's a sword of Damocles hanging over the developer or the early childhood provider in that things could be changed at any point during their build, outside of their control, at the whim of the Minister, because that's how the legislation reads. If it's true that it will be driven by the applicant, then the Minister should accept my Supplementary Order Paper, which says that the consent of the applicant must be given in order for any changes to be made. 
This is the one clause in the bill that all early childhood providers and developers, the council, and banks raised concerns about with me, and at the select committee, and as much as I tried to get this changed, I wasn't able to. So that's why I have brought forward this SOP, and my question to the Minister is: is it true what the officials told us? Is it the case, as they told us in the select committee, that it will only be driven by the applicant, and if that is the case will he support my SOP to make sure that any changes that he does make are in consultation with, and with the consent of, the applicant? If he does support this, it is going to make a huge difference to the funding of these developers and the funding of these early childhood centres when they go to the bank and ask for money, because this is the one part of the bill that is a huge red flag. So the question to the Minister is: will he accept my SOP and make sure that he has the consent of the applicant, and was it the case that this will in fact be driven by the applicant?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I would simply point out to the member a couple of things. One is that centres at the moment apply for funding to build new early childhood centres without, in many cases, ever having applied for a licence. They don't apply for the licence until the centre is already finished. In fact, in one case, as the local member of Parliament, not as the Minister of Education, I attended the opening of a new early childhood centre in my own electorate only to discover that, in fact, at that point, the centre hadn't even applied for its licence. It's a very nice centre. It subsequently did apply for a licence. It's been a very popular centre, and is serving the local community very well, but that centre had gone all the way through the process of consenting, building, employing staff, and getting ready to go before they even applied for a licence. So the idea that there is less certainty now when centres are, basically, being given pre-approval of a licence before they go through that process is, I think, absurd. No banks submitted during the select committee process. No banks have raised this issue with the Ministry of Education, so I don't accept the assertion that the member makes, that this somehow is going to lead to less certainty.
I think it does somewhat contradict the question she was asking earlier, which is around the ability of the Minister or the person approving the licence to be able to set the requirement for milestones to be met. And as the member will be aware, from time to time those milestones may need to be changed by negotiation, and that's what the bill allows for.





PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): I do want to give the Minister the exact clause that he told me I was so wrong about, and he may want to reconsider that assertion. It is new clause 5B inserting new section 17A(2): "The Minister may, at any time,—(a) impose new conditions on the approval; or (b) amend or revoke any existing conditions." 
Now that is the uncertainty that we are talking about. Anyone running any business, but particularly an early childhood centre, that may have new conditions imposed, or amendments, or revoking any existing conditions—surely the Minister can see how this uncertainty would make banks lending to an early childhood provider very nervous, and therefore make it more difficult for early childhood centres to be able to extend or try and gain additional loan facilities. So that is the exact clause I was referring to.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Madam Chair, the member is wrong. She continues to assert that these provisions apply to existing early childhood education services. They do not. 





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I move, That the question be now put.





MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to go back and ask the Minister—and I've made an assumption here that the Minister has had fulsome discussions with the Minister of Police. As he's alluded to something coming, maybe he could elucidate a bit more about that, because I think it would give comfort in this particular issue, around police vetting, and if the Minister has got further information that he would like to share in the committee of the whole House, I think that might prove to be very reassuring. And if the Minister could please help us out by sharing the fulsome conversation that he has had with the Minister of Police, that would be great. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just briefly, no I'm not in a position to go into that in greater detail. What I can say is that the Minister of Police is in conversations with the Police about how the Police-vetting process can be streamlined. It is an issue that's been raised with the Minister of Education by early childhood services and others, including schools—you know, all those covered by the vulnerable children's legislation where police vetting is required. I have raised this as an issue, and in fact Police have raised this as an issue, because of the resource impost that it has for Police. I do think that there is a potential there to streamline some of those processes to make them quicker, potentially, but also less cumbersome for everybody involved.
So I'm not in a position to go into greater detail on that at the moment, other than to say that it's certainly on the work programme, it's being worked on, and the concerns around time frames and around the process are absolutely acknowledged.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Part 1 of this bill is a substantive part of the bill. There are a number of members' amendments; there is also one tabled amendment, so I will keep the debate going. There are members seeking the call.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to take issue with what the Minister said in relation to the answer to my question. He gave the example of a centre that hadn't applied for a licence when they'd already opened. I think the point to make quite clearly is that the current licensing arrangements are such that they are checkbox exercises. As long as you meet the criteria, you will get a licence. The issue with this new licensing arrangement, and why I brought my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), is because that is not guaranteed any more. It is up to the Minister to decide who gets the pre-licence out of a number of applications, depending on his set list, which we've had an idea upon about who he will prioritise, whether or not he thinks that there is significant demand or enough for another centre in that area. So it is not guaranteed. 
So that's why it's so very important in the first instance to make sure that these developers and early childhood centres have access to funding more so than they do now, because they know very well that as long as they meet the criteria, they will get their licence, and if they muck up something, then they can go and fix it and come back and reapply and get their licence. It is much more of a guarantee than under this new legislation. That is why I brought the SOP, because it has been brought to our attention by the banks. I did ask the banks to come to the select committee and they refused because they said they don't normally get involved in this type of thing. But I think it's very telling that the Minister and the officials didn't go to the banks themselves when I raised this with them and said this is going to be a problem.
For the Minister to just sit there and say, "Oh, well, the banks didn't contact us." isn't really good enough. It is an issue. Early childhood centres and the council have told us it's an issue. The banks have told us it's an issue. We cannot have a clause in the bill that says that the Minister can change his mind at any time that he thinks fit, because no one will lend to me on that, and my Supplementary Order Paper just makes it clear that if the officials have said that it's to be driven by the applicant, then it should be.
My second point that I want to ask the Minister about is going back to quality. I asked this question earlier and he didn't answer, and then they tried to close the debate down. I think that this is a question that's worthy of answer. We have, in some instances, issues with the quality of early childhood centres, and we need to be doing everything we possibly can about that. This piece of legislation, this bill, does nothing to make sure that centres are improving their quality of service. In fact, it does the opposite. It tells them: if you are in an existing area, we will protect you from any competition because we will not allow any competitors in to compete against you to force you to raise your standards, because we want to control the sector and make sure that there is the exact right amount of centres in a region. Now, the upshot of that is that centres will only be incentivised in these cases to do what is the bare minimum. 
We all know that competition is the thing that makes sure that people are upping their game, improving their services, adding additional benefits for parents, and that is not going to be guaranteed under this bill. In fact, we're going to get the very opposite. So the question that I put to the Minister earlier is really important. If you take the example of an existing centre in a person's local area, that is acceptable but it's not great. Parents don't love it, but it's just there. This bill means that no one will be able to come in and compete against them, if the Minister decides that there isn't sufficient demand for another centre. There is no incentive for that centre to improve their playground, to improve the quality offering of their food, to improve the resources that the children have access to. The incentive is to do the bare minimum. So I want to ask the Minister: what does he think will happen to the quality of existing early childhood education services when they are not having any competition because he won't allow it? And will this lead to a race to the bottom?
So two quite clear questions there: the first one about my SOP and, I think, his misunderstanding, and then, secondly, it is really important that we get an answer on quality, because this whole bill is doing the opposite of incentivising early childhood centres to improve their quality through a lack of competition.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The member's blind faith in the market and in competition delivering better outcomes is somewhat misguided, given the concerns that she's raising about the quality of current early childhood education services where there is, effectively, a free market operating at the moment. In fact, international evidence suggests that in education settings, particularly in schooling in early childhood education, competition and a free market do not lead to better outcomes for children, and it does not lead to higher quality services. The network planning provisions are nothing to fear in that regard. They're making sure that Government subsidies are going into high quality services. In fact, one of the problems that we've got with the current market model for early childhood education services is that low quality services are able to replicate without any consequence. So even if somebody is operating a poor quality service that's on a provisional licence, they can go and establish other services elsewhere with very little consequence. That is one of the problems that we have with the sector at the moment. So the network planning provisions will help us to prevent that from happening and I think that that will be a very good thing.
In terms of the member's contention that the planning provisions in this bill will lead to fewer people being willing to enter the market, that is simply something that the Government disagrees with. It is a debating point but she hasn't produced any evidence to demonstrate that that's what's actually going to happen. 





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want the Minister to give me an example of how network planning will improve the quality of existing services in an area where there are to be no more services set up; so in an area where there is currently one centre—let's take Ruakākā; somewhere where there's only one centre—and it is operating at minimum standards, barely acceptable. How will network planning improve the quality of that centre when there is no more room for a second centre to come into the market under his legislation?
Secondly, the Minister didn't answer my earlier question around my Supplementary Order Paper 182, which is to ensure that the consent of the applicant is gained when the Minister makes any changes. He hasn't answered the question of whether or not it is the case that the officials were right that this will be driven by changes made by the applicant, and he hasn't answered the question around my argument around how this is so important in this case, because there is no guarantee that you will get your licence—that a licence will be able to be gained compared to now. So if he could answer those questions, that would be very useful.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Mr Speaker—Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Mr Chair.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Why is the Chair in a different spot than the Chair usually is? Oh, no, sorry—
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I'd remind the member he's a couple of years out of date.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to refer to the issue around elements supporting the reform of vocational education, simplifying qualifications and credentials. I suppose the issue there is it's in the context of what we in this House would regard as a slow-moving train wreck of the reform of vocational education, where what we had was a very effective set of polytechs around the country, some of them being in financial distress and others of them doing extremely well and serving their community very well. This Government's impulse towards centralisation meant that their answer to every problem is to nationalise everything and have one rule for all and to lump everything into one organisation. Then, two years on and hundreds of millions of dollars later, we have a combined institution with a deficit larger than ever before—$110 million so far, probably much worse—and then what we have here in relation to proposed legislative changes around simplifying qualifications and setting up microcredentials. I remember when I was tertiary Minister five or six years ago, we were talking about microcredentials. I'm glad we've finally made some progress, five years on. 
But the point is: the whole experience of this national institution is that it has been very ineffective at listening to the people that it's supposed to serve. If we take, for example, the nurses, the nurses have given up and withdrawn their—well, the nurses whom the Minister of Health refers to as speaking with a forked tongue, who are being disrespected by this Government from pillar to post. These same nurses have had to deal with the situation that the proposed curriculum hadn't listened to the nurses, had disrespected them, and this institution has backed down. So we have yet more legislation coming into the House to fix this ongoing, slow-moving train wreck which is the national polytech situation, and I'd like to have some reassurance from the Minister that he'll do a better job as a result of this legislation to listen to the communities that are being served.
I suppose what makes that relevant for people listening into this debate is that the polytechs were the first of the great nationalising expeditions of this Government. We also, of course, have three waters following next and the health reforms following it as well. We've seen, so far, complete calamity in the first, in regard to polytechs, and worse outcomes and worse financial outcomes and less listening to the local communities who are best placed to know what they want and what they had and what they would like to continue to have, and more dictates from Wellington about, you know, "This is what you will have.", which is how this Government operates. So it would be nice to hear from the Minister to give us some reassurance that these qualifications that are talked about in Part 1 of this bill will have some relationship to what the local communities want and need, and how on earth this great clunking nationalistic bureaucracy that he's created for the polytechs will be able to respond in a way that is appropriate.





ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a simple question to the Minister: how long will it take to approve an application for a licence, and how long will he wait to receive more than one application for a certain area? 





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I move, That the question be now put.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 76
New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Erica Stanford's tabled amendment to Part 1, amending new section 2(1) of clause 3A, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 74
New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Motion not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Erica Stanford's amendment to clause 5B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 74
New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Erica Stanford's amendment to clause 5B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 183 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1, as amended, stand part.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Part 1, as amended, agreed to.





Part 2  Other amendments
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Part 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.





Clauses 1 to 3
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to our final debate, and that's on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: the title, commencement, and principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Erica Stanford's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 184 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that clause 3 stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10
Clause 3 agreed to.





Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.





AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC MEDIA BILL
First Reading
Debate resumed from 30 June.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in respect of the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill. The National Party is opposed to this bill. The move to amalgamate Radio New Zealand and TVNZ is yet another wasteful and pointless move by the Government, adding yet more bureaucracy, yet more costs and largesse to our public sector. It will reduce media plurality in New Zealand and further erode public trust in New Zealand media. We should instead be supporting the growth of our media content industry—a vital cultural export as part of New Zealand's tourism and digital economy—not amalgamate it and not waste money on it in the wrong places.
Unfortunately, we have seen a continuation of a programme by this Government to centralise various organisations and spend a lot of money on them in the hope that it's going to lead to better outcomes. The National Party does not believe that is going to be the case with merging Radio New Zealand and TVNZ. It's going to create another mega-entity, with an extraordinary $327 million being spent on it over three years, as the country faces a cost of living crisis. 
We have seen this Government try this already with Te Pūkenga, the merger of 16 polytechs and institutes across the country. Back in 2019, the sector was facing an expected shortfall of $48 million, and the Government centralised all of those polytechs together into an organisation called Te Pūkenga in the expectation that it was going to lead to better outcomes. Well, what have we seen? We've seen them spend $200 million on that merger. We have seen the default balloon to $110 million, so it's doubled in three years, with a $200 million spend on it. This, unfortunately, gives us a good indication of the trajectory of where this merger of Radio New Zealand and TVNZ is likely to go—$327 million being spent on it over three years. Is it going to lead to better outcomes? Unfortunately, this Government's track record shows that no, it will not.
It's an incredibly expensive exercise, and already we've seen millions of dollars spent on contractors, reviews, and working groups since 2017. The Government has so far failed to give any financials to back a Budget 2020 assertion in the summary of initiatives that the new media entity would make $306 million in the next six years. So all we have to go on is a dart thrown at the dartboard and the Government saying that it's going to make a whole lot of money, but we've got no financials to back that up. The legislation is vague, leaving nearly everything to an unaccountable public bureaucracy. Unfortunately—
Hon Scott Simpson: Typical Labour.
JOSEPH MOONEY: —again—very typical Labour, as my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson says, and we've seen this again and again. With Te Pūkenga, unfortunately we've had a chief executive who's gone on personal leave, and the sector is at a loss as to the work programme they're supposed to be delivering. 
These things are important. The media industry is an incredibly important part of New Zealand's democratic and constitutional framework. In fact, it's what is often called the fourth estate. So its role is to reflect New Zealand back to itself. It is to hold the organs of Government to account. It is to hold the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary to account and to reflect those stories back to New Zealand so New Zealanders can make informed decisions and choices about the country they live in. So this is this is a really important part of our constitutional framework.
Unfortunately, we have seen over the last few years an increasing loss of trust amongst some members—or many members, in fact—of our communities. In fact, we've had many emails being sent to us and we've been hearing around the country—and I've certainly heard it many times myself—a loss of trust in the media and that a large section of New Zealand is being completely turned off from the publicly funded media and is feeling that the public media spending isn't leading to stories that reflect their concerns and reflect the country that they want to live in. So it's really important that we have a public sector media that can reflect those interests, and, to have that, we need diversity in media. Unfortunately, this megamerger, this mega-entity is going to reduce that plurality, reduce that diversity of opinion and diversity of structures in our media landscape, and that is a great shame. So the National Party does not commend this bill to the House.





BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I have eight very beautiful children between the ages of nine and 18. What I've seen with my children is that they don't actually watch the TV; they stream. They stream most of their media online. It's a real fight in our home living room in order to be able to take the remote and say to my kids, "Can you just stop streaming that? I want to watch the news." It's that problem that this bill is grappling with and was part of the submission process that it went through.
We have a great public media in New Zealand, but things are changing. We want our children to be able to continue to access that great public media. We also need strong, independent journalism, but you can't have that if all that your children are watching is YouTube—because that's just the way of this world. Again, my children are primary school age, intermediate age, college age, and at university; right throughout that spectrum, they are streaming online.
So this bill creates a futureproofed model; it creates an ability for New Zealand to have strong, independent journalism; and it provides an ability for our children in the future to have access to great public media. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Do you know what? For the last 18 months or so, we've been having a bit of a discussion about spending. My party, the Opposition party, has been very critical of the amount of unnecessary spending that this Government has embarked on that has led to domestic inflation—I think it's 6.3 percent, with overall inflation of 7.3 percent—and the constant refrain we hear from the Minister of Finance and his Government is "What would the National Party cut?". Well, we could start with the $327 million waste of money that this merger has embarked upon. In fact, there are many, many more. As the previous finance spokesperson, I think that the last count I had at the end of last year was about $12 billion of unnecessary spending, and this wasn't even part of it. So there are plenty of reasons why this bill should not go ahead—I can think of 327 million of them. 
It is important, I think, to reflect on the history of this, because this bill has had in its gestation three broadcasting Ministers: the current Minister, Willie Jackson; the previous Minister, the Hon Kris Faafoi; and, of course, Clare Curran, who is no longer with us, and it wasn't just in her role of Minister of Broadcasting that she commenced this process. The genesis was actually in her role as Opposition spokesperson, where she advocated all manner of changes to public sector broadcasting and, for reasons which I don't know, she went on a bit of a tête-à-tête with one of the previous National broadcasting Ministers, Craig Foss, about what was more important: content or platform. 
I think what Barbara Edmonds has just demonstrated to the House—a fellow Gen Xer—is that we, the parents of Gen Z, do not understand how our children are getting their content. But it ain't through TVNZ and it ain't through RNZ and it's not going to be, despite her claims, through a merged entity of the two. Content matters more than platform, and this platform is not going to draw more people to it; it may well drive them away. 
So we don't know why we're doing this. It was a fanciful idea from the Hon Clare Curran that, for reasons that continue to elude me, this Government is continuing on with, and I think there are just so many questions that we don't have answers to. If we did, we wouldn't be able to support it anyway, but it would certainly give us much better grounds for not supporting it. 
But the first question is what problem are we trying to solve, and it was not clear from Minister Faafoi's press release in March this year what problem we were trying to solve. He talked about New Zealanders continuing to have access to reliable, trusted, independent information, which is a concession that they already had it. They already had through TVNZ and RNZ, in his view—and I agree with him—access to reliable, trusted, independent information and local content. 
Then he went on to say, "Well, we know the media landscape is changing." That's true, but it's about changing content and making that content available on the multiplicity of platforms that are now available. Ms Edmonds talked about YouTube, just one of a plethora of digital platforms that our children watch. I can't remember the last time they watched television to get information or entertainment. What Mr Faafoi's press release doesn't do is say why and how, and those are the important questions that would enable us to understand what problem we're trying to solve. 
The second question is by what metric or manner is the Government claiming that this merged entity is going to earn the Crown and the taxpayer $306.1 million over six years, as is stated in the Cabinet paper. RNZ is not a profit-making entity now and it won't be in the future. TVNZ has gone through a succession of roller-coaster financial performances, which up until about 2020 was really just chump change: 2017, $1.4 million; 2018, $5.1 million; and 2019, $2.9 million in after-tax earnings. Now, it did do better in 2020—that's true—but there's no real indication that it's going to maintain that level of profitability that would get it anywhere near a $301.6 million rate of return over the next six years. So the numbers are plucked out of the air. 
The really important question, I think, is why on earth is it going to cost $327 million to merge two entities that actually in and of themselves aren't changing materially in the near future, or at least there's no indication from any of the documents that the Government has released—$327 million. That is more—in fact, considerably more, I think—than the total gross revenue of TVNZ for a whole year, and that's what they're telling us they are going to spend to put two mature organisations together. 
I think there is probably a Curran legacy in all of this and that, suddenly, RNZ is going to compete with TVNZ, or RNZ+. Remember, that was her great idea in 2018, which was that RNZ was going to go on a digital video platform. But what's the point of that if we have a mature television platform already in TVNZ? 
So there's nowhere that I can see that this sort of money is necessary, and it certainly isn't appropriate, in my view. I think Joseph Mooney hit the nail on the head when he talked about the track record of this Government when it comes to mergers, because it seems to me that whatever problem the Government perceives, their answer is merger; their answer is Wellington. We merged 16 polytechnics into one on the basis that it would reduce the combined deficits that they were making of around $55 million. 
Erica Stanford: How did that go? 
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's a very good question, Mrs Stanford. It went very badly. They lost $110 million, by the best estimates, in the last financial year, and the thing hasn't even got off the ground yet. That's an example of where, if there is good and bad in a sector, use the good as the exemplar. Use the Southland Institutes of Technologies and the Otago Polytechs and expect that of all of them. 
If there were problems—and I don't even think there really were—in TVNZ and/or RNZ, fix those problems. Become more nimble and more ready to adapt to those new digital platforms and to reach out to an audience that may have turned away from them. Fix those issues rather than merge. 
Why merger is always the answer just completely eludes me, and, sadly, we've seen this again not just with our polytechs but with our DHBs. Just as the polytech mergers were a complete failure, I expect that the DHBs' merger into two entities is going to be similarly problematic and costly and will not add a single bit of value to patients in New Zealand. 
So here we are, wasting the House's time on a merger that's unnecessary. It's inappropriate, it's incredibly expensive, and it will fail to deliver whatever the amorphous improvements that the successive Ministers of Broadcasting under this Government have said they will do. It's a shame that we're having to oppose this. It's a shame we're having to waste the House's time on it. This is a really bad idea. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members, I'm going to go back to the order I should have been in, and I apologise to Jamie Strange and call him. 





JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. It did give me an opportunity to hear the previous member, Michael Woodhouse's speech.
I'd like to acknowledge the work that the Hon Willie Jackson has done on this piece of legislation, the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill. The reality is, as we have heard from speakers on this side, the way that we consume public media is changing. The public media landscape is changing as society changes, and it's important that as a Government we are responsive to these changes. That's what the Minister is doing and, if the House does decide to send this bill to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we will certainly welcome it. We're a very hard-working select committee, I might add, and I hear support from other members behind me.
What this bill does is strengthen the delivery of public media services by providing a modernised—and that's an important word, "modernised"—flexible legislative framework for Aotearoa New Zealand public media to operate under. The reality is that, with the emergence of the internet, with broadband being rolled out effectively right across New Zealand now, the way people consume content has changed. I remember coming home from school and we might be lucky maybe to get half an hour of a kids' TV show, and then the news would come on and that would be it—and I would sometimes argue that that is possibly a good thing, as well! However, the way we consume content now is very much more online, right across all age groups, right across all demographics.
So, simply, what this bill is doing is responding to a change in New Zealand society and New Zealand culture. I think it's an excellent piece of legislation. I look forward to it going through the select committee process and seeing what we hear from the public on it. I commend it to the House.





NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to take a call on this bill. Something that I care deeply, deeply about is our public broadcasting.
Just to keep on with the theme of the previous National member, Michael Woodhouse, who contributed to this debate—if he's going to label our generations, then I am a proud millennial standing in this House. I do consume a lot of media on online platforms and podcasts. My lifesaving grace at this moment whether it's on our long journeys, flying down to Wellington, or whether it's in car rides—podcasts are probably one of the primary ways of me getting my information. I think most of my millennial friends would agree with me as well and share that lifestyle. Then the second way would probably be through YouTube and YouTube videos, which are very informative most of the time. 
But I think this goes to show the importance of funding our public media sector in the right way. I still remember standing on the courts of Aotea Square, making sure that our country kept our Radio New Zealand Concert FM, and the importance that young people actually held in terms of having that classical music station in our country. I still remember speaking about how that was my very first time becoming a recorded artist—our orchestra and our choirs recorded by Radio New Zealand Concert FM, and being able to have my works played and broadcasted on that platform. That goes to show how important it is that this Government actually supports our public media entities. 
The fact is that right now the Radio New Zealand - TVNZ legislation is not working any more—it wasn't set up for the modern day context that we have at this moment. The fact that our next generation, our young people, are calling out for better-funded public media and for more quality platforms and content all at the same time is a show that this piece of legislation is great legislation. My hats off to the previous Minister, Minister Faafoi, as well as the current Minister, Minister Willie Jackson, for shepherding this bill to the House. I look forward to seeing it in select committee. I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.





SMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS (SMOKED TOBACCO) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I move, That Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appointed time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 December 2022. 
Let me tell you about a patient—we'll call her Judith—that I met in the emergency department. She was a smoker of 30 years and her lung disease was so bad she couldn't leave her house to walk past her letterbox. He lips were blue. She had come into hospital because she had caught whatever viral infection was going around that winter. I could see her scarred lungs on the X-ray behind her. In fact, there was barely any of her lungs left at all after smoking for so long. Of course she knew her continued smoking would kill her, and she knew her habit was taking a chunk out of her pension, and it was robbing her of time with her beloved grandchildren. She had every reason in the world to quit but she couldn't because tobacco is one of the most harmful and addictive substances in the world.
Sadly, after working in a public hospital I don't just have one story of a life destroyed by tobacco to share. I saw the consequences of smoking every day: heart attacks, strokes, emphysema, bronchitis, asthma, blindness, amputations, and premature birth. It's a tragedy that these impacts fall most heavily on Māori and Pacific communities. Smoking accounts for 2.5 years of the eight-year difference in life expectancy between Māori and non-Māori. It does not need to be this way.
By going smoke-free we could live in a country where our tamariki spend more quality years with their koro and kuia, where we reduce the number of high-risk pregnancies, where strong, healthy babies are born at term, where there are fewer people in hospital with smoking-related diseases, and where people had more money to spend on the things they need and enjoy. 
This bill is about taking urgent action on stopping the leading cause of preventable death in Aotearoa. This bill enables regulations that are appropriate for a product that will kill half the people that use it. This bill responds to the ambitious goals set by the Māori Affairs Committee for Aotearoa to be smoke-free by 2025. Unless we pass this bill, it will take decades for Māori to reach the smoke-free target of less of 5 percent of people being daily smokers, whereas Pākehā are currently on track to being smoke-free by 2025.
I want to take the opportunity to recognise that these changes to get us to be smoke-free are made possible because of decades of work, and Governments of all hues have played their part in driving down smoking rates over the last four decades. The changes in this bill will make smoking less appealing, addictive, and accessible. By enacting these changes, we're telling smokers we've got their back and that we're taking action against the addiction and proliferation of retail outlets that undermine their efforts to quit. These measures are essential components of our Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan, and that plan also includes strengthened community health promotion, enhanced quit services, and increased mass marketing of quit messages.
To achieve our smoke-free goal, this bill amends the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act by making three changes. Firstly, the bill will restrict the sale of smoked tobacco products to approved retailers only and allow a maximum number of retail premises to be set in a certain area. We know that people trying to quit are at greatest risk of relapse if they live in an area where tobacco is readily available. There are currently more smoked tobacco retailers clustered in low-income communities, so this change will end the deadly toll that tobacco takes on poor communities.
Secondly, we want to make sure young people never start smoking, so we are legislating for a smoke-free generation. This bill will make it an offence to sell or supply smoked tobacco products to anyone born on or after January 2009. This means that 14-year-olds now and generations to follow will never in their lives be able to be sold tobacco, because our law should reflect that truth—there is no safe age to start smoking.
Some might say that social supply will undermine the intent of this law, but studies from the US confirm that regulating the age of purchase does reduce youth smoking. But I am also realistic. There will be a few young people who continue to access tobacco, so let's be clear about what this bill means for them. Those selling tobacco can be fined, but purchase is not criminalised. Young people who do become addicted will not face barriers to accessing support, and this change occurs in the context of regulated availability of vapes and strengthened community health promotion. So it is not the case that people addicted to nicotine will be forced to purchase from criminal networks. This bill has received a favourable New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet from the Ministry of Justice.
Thirdly, the bill introduces measures to reduce the appeal and addictiveness of smoked tobacco products. Specifically, it requires that regulations are made to set limits on nicotine levels. For decades we have permitted tobacco companies to maintain their market share by making their deadly product more and more addictive. It is disgusting and it is bizarre. We have more regulations in this country on the safety of the sale of a sandwich than on a cigarette. Low-nicotine products will help people either to quit or swap to a less harmful alternative. Low-nicotine products will also protect anyone who experiments with smoking, preventing them from being addicted and taking up regular smoking. There have been several clinical trials on low-nicotine cigarettes, so we can set nicotine levels that won't cause a compensatory increase in smoking but will instead support quitting. 
Our priority in bringing this bill is protecting what is precious: our people, our whānau, our communities. This bill will mean kaumātua will get more years with their whānau and see their mokopuna grow. Newborns will spend their first precious moments in their parents' arms and not in neonatal intensive care. Our people will benefit greatly from these changes. There will be an estimated $5 billion in savings from future health expenditure. These changes will save lives and could increase Māori life expectancy, and we cannot put a price on that. I look forward to the Health Committee's consideration of the bill, and I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. National supports smoking reduction and the smoke-free target of less than 5 percent smoking by 2025. The evidence in the Government documents is that by 2025, on current measures, 20 percent of Māori will still be smokers and 8 percent of non-Māori will still be smokers, so a failed target. National will be supporting this bill through to select committee, but there are a lot of answers and analysis that will be required at select committee to persuade us that all of this will work and it's not just a vanity project that, if it fails, could irreparably damage dairy and small-business owners particularly. We need to be very careful that we don't treat a target and destroy communities on the way.
There are three operating arms which I will address in order of effectiveness. The first is decreasing the number of retail premises by, effectively, an approvals process. Still to be determined in that approvals process is whether it is the number of retailers per area or the number of retailers per capita. I'd be interested to see the analysis of that in select committee. Dairy owners, I'm sure, will present to the select committee. Certainly, meetings with local people that I've had said: "Shane, we understand the need for smoking reduction and we're supportive of that. All we need is the time to transition the business model. Just give us enough time to transition." I'd be very interested to hear their submissions, which I'm sure they'll make. When we look at the modelled impact in the regulatory impact statement of retail outlet restrictions, amongst the three options it is very modest, to say the least. 
The second operating arm is the smoke-free generation; that is, no sales of cigarettes if you're born after 1 January 2009. This received much media when announced in December last year, but there is nothing new on this menu that hasn't been considered for decades. The fact that only a few have deployed this internationally should give us some caution. A great media sound bite but does it work? One jurisdiction that has deployed this is the town of Brookline in the state of Massachusetts, Coolidge Corner on the green line. I was privileged to live there for about seven years. They've deployed recently, July 2021, a similar policy set. The data on that is still to be forthcoming. 
The third operating arm is a lowering in the concentration of nicotine. And if we look at the modelling, this does all of the heavy lifting and, by itself, almost gets us to the smoke-free target that we're looking for. Again, this is no epiphany and has been contemplated by many jurisdictions over many years. There are, however, many issues that arise from this policy, such as whether people simply smoke more of a lower dose nicotine to meet their current dose. This is important because it is the products of combustion that are harmful rather than the addictive nicotine component. A chief economist has recently quoted the American Economic Review 2006 showing that when tobacco excise increases, smokers smoke more of the cheaper cigarettes. He also comments that some existing low nicotine cigarettes have not been at all popular with the general public and offers further caution to the proposal around the generally poor effects of what, effectively, he calls prohibition. 
Those are the three operating arms and, as we go into select committee, I want to just identify some of the pros and cons as I see them here now. First of all: reducing the retail outlets, currently between 5,000 to 8,000. On the positive side, it has a moderate impact, looking at the modelling. It reduces initiation and maintenance and may have a significant impact in low socio-economic areas. On the con side, or the downside, if you like, certainly that black market risk has to be considered. I didn't see too much modelling or commentary in the Government's documents. How do you monitor low nicotine levels? That's an issue and this will clearly affect dairy owners as well. 
If we look at the smoke-free generation, the advantages are that there are moderate benefits for Māori, particularly younger Māori— around 20- to 30-year-olds—and significant benefits for youth. On the disadvantages—again, the black market and monitoring compliance.
The heavy lifter, the low nicotine: the advantage is it achieves most of the smoke-free goal. Certainly there's some work around the Auckland researchers that low nicotine with substantial social support may actually have some impact on reducing smoking. I'd just note that significant social support that needs to be wrapped around it to get that effectiveness. Disadvantages? Again, the black market and this question around whether you just get increasing volume to compensate. 
Emeritus Professor Robert Beaglehole, chair of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has commented on this bill and says the following: "These proposals seem exciting and ground-breaking. On closer examination, however, there are problems ahead." One, on the smoke-free generation, "The good news is that creating a smoke-free generation is now obsolete. Recent data from ASH and the New Zealand Health Survey shows that youth are already almost smoke-free; the most at-risk group is now their (smoking) parents." Two, retail reductions: "Reducing the sales outlets for cigarettes, and making cigarettes less available than vaping, could be helpful. However, this will only work if the demand for cigarettes responds to the reduced supply. Given the high dependence of smokers on nicotine, we can't count on a rational response,". On nicotine reduction: "Reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to levels where they are no longer addictive or satisfy cravings is, in effect, prohibition and could negatively impact the mental well-being of dependent smokers. There are no real-world experiences with this policy, and its community-wide impact on quitting is unknown."
He summarises: "As ground-breaking as these policies may be, they will not dramatically reduce smoking rates by 2025." So it doesn't sit there empty; he comes up with four alternatives. One, "more sustained and targeted mass and social media campaigns"; two, "ongoing campaigns to support people who want to switch"; three, "more community-led initiatives for Māori, Pasifika and low-income smokers to encourage vaping"; and, four, "track smoking trends to … [reverse] the unfairness of … [previous] tobacco control measures."
There are a number of questions that we're going to be asking in select committee that do require some contemplation. Firstly, how robust is the modelling for each policy initiative and what are the underlying assumptions? The regulatory impact statement says this when it looks at the limitations of the analysis: "Most of the measures being considered have yet to be widely implemented internationally, and in some cases, New Zealand will be the first in the world to implement them. There is therefore significant uncertainty in the outcomes." A second question for the select committee to address is: what is the strength of existing evidence for tangible outcomes for each of the policy initiatives? And, three, given the likely huge impact on dairy and small-business owners and the overall contribution they make to communities, do all three of the initiatives need to be implemented, given nicotine reduction is modelled to almost meet the smoke-free New Zealand goal by itself? That is, can we be as Government-lite as possible, the least heavy-handed, and, at the same time, achieve or near achieve the objective? 
These are questions that we'll be raising in select committee. We look forward to a range of submissions and really getting down to the tin tacks of this so that we can bring back to the House something that is implementable, something that really does help us achieve the goal that we all want to achieve. I commend this bill to select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mauri, Mr Speaker. Can I firstly, sir, acknowledge your announcement today of your retirement at the next general election I'm sure we will have plenty of opportunity further down the line to talk more about that, but as your parliamentary neighbour can I just acknowledge that, since I have the opportunity to do so this afternoon.
Can I also acknowledge my colleague and friend, the Minister who has brought this bill to the House: the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. We all heard her own experiences as a doctor, as a clinician. If we all reflect, actually, I think we will all have our own stories about the impact that smoking in our community has had, not just in our own communities but also in our own whānau and families. So I want to acknowledge Dr Verrall for bringing to the House a bill that will make a significant and substantial change for future generations in this country. That is no easy feat, because it has been on the radar for quite some time, but knowing that this will make a real difference to our Māori, our Pasifika, and our non-Māori and non-Pasifika communities is something that I think we should be applauding and supporting.
This legislative change comes within the suite of changes that have already been enacted. When we talk about the regulation of vaping products, when we look at the enactment of legislation that ceases or stops vaping and smoking in cars and motor vehicles for those who are under 18 years of age, this is the next natural step, in terms of wanting to tackle the issue and do something about it. Protecting future generations is a positive thing for any Parliament, in particular the Parliament that we are all a member of.
Dr Reti has referred to the select committee process. I note that Minister Ayesha Verrall has nominated that Health Committee, a hard-working committee of the Parliament, I know. There is no doubt in my mind that we will hear from small-business owners and dairy owners, like the folk who met with me in my own electorate of Palmerston North last week. We will hear from community providers, we will hear form public health advocates, like others who have been speaking with members in the lead up to this particular bill. We will also, I hope, hear of the personal experiences of community members, of whānau members, for whom, even though this decision may be too late, it is an investment in the future.
I am delighted to be able to, again, congratulate the Minister on bringing this bill to the House. I look forward to progressing it through select committee. I commend it to fellow colleagues.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party for the first reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.
I must say, it's good to be back for the start of the parliamentary sitting week, after three weeks off, and looking forward to some busy weeks ahead, not only in the House but in the parliamentary select committee.
And as that member who just resumed his seat, Tangi Utikere, said, this bill will end up in the Health Committee. We're looking forward for it to go there and the call for submissions. The last member who resumed his seat did make a comment saying, "knowing it will make a real difference." And I'm not sure we do know, and that's half the issue with this bill. I think that's why the National Party is supporting this bill, but cautiously supporting it, to select committee—only supporting it at this stage in the first reading.
It'd be fair to say this bill is fairly experimental. And when you look at the regulatory impact statement for the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan, under "Limitations and Constraints on Analysis", it talks about the measures within this bill, and it says "Most of the measures being considered have yet to be widely implemented internationally, and in some cases, New Zealand would be the first in the world to implement them."
So look, I don't have a problem that New Zealand is going to be the first in the world in some of this policy implementation, but I think we've got to keep open-minded about the effectiveness of the policy that we are legislating for today. It also says that there is therefore significant uncertainty in the outcomes. And that was my point: there is going to be a lot of uncertainty.
And I suppose what we're going to hear from the select committee submitters is a range of views, whether they think some of these measures are in fact going to be effective. It goes on to say, "While a strong body of research exists around the theoretical impacts of the various measures, there is a lack of evaluation from comparable markets." And I suppose what we always try to do, especially on this side of the House, is look for the evidence base. 
Chlöe Swarbrick: Oh!
MATT DOOCEY: And what we always like to have is evidence-based policy. 
Chlöe Swarbrick: Let's talk about it.
MATT DOOCEY: And I know my good colleague Chlöe Swarbrick wholeheartedly supports me in that intention for the National Party.
It goes on to say, "Even where there has been comparable implementation and evaluation in overseas jurisdictions, the evaluation is limited." So I think we've got to be open with these measures in this bill that when we go through the select committee process and the bill may end up in a slightly different form, there will need to be evaluation measures built into these policy settings to understand if we're going to meet the desired outcome. It also goes on to say, "There is no empirical evidence to tell us how the measures will impact equity amongst the New Zealand population." And I think that's a key point, because when we look at part of the issue that we are looking to problem-solve and address today, it does show that there is inequity amongst the outcomes of the policy trajectory to date.
Further in the regulatory impact statement, it talks about the goal of reaching 5 percent by 2025, and says that modelling indicates that under a business-as-usual approach, daily smoking rates are projected to only reduce to 8.1 percent for non-Māori and 20 percent for Māori by 2025, and that Pacific peoples are projected to reach 11.7 percent. So it shows that, in fact, we are not on track as a country to reach that goal of 5 percent of the population by 2025 in a business-as-usual approach.
And that is why it's important that we do look at the policy settings at the moment. It's fair to say a lot of the policy settings to date about becoming smoke-free in New Zealand has been on the demand side versus the supply side. So when we look at the demand side, it has been around education of people in New Zealand, and specifically targeted education for at-risk groups, and especially young people as well, price increases, and legislation prohibiting smoking indoors.
But this new bill will look at how we maybe introduce some demand side measures to reduce smoking in New Zealand. And when you look at the key three parts of the bill around reducing and looking at supply measures, it's reducing the number of retail outlets by 2024. Now, I think that's going to be an interesting one. I don't think that's going to be as easy as we think. It's going to come down to what are the metrics and criteria for reduction, and seeing if it is per capita or a geographic area. I've already had a small business in my electorate—Karla who runs the service centre in a small town called Cust—very concerned that when you look at small towns and regional New Zealand, people might end up having to drive to the bigger towns, and that's going to impact on retail outlets in smaller towns as well. It's easy to cut outlets out in big metropolitan cities, but it will be interesting when there is only one outlet in each town and something's got to give. Will it be ending up that some outlets won't be in any towns at all?
There is the policy setting of implementing low-nicotine cigarettes by 2025. I think when you listen to my colleague Dr Shane Reti, he clearly outlined there is some concern around that, and whether scientifically that is going to deliver the desired effect just by reducing the nicotine, and what will be the consequential behavioural outcomes from reducing nicotine in cigarettes as well, and also implementing a smoke-free generation 2027, which I actually think is quite an innovative policy, and I congratulate the Government for that.
Ultimately, fair to say, within adults, there's an element of personal responsibility of people choosing to smoke or not, but I think it's incumbent on any Government of the day to put measures in place to discourage our young ones actively taking up cigarette smoking. And it is encouraging that in New Zealand we are seeing cigarette smoking declining rapidly in large groups of young people—not all young people. Of course, there is the substitution effect of vaping at the moment that we are still grappling with as a country, like many other countries around the world as well.
So all and all, National, as I say, is cautiously supporting this bill for the reasons that I outline that in some ways, some of these policy settings are experimental, and we're not sure if it will deliver the intended consequence, but I suppose part of the measure to look into those issues is at select committee stage. I'd encourage anyone listening today that is interested to make your submission, once they're opened by the Health Committee. And I'm looking forward to grappling with some of those key issues around how effective these policy settings will be, and also what evaluation tools we're going to need to make sure this bill will deliver the desired effect, which is ultimately to have less than 5 percent of Kiwis smoking by 2025. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to take a short call and speak in support of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. To start with, I would like to quite sincerely thank and quite sincerely commend Minister Verrall for not only her insight but her foresight in bringing this piece of work to this House. This bill is inspirational, it's aspirational, and, as my colleague Mr Doocey who's just resumed his seat said, there's aspects of this bill that are being implemented for the first time anywhere in New Zealand, so there is a little bit of the unknown. It's certainly not experimental. What is experimental is decades and decades of tobacco use when the outcomes and the deadly outcomes of that were not known.
This work is also brave, not that it's not exactly the right thing to do but it emphatically draws a line, a really obvious line, for a future generation, the smoke-free generation. And as someone who has spent far too many years of my life feeling quite helplessly enslaved by the addictive properties of tobacco, I feel quite proud of the fact that this Government is prioritising a piece of legislation, and we owe it to the next generation, the smoke-free generation, to prioritise their health and wellbeing.
So there's a choice before us today and a decision that we can make throughout this process, of which this is stage one, where we are amending a piece of legislation and we are saying, by doing that, we're not going to compromise the next generation, the smoke-free generation, which I think is a really exciting step. And we are saying that we're not going to prioritise what is a deadly and a completely unnecessary product over their wellbeing. So as a member of the Health Committee, I look forward to hearing the submissions and to progressing this bill further in the House and I commend it.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to start by joining in with my colleagues in acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, who has been really engaged in answering a number of my questions about this legislation, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.
Nicotine is a drug, like alcohol and like cannabis, and the Greens are really proud of our very long track record in this House of being the only party in Parliament that has had a consistent approach to substances and being about harm reduction in the way that we go about approaching them—that is, recognition of the reality that criminal prohibition does not get rid of a substance but that it only typically serves to push that substance underground, where it gets more harmful and is controlled by those who have not necessarily the best interests of our communities at heart. While the Greens have a number of reservations and concerns about some of the elements of this legislation, we will be supporting the critical debate about drug-harm reduction and how best to achieve the Government's stated aims at select committee, where we will chew over these issues, which I've heard also from the Opposition. I do invite the Opposition to continue saying that they support evidence-based drug-harm reduction, because it's a very useful thing to have on the record.
Some of those outstanding concerns specifically include, firstly, the untested proposal, which a number of others have put on the table in the debate this evening, of substantially restricting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. It's untested. It's untested, from my understanding, anywhere and, therefore, it is going to need some serious, robust kicking around. Secondly, we do have some concerns around the imposition of this so-called "smoke-free generation" ban, which, whilst absolutely innovative and therefore important, does, effectively, make tobacco criminally prohibited for a portion of our population and eventually, were this to come into effect, for the entire population moving forward. Of course, one of the important components of drug-harm reduction as an approach is to note that there are alternatives. So here we are also looking at other methods of administering nicotine—that being particularly through vaping, and, of course, there is a really important discussion to be had there, too.
It's also worth noting—and this is a conversation that I had with the Minister—that tobacco can be grown naturally, in the same way that the likes of cannabis can be. So there are some important considerations also to be made about what occurs in those kinds of instances, were it the case that this hypothetical future smoke-free generation were to stumble upon some tobacco growing out there in the wild. Thirdly, the Greens continue to have concerns—as, interestingly, I've heard from some members of the Opposition as well—about some of the quantification that has or hasn't been done around the black-market implications. Interestingly enough, these are debates that we also had on Budget night, when I was asking the Minister, then of Customs, about the implications of increasing tobacco excise tax on particularly the need to then put all the more money into enforcement, and where that balance should best be struck and what those implications are for, again, that evidence-based policy that we all seem so attuned to wanting in this debate.
I do really want to emphasise that point on evidence-based policy, because, when we're talking about our approach to substances, whether they be cannabis or they be alcohol or they be tobacco, it is very much the case that the question has to be: if we acknowledge that a substance can cause harm, how do we best go about reducing that harm? And most researchers in the space of drug-harm reduction will say that there's a kind of spectrum of approaches that you can take. At one end, one extreme, you have criminal prohibition. At the other end of the extreme, you have, effectively, an unfettered legal free market. At both ends of that spectrum, you have, on the one side, criminal organisations and, on the other side, commercial entities who are attempting to exploit vulnerable communities in order to make a quick buck. In both of those instances and at both of those extremes, you have the maximisation of harm in order to drive a profit motive.
So how do we pull back from those extremes? We pull back from those extremes in the space of sensible regulation, which brings us back to the point of how we go about having the same kind of discussion—what seems like a very rational discussion that we're having today—about all of the substances in this country, which then has flow-on effects with regard to our criminal justice system and our prison population, but also, importantly, reducing things like methamphetamine harm and the potential harm that is caused by people having to go underground in order to get access to cannabis, something that, notably, more than half a million New Zealanders do on a regular basis. It is really interesting and fascinating and amazing to hear the National Party talking about how they're evidence based in this approach, because they are, of course, also the same party that stood against all of the same things that they spoke about so positively in this legislation—they were opposed when it came to the cannabis legalisation and control bill.
If we're to talk about the kinds of approaches that we've taken over the past decade in particular, but the past few decades, and the trajectory of travel around reducing harm for tobacco and getting us to this point of reduced consumption, particularly for younger people, we do need to talk about interventions like plain packaging, we do need to talk about interventions like ending advertising, and we do need to talk about interventions like ending consumption in shared and public spaces. These, of course, again, I might add, are the same evidence-based harm-reduction approaches that we had in the cannabis legalisation and control bill, which I hope the National Party is now reflecting on their stance upon, given how they have championed an evidence-based approach to substances and to drugs this afternoon.
Just finally, we all know that we're all talking tonight about a substance that is incredibly harmful and damaging to people's lives, particularly in the instance that it is one that can go about causing cancer—and a number of preventable cancers. To that effect, I would implore all of those who have spoken in support of evidence-based harm reduction for this substance or this drug—that being tobacco—this afternoon to apply precisely that same logic to another substance that we will soon get to debate those harm reduction interventions on: that being my alcohol-harm minimisation bill, alcohol being the most harmful substance that we have in this country, whether it be legal or illegal. It is, of course, also a level one carcinogen. That is why we've seen the likes of the Cancer Society come out in favour of that legislation, too.
So, in summation, there are, of course, some noble aims from the Government in this bill. However, there are a number of untested tactics and mechanisms to go about achieving precisely that. The Greens have some serious concerns about the potential for a new kind of criminal prohibition, but we think that this debate deserves far greater scrutiny and we think that the public should be able to engage in that debate. We're inviting all public health experts, but also all of those with front-line experience of harm at the coalface, to come forward and to speak to the Health Committee, which I'm looking forward to subbing in on throughout the progress of this legislation. If I can close my contribution tonight by just imploring the, what seems like it will now be, 110 members of this House who will be voting on the potential for evidence-based harm-reduction interventions for the substance of tobacco to do precisely the same thing when confronted with the opportunity to do so with other substances. The Greens are supporting this to select committee, and from there on we will see.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party tonight to oppose the first reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. It's hard to know where to start with this bill because it's so terrible from all angles. So I'll try and touch on a few main points because we could be here all day talking about how many times this Government has entered this Chamber and started passing laws that are not based on evidence, not based on any good regulatory impact analysis, and, in fact, don't solve any clear problem. In many cases they actually create more problems than they solve. And this is a very clear point to be made for this bill: there is another problem that comes out of this bill by restricting people being able to smoke.
This bill is short-sighted and it's short-sighted because of its prohibition. That's very plain and simple. You know, this Government constantly comes in here and says, "We're going to tax people because we don't like them." It's quite that simple. Or "We're just going to ban and regulate something that we don't like. We don't like that product. So the best way to solve that problem is to ban or regulate it." I can think of a few recent examples, and the first that springs to mind is ute owners. Not everybody here will own a ute. And I don't really care if anybody does or doesn't own a ute, but the Government doesn't like ute owners. And so what did they do? They've imposed a "ute tax". And so they've said, "You know what? We don't really like that. Let's add another cost to some people and we're going to say, 'You're bad, you're a bad person because we don't like utes.'" And you just think of farmers; the Government also doesn't like farmers. They're clearly bad people according to this Government. They come in here and say, "Well, maybe we should reduce the number of cows people have because we don't like cows and we don't like farmers."
David Seymour: What about landlords?
BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It doesn't actually improve any situation in New Zealand. It's just harmful, bad policy.
David's just mentioned landlords. What about all of the attacks that this Government makes on landlords? They constantly stand up here and say that landlords have caused the housing crisis, when it is in fact bad Government policy that has caused this—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the member to come to the bill. This is not a general debate and you've mentioned three different topics which are not in the bill. So please come to the bill.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Mr Speaker, these all are very, very closely related to the prohibition that this Government wants to make on people who smoke in New Zealand—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That might be so, but you have not linked the two yet.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Very good. Well, the point that I'm clearly trying to make with these examples, is that this is a Government that decides it doesn't like something, so the best way it can solve its problem, that it doesn't like something, is to ban it or to regulate it or to impose another tax upon it. And so this is clearly a bill that is just control for control's sake rather than actually trying to get to the root of any problem. It's nanny Statism and it's controlling people's lives.
If I look at the bill and the three things that it's trying to set out to achieve: it wants to set limits on the quantity of nicotine levels within cigarettes; it wants to amend the age limit to say an entire group of people will never have the legal ability to smoke; and it wants to reduce the number of retailers available in New Zealand that can sell cigarettes. You just have to look at the regulatory impact statement to see why this bill is so harmful and why it should never have been brought to the House.
I want to touch on a few quotes, and so I'll do a bit of reading here Mr Speaker, if you'll allow me. I think that these are very important points that need to be made public. The first quote here, from the regulatory impact statement, says, "Most of the measures being considered within this bill have yet to be widely implemented internationally, and in some cases, New Zealand would be the first country in the world to implement them.". It goes on to say, "There is. Therefore, there's significant uncertainty in the outcomes. . . . there is a lack of evaluation from comparable markets. Even when there's been comparable implementation and evaluation, the evaluation is limited. There is no empirical evidence to tell us how the measures will impact equity among the New Zealand population." This Government constantly goes on about equity, and yet there is no empirical evidence on this. 
So I want to touch on point one, which was about setting a limit on the quantity of nicotine levels within cigarettes. The regulatory impact statement says that this is technically challenging as a policy measure. It says that this option is likely to incentivise imports of illicit tobacco, and that while the current illicit market provides the same product that can otherwise be bought legally, but at a lower price, a future illicit market is likely to offer tobacco with high nicotine content that cannot be purchased legally. This may result in a higher price being charged for illicit tobacco than currently, making illegal sales more appealing for organised crime.
So what is the effect of the Government wanting to reduce people smoking legally? It's going to increase organised crime. And I want to point to this particular statement within the regulatory impact statement—you see right there? It's been redacted. The Government, even in its own regulatory impact statement, doesn't want to point to the fact that there will be an increasing illicit organised crime market. And I really want to know what information the Government is hiding from us here, because I don't think that's acceptable.
There will be people in New Zealand who do smoke, and when the nicotine levels are reduced will still be wanting to smoke. They will be addicted to the substance. And so instead of completely reducing the number of cigarettes, they will actually smoke more because you'll end up with people wanting that same hit from more cigarettes. But the real point here is that nicotine is the least harmful aspect of a cigarette. It's the tar that causes harm. So by reducing the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, you could end up with some people actually increasing their harm by using more cigarettes and increasing the amount of tar that's going into their bodies. So that's harmful for people who don't have another substance to go towards. And we know that this Government is also wanting to ban and regulate vaping products. So there is an alternative that should be there for people as well.
But do we really want to live in a society where the Government will ban a product and simply try and prohibit it and push it towards the gangs? We know that we have a gang problem in New Zealand. We need healthy, thriving communities and all that this Government will do is put more power in the hands of gangs. I don't think that's acceptable. I think the second point about amending the age limit is just simply nanny Statism. You know, they're telling an entire group of people, "Even once you're an adult, even once you're 30, 40, 50, you can't make decisions about your own life. You need the Government to come in and stop you from making decisions that we don't like." I mean, this is just the first instance, but where does it stop? "Sorry, you have too much sugar, so we're going to reduce how much sugar you can have.", "Sorry, we don't think you should be allowed to eat meat, so we're going to ban sausages." I mean it's just ridiculous nanny Statism and it's control for the sake of it.
When it comes to reducing retail availability, I think this one is particularly bad for small businesses in New Zealand. You know, this law is asking for a reduction in competition in the market. That's essentially what it's doing. It's the Director-General of Health now being able to pick and choose winners, pick and choose which dairy owners people can go to.
You know, if you had multiple competitors, multiple dairies colluding in a market to say that they were going to stop a competitor being able to sell or buy products, those people would be up before the Commerce Commission. And in this instance, you're ending up with the Director-General of Health being able to stop competition in a market. We also know that when people are buying cigarettes, that's not the only thing that they go to buy. When people go to buy cigarettes they go to buy bread, milk, and other things that you can buy from a convenience store. And what's happening here is that the Director-General of Health, by being able to restrict the number of outlets that can sell cigarettes, is picking and choosing winners and different retailers who will be able to have a good sale versus others who may go out of business, and I don't think that's fair. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I called Dr Anae Neru Leavasa, joining us remotely.





Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. I just want to make a comment on Brooke van Velden's speech there, she opened up by saying that this bill is terrible at all angles. Well, what's terrible is smokers having high risks of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and a lot of respiratory conditions that are a direct result of smoking. And what would you rather do; should we do nothing at all? I really disagree with that previous member's comments and speech. Just to say that this is about the health and wellbeing of our people; of our community, and, therefore, whānau as well. Because, as we know, there's not only the smokers that we're thinking of, it's the passive smoking that our whānau and our community experience as well. I myself have one lung, I've got kids around, and there are other family members who may be smoking around us and that has an effect on those who have other issues, medical conditions that get with worse with passive smoking.
I support this bill because it is doing a job—that we need to fix the environment that we live in. So we look at the bill and one bit of it is about looking at the amount of retailers that are selling, or looking at approved retailers. I know that many of my medical colleagues, what they faced in South Auckland—it is really hard to try to put people on nicotine replacement therapy or other measures for smoking cessation when the environment that they live in is of access to smoking. It just undoes the work that we're trying to do as clinicians. So that is just one thing. And also the reduction in nicotine in these products. You know, when we were looking at replacement therapy, I always loved to hear that we can use a smaller amount of nicotine when we're trying to do therapy because we know that higher levels of nicotine is higher levels of addictiveness. So that's why I support this bill, with its different measures to target smoking. And it's all about our whānau, it's all about the health and wellbeing of our people, and that's why I support this bill to the House. Fa'afetai.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simon Watts.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party as a member of Parliament for North Shore on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill first reading.
It's interesting to listen to the contributions across this House in regards to the first reading of this bill, and I think one has to reflect back on what this legislation will deliver in terms of outcomes. Will this bill deliver the policy outcomes that are intended?
For that reason, the National Party are cautiously supporting this bill through to select committee. Because we do, at a principal level, believe that we should be undertaking all steps necessary to minimise the impact of smoking and reduce smoking in this country; because of the obvious negative impacts that that has across our communities, and particularly those communities in our Māori and Pacific areas, which have a much more significant impact from smoking than non-Māori.
Some of the challenges, which I am sure the Health Committee—of which there are a few in the House this evening—will go through, , have been noted today. I guess, as a volunteer ambulance officer, probably the job that I enjoy least is when I attend those with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For some of those people, you may know it as emphysema or chronic bronchitis. For those individuals that are in a point with both of those diseases when they are simply unable to breathe, it is a hugely stressful and difficult position for those patients; it's something that they live with day in, day out. But it is often one of the key contributors in terms of that underlying disease—the fact that they smoked. 
I guess, in that perspective, I see often the end of the road in terms of the implications of smoking. So there's the need for us in this House to do what we can to minimise that impact—particularly for our young people in trying to ensure that they don't start on a pathway which will lead undoubtedly to that or, as previously noted, cancer in one form or another, which has an impact on the individual, the whānau, but, of course, on our broader health system and the finite resources the system has and is struggling with.
I think Dr Shane Reti noted in his contribution—and he knows far better than most in terms of the unintended clinical implications around low-nicotine cigarettes—the reality that the literature in regards to outcomes there is very limited. So we know that while the nicotine element is the part that makes cigarettes addictive,  there are other elements, other toxins and chemicals in that cigarette, and it's the tar that actually causes COPD.. So there's a correlation between, you know, people smoking more to get their fix and potentially an unintended clinical outcome. Of course, you know, the vaping element, again, is relatively new in regards to its position and the clinical implications of that are also pretty unlimited. 
I think the other element is saying, "Well, actually—right from the start—are we going to achieve the policy outcomes in regards to this bill?" I think it's fair to say—and I think a number of speakers in the House have articulated this—that there are concerns that, actually, if we continue along the business-as-usual trajectory that we're currently on at the moment, we're not going to hit that 5 percent threshold. So there is a need for us to take an alternative pathway if we are realistic in regards to that. We know that the statistics around Pasifika and also Māori are those that, based on current run rate, will not hit that. So that is inequity in regards to the policy outcome and something that I'm sure the Health Committee will work through.
There's a number of other elements that, hopefully, that we'll get some data on—particularly around the impact around the excise tax impact around that. We know that there's estimates: around $11 billion of savings in terms of the health system. But, you know, it's easy to talk about savings in the health system; you never translate that into real dollars that you take out and transition to somewhere else because they get absorbed and that's a reality.
But we're cautiously supportive of this bill. Thank you.





DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak to the first reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. We will be supporting this bill and acknowledge the Government for progressing the work of Te Paati Māori to end tobacco harm in Aotearoa.
The Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan is a continuation of the vision spearheaded by Te Paati Māori MP Hone Harawira and co-leader at the time Tariana Turia to end tobacco smoking by 2025. I acknowledge Hone and Whaea Tariana for their parliamentary and ministerial work that has already reduced consumption levels and is continuing to inspire this policy reform.
We have long known the impact of tobacco harm on Māori communities. While we still have a way to go, it's easy to forget just how far we've come in the last 20 years. In the year 2000, at the turn of the millennium, the daily smoking rate for rangatahi was 31 percent; today, it is only 5 percent. While this remains higher than other population groups, and we would have to push further, we should focus on the positive and acknowledge that cultural and societal attitudes towards tobacco smoking have shifted hugely. I'm confident that we will never again reach the levels of smoking that used to be a feature of life in Aotearoa.
Looking at the bill before us, Te Paati Māori strongly support the provisions aimed at reducing retail availability and the appeal and attractiveness of smoked tobacco products for young people. Communities have long been fighting to reduce the availability of tobacco and alcohol products in their local areas. There is no good reason for these harmful products to be sold on every street corner.
We must be realistic: drugs will always exist, and some people will always use drugs. While we can't end drug use, we can end drug harm. We must look holistically at the drivers of drug use, which are often poverty, isolation, mental health pressures, homelessness, domestic and sexual violence, and societal marginalisation. But we must also need to look holistically at the ways to end drug harm, whether it is tobacco, cannabis, meth, or our worst killer: alcohol. This holistic approach requires a focus on love, care, and compassion, rather than stigmatisation and criminalisation. It requires investment in front-line drug and addiction services from kaupapa Māori providers, not investment in police and corrections.
Prohibition—prohibition does not work, aroha atu, we know this. I can't even say the word! The war on drugs is war on black, brown, and poor communities. As we push for removing criminal penalties for drugs like cannabis, we must not create new criminal penalties for drug use.
That is why we have strong concerns around the generation policy, which would prohibit the use of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009, meaning anyone 13 or younger will never legally be able to buy smoked tobacco products in their lifetime. This will like promote the rise of a black market for tobacco products, leading to associated issues with crime, safety, and control of products for younger people. It could also likely lead to older siblings, friends, and whānau supplying products to younger people. Māori legal expert Khylee Quince talks about low-level drug offences being used as convenience charges against tangata whenua, which is essentially a way to enter our homes, harass our whānau, and drum up penalties.
There are some factors that mitigate our concerns, such as nicotine will not be banned, vaping products will still be legally available, there will be no possession offences. However, our fear is that supply charges could be used against older siblings or whānau members. Possession offences aren't the only charges that cause harm to innocent people and disrupt sovereign Māori communities. The trade of naturally grown products like tobacco should not be criminalised; there is simply no evidence-based rationale for it.
I look forward to this bill coming before the Health Committee and the opportunity to scrutinise it in detail. The voices of tangata whenua in this process must be heard. We are confident that we can ensure this bill achieves this shared intention of ending tobacco harm while not creating any new harms through criminalisation and stigmatisation. I look forward to the Minister working with the committee and Te Paati Māori to realise that. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's with pleasure and pride that I rise to speak on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill this afternoon. As you may be aware, midwives have a lot of experience in supporting their clients to become smoke-free or to support them in working towards it. The reason why that's so important is that one in 10 pregnant women in New Zealand still smoke in pregnancy, and this figure is higher in wāhine Māori and it's higher in people living in poverty. 
The effects of smoking during pregnancy are undeniable. Smoking in pregnancy leads, often, to smaller babies, which is not a good thing. I've had clients talk to me in the past about it being a desirable thing, but when I explain the reason why, they soon change their minds, as I explain that this is due to a chronic lack of oxygen reaching the baby and it not being able to grow properly. It also leads to early babies—babies who are born prematurely—again, because the placenta simply can't cope with the inability to give sufficient oxygen levels to the developing fetus. After birth, those babies have a higher level of sudden unexpected death in infancy. Eliminating these consequences is, I would imagine, something we could all get behind.
Every single person I've ever worked with wants to do the very best for their unborn fetus. They want to do the very best, but nicotine is highly addictive. The fact that we're standing here this evening doing all we can to support everybody in New Zealand to become smoke-free is something I think we should be extremely proud of, and we shouldn't be afraid to be the first to do it. Being the first to do something to eliminate a source of harm for our communities is not a bad thing. It's never a bad thing, and New Zealand has never been afraid of being the first. We were the first, after all, to give women the vote, and I think that's a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the, I think, real benefits of this Parliament, from a policy perspective, is the quality and number of the health professionals we have here. We've heard from three of the medical practitioners tonight. We've just heard from a midwife, we've heard from a volunteer ambulance officer, and somebody experienced in psychological therapy. Now you'll hear from a health service manager and an accountant—not quite the same sort of gravitas. 
But I think what we heard from particularly the doctors and from Ms Pallett was compelling stories about the harm and the addictive nature, and people presenting in emergency departments with terrible, terrible sequelae from their smoking years, but still unable to shake the habit. I've joked in this House before, it's not that funny, but as an ex-smoker, I've referred to the fact that giving up smoking is easy—I should know, I've done it about seven times. I finally got there, but it is a highly addictive product and the best way is not to start in the first place. So to that degree, I certainly support the goal. 
But I do want to touch on a couple of the concerns that I have about whether there is sufficient evidence of this being the right thing to do, and, in fact, more so whether one of the three policy elements could actually cause more harm than good. I'll elaborate on that in a minute, but I do want to acknowledge the comments that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer made about the previous Government's confidence and supply agreement with the Māori Party, and the excellent progress that was made, firstly, in setting the goal of Smokefree 2025, which at that time was pretty ambitious. Now, we know we're not going to get there, but at least we set off on a path that, mainly through impositions of increased excise, certainly put people into the situation of saying, "time to stop". But for those hardcore, chronically-addicted smokers, no amount of new excise is going to change that, I don't think. We did need to think of other means, and after what I believe is an unfortunate delay of several years, we now have an Associate Minister of Health who's acted boldly, I think, in these three ideas. 
The retail outlet issue we agree with in principle, and it's certainly going to be helpful for those who are addicted and trying to quit because, generally speaking, when people have kicked the habit it's the temptation of walking into a dairy and knowing that those cigarettes are behind the counter that actually tempts them to go back. There's no doubt there's going to be a cost on this really important part of the retail sector, and for many of them, the margins that they make on cigarette sales is what keeps them going. That's not a reason not to do this. But I do think we need to be eyes wide open in terms of what it will mean, not just for them and their businesses but, actually, if we accelerate the demise of the corner dairy—which has been going on for a generation or more—then this could be the thing that that tips them over. So I think eyes wide open is a really important thing to do there. 
The area that I have the biggest concern about is the low-nicotine cigarettes, and it does worry me that we may be doing more harm than good and I encourage the select committee to really drill into this. Why do I say that? Well, as Brooke van Velden has mentioned, nicotine is the addictive substance, but it's the other things in smoked tobacco that causes the harm. Nicotine itself just really doesn't do much harm at all, except hook you into the substance. It's the toxins, the tars, and the carcinogens that are in smoked tobacco that cause all the harm. So the policy question, therefore, is this: if nicotine levels drop, will people compensate—what's known as compensatory smoking? Will they smoke more? 
The evidence on that is equivocal. In the United States, there was a kind of candy-coated Food and Drugs Administration research that suggested that would be significant quality adjusted life years—in the hundreds of millions—for their population, if indeed that were true. But looking more into European and United States studies, it did suggest that—well, firstly, the research is difficult to draw a conclusion from because with such a high dropout rate. That in itself, I think, informs the decision—it's, like, probably half of the people who went on through clinical trials to low-nicotine cigarettes actually dropped out. So you can pretty much say, I think, for them, if they continue to smoke—and most of them did—that they weren't prepared to continue with a low-nicotine product. For the rest of them, there is clear evidence that carbon monoxide exposure increased because of the compensatory smoking. If one isn't getting nicotine through one cigarette and needs two to satisfy the craving, then that's going to cause more harm than good. There's enough evidence, I think, that exists already for concern about this, for caution around this, and I would encourage the Health Committee to make sure that they get the best advice that they can from the ministry about what they have looked at, because there is definitely, I think, an equivocal evidence base right now.
The other thing to do, obviously, with the low nicotine is: what's going to happen to excise? Rather disappointingly, but not unusually, the regulatory impact statement doesn't say a lot about whether excise will go up, down, or stay the same. I presume it's going to stay the same. Paradoxically, if that trend of compensatory smoking exists, then it may be possible that if people aren't in a mood to quit and they have to smoke low-nicotine cigarettes, the Crown revenue from excise may actually go up, and that seems counterintuitive. But I think we need to have some kind of financial analysis of the impacts of this. 
The third area is in the age restrictions, and we heard a very interesting contribution from both Chlöe Swarbrick and Brooke van Velden on this. As a father of teenagers, I actually support this, but I'm not sure how effective it is. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer talked about the potential for punishing people who are nevertheless of an age if they smoke. I'm not sure that that's actually going to happen; it'll be the sellers that are punished. I haven't looked into the bill about whether or not somebody who may, over that age, buy cigarettes and then provide them to someone who was born after 2009, whether there is some culpability there. 
But my main concern in this area is: how effective is this going to be? We know from the Government's attempts to regulate and control the supply of vaping products to under-18-year-olds that strong anecdotal and some evidentiary base exists that that's been a failure and that the number of secondary school students who now vape routinely and regularly is much, much higher than the Health Committee heard when we went through the Smokefree environments amendment bill in 2019—or 2020, I think it was. We heard from school kids coming in from St Bernard's College, and I think it was Wainuiomata college that came in and told us that the data we had from the ministry was simply not consistent with their lived experience, that there was widespread use of vaping products in amongst the under-18-year-olds. 
I raise that because simply prohibiting the purchase of something doesn't mean it's not going to be used, and we do risk potentially romanticising the product by making it out of their reach and having the opposite effect. Now, I don't think that's as material of a concern as I have with the low-nicotine cigarettes. But I do think the Health Committee needs to look really deeply, as it tried to do with the vaping products and, actually, we didn't get a very good response. So I think we've really got to keep the ministry's feet to the flames on this one. I applaud the ideas, I applaud the novel approach to breaking this cycle of nicotine dependency, but we've got to go in with as much of an evidence base as we can, and particularly if there's a risk that we could do more harm than good. But I wish the select committee all the best in that; I'll be watching it very, very closely, because I'd really like it to succeed.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, before the dinner break we were debating the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. The next call is a Labour Party call.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Every year, thousands of children get sent to hospital with things like bronchiolitis, pneumonia, and asthma. All of these are basically made much, much worse by exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke. And smoking in pregnancy not only increases the risk of premature birth but also, once babies are born, increases their risk of sudden, unexpected death in infancy. So it's incredibly urgent that we help smokers to quit and also stop young people taking up smoking in the first place.
What this bill does is it builds on a number of bills that I've already spoken on in the House over the last few years: one which regulated vaping, and then another one which banned smoking in cars with children. So this is an important next step. Basically what it'll be doing is helping us with implementing the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 action plan.
When talking to a number of smokers, what they often say about why it's so hard to quit is that nicotine is incredibly addictive. And so what this bill will do is it means we can create regulations that set limits on the level of nicotine in smoked tobacco products.
I think one of the other issues people find when they are trying to quit is that you can actually pick up smokes and tobacco pretty much anywhere. I think any of us that have gone to the supermarket with a shopping list and then ended up coming home with a whole lot of other stuff you never intended to buy knows about the impact of just opportunistic buying. I think having the exposure to tobacco products in so many dairies and so many other places means that it's very, very hard to quit. So what this bill will do is it will actually limit the number of retail outlets that can sell smoked tobacco products, and also allow to have a look at maximum numbers of retail premises in particular areas. So that means basically people's exposure to opportunistic products will be much more limited.
So this is a really, really important bill, and I'm very pleased to commend it to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 109
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee.
Motion agreed to.





Instruction to the Health Committee
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 December 2022. 
Motion agreed to.





UNITED KINGDOM FREE TRADE AGREEMENT LEGISLATION BILL
First Reading
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I present a legislative statement on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Bill. I move that the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Bill now be read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill, and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 October 2002, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! May I ask the Minister to present the full name of the bill first, please—including the term "Legislation". 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I present the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement—NZ-UK FTA—Bill to the House. 
Hon Member: "Legislation Bill".
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Legislation Bill to the House. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the procedural inconsistency there. Can I say that I also intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 October 2002—22—and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. 
Concluding a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the UK has been one of the key priorities—
Hon Todd McClay: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry to interrupt the Minister—I know he's reading—but could he clarify that date again? I thought he said "2002", and then "22" afterwards. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I'm sorry, Minister. If we could just begin from the beginning, where you present the legislative statement and then I say my bit, because there are some words there that have not been presented. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Madam Speaker, look, thank you very much. I present a legislative statement on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Bill—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): "Legislation Bill". 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —Legislation Bill—thank you very much. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Bill Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 October 2022, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. 
Concluding an FTA with the UK has been one of the key priorities for the Government's trade recovery strategy. The UK was our seventh-largest trading partner pre-COVID, with two-way trade of over $6 billion for the year to March 2022. The New Zealand - UK FTA signed in February this year will support New Zealand's efforts to diversify our trade and deliver preferential access to the UK's $3 trillion consumer market, with over 67 million people, for the first time in nearly 50 years, since the UK entered the European Community in 1973. Conclusion of this FTA is, furthermore, an important stepping stone for the UK's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. 
The relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom is deep and broad. It is a partnership grounded in common traditions, experiences, and values, strengthened and maintained by deep people-to-people links and made relevant by a close cooperation across the entire spectrum of engagement: economic, health, science and innovation, sport, defence, and security. 
Negotiations on the FTA were launched in June 2020, with negotiations occurring to a very large extent by virtual meetings against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. We reached a significant milestone on 20 October 2021, when New Zealand and the UK reached agreement in principle, which confirmed the parameters of the deal and set out the terms on which the text was concluded over subsequent months, with signature occurring in London in late February. I'm very pleased to say that our relationship with the United Kingdom is further strengthened by a gold-standard free-trade agreement. With the agreement now signed, both sides are working to bring the FTA and its benefits into force as soon as possible—ideally, by the end of 2022. 
Despite the challenges of negotiating during the pandemic, this is a comprehensive and ambitious free-trade agreement that sets high-quality precedents in international trade rules. The FTA will create the conditions for New Zealand trade to grow, particularly in the areas where it has previously been constrained due to very high tariffs—such as beef and dairy—and in new, innovative areas such as gaming and fintech. It comes at a time when our societies are calling for different and better trade agreements that deliver for the environment, for small and medium enterprises, for women, and, in New Zealand's case, for Māori. I'm proud to say that this FTA, building off our Trade For All agenda, delivers in all these areas for New Zealand. 
The market access package we've agreed is one of the very best New Zealand has secured in a free-trade agreement. We have secured immediate, comprehensive, and commercially meaningful access for New Zealand exporters and businesses, including for our primary sector. The UK will eliminate all tariffs on New Zealand exports, with duties removed on 99.5 percent of our current trade, from entry into force. Comprehensive tariff elimination will translate into savings of approximately $37 million each year on our goods exports. Overall, the deal will provide a boost to New Zealand's GDP of between $700 million and $1 billion. Exports to the UK are projected to grow by over 50 percent once the FTA is fully implemented. 
The deal includes new guarantees of market access and more certainty for our services exporters and investors, and for Kiwi businesses wanting to access the UK Government's procurement market. It will establish a level playing field for New Zealand businesses operating and investing in the UK. We've also agreed to cooperate with the UK in a range of areas, including in digital trade, to assist our growing tech sector. 
This is the second FTA that New Zealand has negotiated that includes a specific chapter on Māori interests. In a strong signal of the importance of Māori interests to New Zealand, the agreement contains the broadest set of outcomes for Māori that New Zealand has negotiated in an FTA, recognising the importance that Māori place on this agreement. This includes prioritisation of early tariff elimination on a range of goods of interest to Māori, the inclusion of Māori perspectives and concepts in the environment chapter, and a Māori trade and economic cooperation chapter that will create a platform for cooperation on a range of issues important to Māori. Importantly, the preamble to the FTA recognises the unique relationship between Māori and British Crown as an original signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. 
This FTA includes the most far-reaching commitments New Zealand has ever negotiated on trade and the environment. This includes concrete steps to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels, new prohibitions to combat overfishing, and specific articles on climate change, biodiversity, and sustainable forestry. The environment chapter will also prioritise the elimination of tariffs on over 290 environmentally beneficial products, the largest such list agreed in any FTA to date. 
This is the first FTA launched and concluded under New Zealand's Trade For All agenda. Trade For All principles and priorities were embedded in New Zealand's approach to the negotiations from the outset and are clearly reflected in the final outcomes. We have set new levels of ambition and inclusion and sustainable trade, including new chapters on trade and gender equality to support women's economic empowerment, and on consumer protection; outcomes reflecting Māori interests, including trade and economic cooperation; and outcomes on trade and development, small and medium enterprises, trade and labour, and anti-corruption. In addition, the UK FTA does not constrain the New Zealand Government's right to regulate for legitimate public policy purposes. 
As with all FTAs since 2001, this agreement includes New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi exception. That ensures that nothing in the FTA would prevent the New Zealand Government from meeting its obligations to Māori. 
Given the difficulties both of COVID-19 and the challenges to the international trading system, the achievement of this gold-standard deal cannot be overstated, and it speaks to New Zealand's long history of negotiating high-quality and inclusive agreements. This FTA sends an important signal of New Zealand's openness to trade and our ability and commitment to progress and conclude trade agreements that deliver for New Zealand. This includes our latest free-trade agreement with the European Union, one of our largest trading partners, for which an FTA has been a longstanding trade priority of successive New Zealand Governments. Prime Minister Ardern and European Commission President von der Leyen announced conclusion of these negotiations just a few weeks ago, on 30 June. 
The New Zealand - European Union free-trade agreement will create significant new opportunities for New Zealand exporters into a market of 450 million consumers, in which two-way goods and services trade was already $17.5 billion in 2021. Importantly, the deal helps level the playing field in sectors that have been to date at a disadvantage against many of our key competitors. From day one of the agreement entering into force, there will be tariff savings of around $100 million per year on New Zealand's goods trade to the EU, and the potential for up to $1.8 billion per year in extra export revenue in the EU once the deal is fully in effect. 
I'd just like to acknowledge the good work done by negotiators in both of those agreements, but particularly in the UK in a virtual world, where technical issues of trade that are always complex were worked through to the point where this trade agreement is a successful one for both the UK and for New Zealand. I'd like to acknowledge the outstanding work of our trade negotiation team on both the UK and the EU agreements. I'd like to thank the Prime Minister for her commitment to this and for being ready to step in and connect with any international leaders that should help us in this direction. 
Our trade recovery strategy drives our economic strategy, and that has benefits for New Zealand but also benefits for all New Zealanders. We've done a good deal here—we've done two good deals here—and New Zealanders will be the beneficiaries for generations to come. With that, I'd like to acknowledge, as I say, the work of everyone involved. Kia ora. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you, Minister. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you. If Minister O'Connor has said that this agreement with the UK is the gold standard, unfortunately, for so many of our exporters, the agreement he spoke about—concluded by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago in Brussels—is a brass standard. The reason for that is: the Minister has spoken widely about the great benefits that are being delivered for the agricultural sector in New Zealand through the UK free trade agreement (FTA), but, actually, it is not the case when it comes to the EU deal.
I too would like to recognise the trade negotiation team, and particularly Brad Burgess, who's our Ambassador to Ireland at the moment, for the great work he and others have done. Brad led the trade policy dialogue that took place long before this agreement was launched, and that was the important first stepping stone to actually getting the launch and to getting agreement from the United Kingdom that they should forge a relationship, a trade agreement, with New Zealand. The sad news for Brad is that after his hard work, everything he's done for the country to make sure this is a good deal that can deliver for Kiwis, he's about to get the sack, get sent home, so the Speaker can go and take his place. That's the type of thanks you get from the Labour Government. But he and others have done a great job and, actually, they deserve a huge amount of credit.
At the time the UK announced that they were to leave the European Union, New Zealand officials and Ministers were there very, very quickly to talk to them about the importance of a trade agreement with New Zealand—but, more than that, to talk to them about the type of trade agreement or relationships they should have with the world. I want to particularly recognise a former trade Minister for the United Kingdom, Liam Fox, who made the first clear, absolute commitment to New Zealand, to me when I was there at a Commonwealth Trade Ministers Meeting, when he said that New Zealand would be the first cab off the rank, along with Australia, once they had left the European Union. I am so very, very pleased that the UK honoured that commitment they made to New Zealand and that this Government has followed through with them—the new Government in New Zealand—to make sure that we got a trade deal, because trade is important for New Zealand. We produce more than we can consume. We are an export nation, and we often are held at a disadvantage. 
To the negotiators, this is a good deal. It is one of the better ones that we could have hoped for from the United Kingdom, and it lays out the type of agreement we should always be aiming to achieve whenever New Zealand goes out to negotiate. You often only get one go at this, one bite of the cherry or, in the case of the EU deal, one bite of the onion—because we have tariff-free access from day one for onions into the EU, and that's a good thing for our onion producers.
But in as far as how good this agreement is, unfortunately—the Minister also talked at some length in his speech about the EU deal, and it hasn't delivered in the same way and, unfortunately, I fear that we weren't able to even come close to emulating what's in the UK agreement. The commitment the UK made to us early on about wanting to be free traders, about setting the bar very high and, as far as free trade agreements should be about free trade, there should be few if any restrictions at all—that's what the UK said to us, that's what they fronted up and delivered to us in this agreement, and that's why we are in part looking to pass legislation in the House very quickly, so it can ratify and enter into place.
But I've got a question for the Minister—and I know he can't answer now and, therefore, he'll have many other opportunities to. In the Farmers Weekly, soon after this agreement was signed, he spoke at length about the extra trade that there would be, the unfettered access for our dairy products and our meat into the UK market, some of it over 15 years but, actually, as a great win. When, just a few weeks ago, with the Prime Minister, they announced that they were ending negotiation with the European Union and accepting what was on the table, he published another article in the Farmers Weekly, where he spoke about actually how good our dairy and meat access to the EU was under that agreement.
Minister, you said that we already had 75,000 tonnes of butter access, 11,000 tonnes of cheese access. Well, actually, that's not correct. That's not what we had with the European Union. That was their figures and those were the figures pre - Brexit split. If you add what we actually had on the table for butter plus what was gained for butter with tariffs within the quota, we are worse off for butter under the EU agreement than we were before the negotiation started. So I'd ask him to go and clarify that, because members of this side and I have started to receive emails from the agricultural sector, farmers who are confused or concerned that, actually, it's not as good as he said. That needs to be clarified, because his figures were wrong. The reason I state that is this Minister and the Government go out on the international stage and say to New Zealanders, "Trust us, we know what's best for you and we will negotiate the best deal that we can." In the case of the EU, they said, "We have negotiated the best deal that we can." But, when the Minister comes home to sell that to our farmers, he gets his figures wrong—just like at the beginning of this debate; he had to read it out again.
The reason it is so important is, actually, we are only as good as our next trade negotiation, not our last one. In that respect, the UK deal is a very good one for New Zealand. Our negotiators have done a great job, and the Government made the right decision to conclude negotiation at the time they did and sign this deal and get it on paper. However, with the EU deal, they didn't to that, because it isn't as good in many respects as the UK one was. Yes, it's challenging to negotiate with the EU when it comes to agricultural access, but if New Zealand won't sit at the table and continue to make the case for free trade, to bring down barriers, to not have subsidies that distort markets around agriculture and so on—if we won't do that with the EU, one of the greatest, most protectionist trading groups of countries in the world, well, what does that say when next we go to negotiate?
We're only as good as the last deal. That's not the UK one, it's the EU one. And when the Minister goes to India one day—although he said it's too tough to go to India at the moment—or goes to the US or somewhere else, sadly, here is what will happen: they will look at the deal and the Minister will say, "We got this great deal with the UK and over 15 years there's complete tariff-free access for all of our product. We should do the same thing." And they'll say, "Ah, but here's the problem: just before, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, went to the European Union to try and finalise a deal. She sent a signal through the media that they were willing to do a deal that actually wasn't in the best interests of New Zealand, and that they were willing to settle. And here's what happened: the EU negotiators, who come under pressure from their farming interests, heard that and they offered no more in those areas."
You know, it is important that we level the playing field and we have better access to the European Union, particularly as the UK has left. But, actually—
Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The first reading—I refer to Speaker's Ruling 108/1, which makes it clear that a first reading is about the bill before the House—is relatively narrow. That speech might be appropriate in the second reading, but it's not in the first.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I do want to remind the member to come back to this bill. Yes—
Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, well, speaking to the point of order—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes, the Minister—if I can just finish. The Minister actually spent maybe a minute talking about the EU free-trade agreement, but this particular first reading is about the UK free-trade agreement. The member has spent most of his time talking about the EU FTA. We will have a chance to talk about the EU FTA later on this year, but please come back to the UK free-trade agreement. Thank you.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So as I was saying, our negotiators have done a good job in this agreement. It has levelled the playing field and it will help New Zealand business and industry, particularly our agricultural sector, gain more from the UK market. In that, our negotiators actually deserve a great vote of thanks and the recognition. The Government rightly chose the time to finish the negotiation and conclude with the United Kingdom and sign this, and that was a good thing in as far as the New Zealand economy is concerned. We owe it to Liam Fox, a Minister of the UK who, long before negotiations started, committed to a high-quality outcome and us being one of the first cabs off the rank, with Australia. They delivered on that.
Sadly, it was 2½ minutes the Minister spoke about the EU deal, and we can't draw the same comparison to this deal, because, actually, it's not that it's misleading—it gives false hope to our farmers. The National Party was very pleased to be there in the early days, in Government, talking to the UK, opening the doors to make sure that we had a chance, in the shortest period of time possible, to do the highest quality deal that could be done with the United Kingdom. That's been delivered on. It's a great shame that the Government and the Prime Minister decided to conclude the EU negotiation, because when that Minister next goes to another country to start a negotiation, they won't be talking about the UK agreement that we are voting on today; they will look at the EU agreement and realise that New Zealand under this Government is willing to settle for less than they should and they are no longer willing to argue the point that free trade is good for countries and good for economies. In that respect, for our dairy farmers and our meat farmers, they've let New Zealand down.





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and I'm absolutely delighted to speak in favour and in wholehearted support of the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. This Government is committed to delivering high quality trade agreements that open up opportunities for New Zealander exporters—and we're doing it; we're doing it through this United Kingdom free-trade agreement (FTA). I want to congratulate Minister O'Connor, the Ministry of Manatū Aorere, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and all of the stakeholders that have all pulled together their efforts to pull this agreement off. This is a fantastic agreement for New Zealand, for our exporters, negotiated in the most difficult of circumstances during a global pandemic, mostly over Zoom. This agreement was able to be pulled off, and I'm so proud to be Minister O'Connor's under-secretary for Māori trade to really support the world-leading provisions that are contained in this agreement concerning Māori and promoting Māori interests in trade.
This is a gold standard agreement, and I know the member opposite, Mr McClay, will always try and—just doom and gloom, every time he speaks about what we're doing in trade. But, man, we are delivering. Let's talk about what we are delivering on trade. We've delivered the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. We've upgraded the China FTA. We've now delivered the UK FTA and the EU FTA, and the work continues—unlike the other side when Todd was the Minister. Or he was for a short time. The deep divisions that went through New Zealand society around the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—we'll all remember those dark days; absolute protests up and down the countryside. That is why our Government—we've reset our trade agenda. We've set a Trade For All agenda to ensure that we can build that social licence, to ensure that the benefits of trade go right across New Zealand, right across our society. We don't just serve the farming interests; we don't just serve large corporations. Trade for all is about ensuring that trade benefits everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand, and this free-trade agreement is the first that we've delivered under our Trade For All agenda, and it delivers on all those aspects. I'm very proud of this agreement; I'm proud of the positive impact this will make.
We've heard about the market-access benefits. Right from day one, there are going to be immediate benefits to our exporters. This is a huge market. We know we're talking about some 60-odd million  consumers; $6 billion of existing two-way trade that took place before COVID. This is a huge market where we immediately gain traction, get more money in our pockets for selling our good products up into the UK market. And it's more than just our goods; it's about our services as well, and that's why we are delivering for our digitech sectors, and in the likes of investment and in Government procurement. There are huge opportunities that are now opening up for New Zealand businesses up and down the country as a result of this free-trade agreement.
But I want to focus on the great benefits that this agreement delivers for Māori, because with this free-trade agreement—again, done under our Trade For All agenda—we now have a new approach to how we engage with Māori in respect of our free-trade agreements. The engagement that now takes place is right across our Māori representative groups, from the Federation of Māori Authorities, from the Iwi Chairs Forum, from Te Taumata group, from the Ngā Toki Whaka-Rururanga. There is a huge amount of engagement that is taking place, and that engagement has helped craft the Māori Trade and Economic Cooperation Chapter, which is a world first in this free-trade agreement, and I'm very proud of these new territories where we're taking indigenous trade through our free-trade agreement. And that has been continued into the EU agreement. So I want to acknowledge all of the Māori Treaty reference partners that have been engaged with the negotiating teams, working—sure, not everything was able to be reflected in the final chapters but what we have achieved is a world first, and it's all about building a platform for cooperation. I think the fact that in the preamble to the Māori Trade and Economic Chapter we talk about the British—the UK Government—having accepted the history and the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, having that in an agreement between the New Zealand and United Kingdom, is hugely significant for Māori, as the British Crown were the signatories to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
So there is much to celebrate about this free-trade agreement, and I'm really looking forward to putting it through all stages in this House so our exporters can immediately benefit from those benefits. And can I once again just acknowledge all of the stakeholder groups, in particular the negotiators that we have—high-quality public servants, officials—who do a fantastic job for New Zealand. We're only a small nation. We're a small nation of five million in the bottom of the South Pacific. We're dealing with massive, big economies when we talk about the UK and the EU. So for us to be able to achieve these agreements, get the benefits of our high-quality goods into those markets tariff-free, to benefit the pockets of our New Zealand exporters and increase those revenue returns, and lift our standard of living, is just something that we should all celebrate. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.





BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, just at the start of this first reading of the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill, I could see why Minister Damien O'Connor is not the racing Minister, because after two false starts and looking back to 2002 twice, he finally got this race on the road. I'm hoping, and we all are hoping, that he is more confident in the barriers that he has up at the borders at the moment for keeping foot-and-mouth disease out of New Zealand.
There was a comment before about the deep and broad relationships that we have had with the UK over many years, and of course this was brought about due to the vote for Brexit and having to renegotiate what we used to have in the past.
I think it was really interesting to watch on UK television, because obviously there is some protectionism goes on when we talk about free-trade agreements. I remember just after this agreement was signed in principle, I remember seeing on UK TV a couple of farmers who were talking to the interviewers, saying, "I thought that the New Zealand Prime Minister was a really kind person and look what she's done to us; look what she's done to our farmers."
I thought that was a real shame because, actually, if we look into a world where we've known for quite some time that we're going to have 2 billion more people at some stage in the future, we certainly do need to be feeding those people. Part of the reason I travelled recently was to talk to farmers in other countries and say—look, they've all got this fear that New Zealand's all of a sudden going to double its milk production and dump it on their doorstep—"That is not happening any time soon." So I think it's really important that—as we work through this. When we travel, a farmer is a farmer is a farmer. We have nothing to fear from each other; we are all doing good things and we are all taking our role in feeding the world.
I would like to make a particular note of Her Excellency Laura Clarke, who made a lot of effort to keep our team up to date through this process. She has been an excellent high commissioner and I've got no doubt that during this process that she played a very big part in that. I also want to note that this was negotiated under the pandemic. Not an easy thing to do. I have not spent any time in managed isolation and quarantine, but I know a number of people that were part of this process, obviously, have.
But I also wanted to make note, given that this is a trade agreement, that now the borders are open. We are really happy that the borders are open after the pandemic. It's good that the global world is getting back to some sort of normality, and hopefully that continues to happen. But when the pandemic first hit, I held my breath because I thought, if this world is turning upside down, what on earth is going to happen to our trade? How's it going to get to where it needs to go? I have to say, remarkably across the world, apart from one or two ships getting stuck and some supply chains which are badly in need of some readjustment, we really largely have been able to get our trade through.
I have to say, as part of this agreement now, because we're talking about trade—and bear with me, but right at the moment with foot-and-mouth on our doorstep and I know that the Minister and the Ministry for Primary Industries are doing all they can to make sure that it stays out of the country. It's a very big risk to all of our trade deals, and I really think it's important at this time that the public of New Zealand understand just how critical foot-and-mouth disease would be and how detrimental it would be to this trade deal and other trade deals in our country.
So I know that farmers will take biosecurity measures; they did this through the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak. But what I do want to say to people is that Mycoplasma bovis was different. It was devastating for farmers, it was awful, it was psychologically devastating, and it was a really hard time. I'm pleased to see that there's a level of success—one much higher than I predicted at the time—but this is different. Mycoplasma bovis was—we've only got one other country in the world where we are free of Mycoplasma bovis. If it was foot-and-mouth disease, it would have every chance that it would threaten not only our farmers; it would threaten our whole $52 billion worth of trade.
So what I'd like to do—as we discussed as a Parliament, this trade deal—is to put out a call to anyone who's listening to spread around the word that everyone in New Zealand and our visitors need to participate in ensuring that we keep this awful disease out of this country. So that's every pair of jandals that might have been in Bali, and I would really discourage people from trying to bring in pieces of meat that aren't part of trade agreements like this, and actually putting things in their suitcase that shouldn't be there—that will be really detrimental, not just to our farmers but to our whole economy. While we've seen a benign version of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia, it could have just as easily been real and so we need to work to make sure that that disease never comes here. Otherwise, everything we're doing here will be just in vain for a period of time.
So as I said before, this free-trade agreement came after the UK left the European Union. Preparations for this FTA actually began as early as 2017 under the National Government. But as we saw, over a long period of time, the UK took to actually finally negotiate its way out of Brexit.
So, you know, I do want to make a point—I know Mr Rino Tirikatene spoke before about the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. But actually, the Trans-Pacific Partnership: the Labour Party were out with their pickets and signs. I hadn't actually ever seen a situation in this country where I thought one of the main parties in New Zealand would be out with their signs up protesting against trade. I have to say that I'm very, very relieved that actually, once they did get into Government, they actually did take up the opportunity. They might have stuck a "C" in front of the TPPA and have progressed trade deals, but actually I want to make a note of the people who did the trade negotiations for this deal and have been doing trade negotiations for other deals.
Because when I was recently at the primary industries summit up in Auckland, we had our trade negotiator, Vangelis Vitalis, actually came and presented to that conference. It was really interesting to listen to his perspective on things, because he's been doing this for a very long time. It wasn't long after the EU trade deal was announced and he got up and he said, "I'm probably the man in this room that's probably going to be liked the least." But actually, when he finished his presentation and gave a detailed explanation to the farmers of what he'd been through, there was a far bigger understanding of all of the components of these trade deals than what most of them had actually seen before.
So when these people sit in the room, I know that they are doing their best. I know we're not talking about the EU trade deal—and it is disappointing for meat and milk. I do wonder if perhaps we'd left it to the people who negotiated and kept the politicians home for a while until it had its full time, maybe we might have been able to string it out and get something slightly better because I know that those trade negotiators are very, very, very good at the job they do.
So I think probably part of the disappointment from the EU one is this one with the UK is a very good trade deal. I think we were all surprised by how much better this one was than what we thought it might be.
So I just want to put a shout-out to farmers at the moment. Farmers, horticulturalists, and all the people that are participating in these agreements. We have some awfully wet weather out there, people are trying to calve, and we have people who are still trying to pick fruit and don't have enough staff. You know, they're really putting their heart and soul into everything they do for this country so that we have goods to trade, so that we have an economy in this country that keeps us strong and upright as a country and gives us a standard of living which we've come to expect, based on the economy that we run where this is the backbone. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. The UK is a very important and credible partner to New Zealand. Our relationship is robust, healthy, and necessary by nature. COVID-19 hit our economy hard, as it did many countries. As we open to the world, our businesses will be looking for opportunities of any nature anywhere, but when there is the opportunity of a free-trade agreement with a country like the UK, it's very special. An open access to the market as big as the UK with 69 million people—about $3 trillion GDP—it's a huge success.
On 28 February, New Zealand signed the free-trade agreement with the UK that would further strengthen the relationship that's already thriving between two countries by creating stronger trade and investment ties. The UK was already New Zealand's seventh largest trading partner pre - COVID-19, with a two-way trade in goods of about NZ$6 billion for the year of March 2020, and the goods trade comprising $3.2 billion of that.
This free-trade agreement is wholesome, and amongst many things, it will deliver for the environment, for small and medium enterprises, for women, and Māori. As a result of this deal, the UK is going to eliminate all the tariffs on New Zealand exports with duties, to remove it on 99.5 percent of current trade from entry into force. This will provide New Zealand exporters more favourable access to the UK market. As UK exports increase by 50 percent, this will provide a much needed boost to New Zealand's GDP—between $700 million and $1 billion once fully implemented. It will create opportunities for Kiwi businesses, small and large, to grow, invest, and diversify, supporting New Zealand's economic recovery from the pandemic. 
I would like to outline some of the good outcomes under this free-trade agreement: allowing New Zealand exports to enter UK markets on a level playing field, and duties and tariffs removed on 99.5 percent of New Zealand exports to UK. This free-trade agreement underlines the urgent need to address climate change by eliminating fisheries subsidies, takes steps to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, promotes sustainable agriculture, and many other measures. There are dedicated chapters on trade and gender, Māori trade and development, and small and medium sized enterprises. Visas for business persons—makes it easier for people to get it if they fall within the specific category, and this includes their family members. Finally, it reserves the Government's right to regulate in the public interest. 
This free-trade agreement is a big deal. It's a success. I'd like to commend the Minister and all the negotiating team for this success, for getting this over the line. I'd like to commend the Prime Minister's leadership and encouragement to get this over the line. This is, indeed, a gold standard deal, and I commend it to the House.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to acknowledge you as the chair of our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which is the committee which heard submissions on this trade agreement. I do want to begin by, having acknowledged you in the committee, acknowledging also that that meant 10 days afforded to the public to prepare and to submit on a 1,700 page trade agreement.
Now, New Zealand needs trade. We are a small island nation. Trade upholds the rule of law internationally; it connects nations; it means that we can exchange culture, skill, expertise, and goods. We do need it, and the Green Party understands and commends trade, as long as it is fair, inclusive, and sustainable.
Dr Duncan Webb: We agree.
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: We do agree on those aims.
What we are concerned with, and I speak now as a lawyer that has dealt with international instruments, is that where you mention the environment—not you, Madam Speaker, but trade negotiators—where trade agreements and trade deals mention women's rights, workers' rights, indigenous rights, we would like to see those rights expressed in the same binding, detailed terms that the rights and privileges of multinational international investors are expressed. And that is not what this agreement represents. We note that there is a Māori trade chapter. We note that the mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is in this trade deal. We note that women and workers are mentioned, as they were in the so-called Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—I'll just call it the CTTPPA. That doesn't mean that those groups, that those interests, and those rights are in fact protected in an international instrument like this in the same way that multinational investors are.
I'll begin with the Treaty of Waitangi clause. We know that almost everyone other than the Crown—that includes the Waitangi Tribunal and other groups—have called this particular wording of this clause "inadequate" to honour or enforce Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We're not sure why the Crown persists with using the same exact wording, why we haven't revisited that.
Leaving that to one side, and this agreement and others have mentioned this, there is a new and a first chapter on Māori trade. I pause because it is a little bit emotional, as it will be for others. When we were hearing submissions on this, we were meant to hear from the late, great Moana Jackson on that chapter, on the day of his passing—but we do have the written submission. And what is noted is the inadequacy, because there is a protection, to some extent, of Māori commercial interests, of those who are in a position to trade internationally, but to say that this protects Te Ao Māori in trade is absolute wrong. The chapter, in fact, explicitly rejects any recognition by the UK of, and I'll read this, "Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, or Traditional Cultural Expressions [in any form] of intellectual property." Does that accord with Te Ao Māori understanding of the world or our own understanding of what it means to honour, protect, and enforce Te Tiriti o Waitangi? It does not.
So then there are the workers' rights, there are the environmental chapters—and we know because our negotiators sometimes told us when they appeared before us as a committee—they are set in separate chapters, enunciated in aspirational terms. And I say again, as a lawyer, that that does not make them enforceable. We in fact know that wording from the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), we know it from other agreements, and we know that when the CPTPP came into effect with very, very similar wording for the protection of workers' rights and environmental rights, that about 86 percent of cases would fail to enforce environmental protections or workers' rights.
Now, we know that this agreement sets a baseline. So with workers' rights, for example, yes, it does protect us from being pressured into lowering those rights in our legislation or policy by future Governments. But it doesn't protect us against the pressure of being sued by multinational international investors if we want to improve workers' rights protections or environmental protections. What that looks like in reality, and it happened in Australia and it's quite a nice demonstration of that, is when you want to put warnings, for example, on cigarette packets—now, that's not in this, but in a similar way, if we wanted to improve our workers' rights in a way that risked the profit margins of multinational international investors, we'd be in trouble. So yeah, it protects the bottom line of environmental protection and workers' rights maybe—we'd have to test that. But it certainly—certainly—risks future Governments' abilities to improve those rights. That's undemocratic.
So coming to democracy, when it comes to free-trade agreements and to trade deals generally, this is a deal that was negotiated in secret. The consultation mechanisms that we talk about—in terms of Māori, at least—were engaging Crown entities and representatives, and consulting with Māori without talking about the actual terms that were on the table, without talking about the mandate of negotiators, without a guarantee that those consultations would ever be taken into account. And how good would it ever be as a consultation mechanism if the people being consulted with have no idea what they're feeding back into? What does that look like? What's on the table? What's off the table?
So yeah, there were conversations, but the trade deal itself was negotiated in secret, the terms were done in secret, and then once we knew anything about it, we gave people 10 days to come to select committee. That all goes against the Government's own—and this was last term, to be fair, but it is a Labour Government, and a Labour-led Government last term that set into place the Trade for All agenda consultation and the expert group. They came back with a very clear recommendation that the national impact statement should be done by an independent entity—it wasn't—that there should be more democratic transparency around the way that trade agreements are negotiated and the way that the consultations are done. That wasn't there.
So we're dealing with an international instrument that has had input and direct negotiating rights from multinational investors who are impacted, but not the New Zealand public. But that binds this and future Governments in terms of the policy that we can make, and upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, workers' rights, women's rights, environmental protections, and our ability to meet our climate targets. That isn't right. That isn't a sustainable, fair, and inclusive trade agreement, and for those reasons the Green Party does not commend this to the House.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure tonight to rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the first reading of the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. It's not often that I find myself standing here in support of a Government bill, and it's not often that the ACT Party are agreeing with the Government on an issue. But we do agree on free trade, because free trade is very important to everybody who lives in New Zealand. Now, we are a very small island nation at the end of the world and we are a trading nation. ACT has always been the strongest proponent in this Parliament for free trade, because we see the benefits that come from having markets for our New Zealand producers to export to. And so we should always be seeking to increase the number of countries and markets that we can have our exporters export to. So that's why the party is in support of this bill tonight.
We're happy it's being ratified into the law, but we must make sure that this isn't the end of free trade and the end of us looking around the world for more opportunities. I'm happy to see that we've recently signed an agreement with the European Union. There are parts of that deal that the ACT Party believe could have been better, but, on the whole, we're very happy that we have signed another deal for more trade and more benefits for New Zealanders. We also look forward to seeing any potential movements in a US free-trade agreement in the coming years. So it's important that we're signing this deal and it's important that we're signing it for the benefit of New Zealanders, but also because we're in a time where we're seeing a lot of countries turn inward and closing off from the rest of the world. We need to seek out other countries that are likeminded, who share our values, who want to benefit from trade with each other.
Our foreign policy, for the ACT Party, is a belief that we need to uphold the safety of our citizens and that we also should be signing deals to reflect our interests and our values on the world stage. That is why, in particular, we are very happy to support this UK fair-trade agreement (FTA). Because the UK is a liberal democratic country that we share a lot of history with, but, importantly, we share democratic values, and that is of huge importance to New Zealanders.
Every day, New Zealanders get up and they create jobs and opportunities for each other, and that's in a whole range of different industries, whether it's dairy, sheep, goat meat, beef, fresh fruit all the way through to wood, honey, wine, aluminium, and even computer machinery and software development. There's a lot of industry happening in New Zealand and there will be many more that I haven't touched on. But these jobs provide stability for New Zealand families and they give people purpose and a pride that, you know, if they're working for themselves, or starting a company, or even working for someone else, they can get up and provide for their families, provide for themselves, and provide for their communities. I think it is wonderful that people every day get up and provide those opportunities for each other. But as a Government and as a Parliament, it is our duty to provide even more opportunities where we can find them. Having these free-trade agreements allows us to help New Zealand businesses grow, to help us find more opportunities, to create more jobs, create higher paying jobs. It's also good for consumers. It's not just good for the exporters, it's good for everybody who's really struggling through the cost of living crisis and anybody who is finding it harder and harder to get food and goods for their families.
Every time that we sign an FTA, or every time that we see tariffs drop, it is good because it reduces prices. And, you know, the ACT Party actually goes further than this Government and we say that we don't actually need an FTA to do this. In our recent cost of living document that we released on the economy, we said that we should just remove all of the existing tariffs that we have because there's about $200 million of tariffs that are being imposed on New Zealand consumers now, even without these FTAs, that is increasing prices on basic items like clothing, chocolate biscuits, and Chardonnay. There's a whole range of different goods that we can make cheaper for all New Zealand consumers by removing all existing tariffs across the board. Importantly, these free-trade agreements also increase productivity, and that's extremely important for the future of New Zealand and the development of more businesses in our country.
I want to pick up on one other aspect of this free-trade agreement in which the ACT Party once again goes further than the Government, and that is in investment from foreign countries. This bill, in particular, says there will be an increase in the investment screening threshold from NZ$100 million to NZ$200 million for non-Government investors from the UK. I think it's wonderful that the Government and the negotiators on behalf of the New Zealand Government have acknowledged the importance of bringing foreign direct investment to New Zealand, because it increases productivity in our own country. The ACT Party believes that we should allow this for all OECD countries, that we can have more investment to boost productivity in New Zealand. One of my colleagues—Damien Smith—currently has a member's bill in the ballot ready to go and it's called the Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill. I would urge the Government to support this bill, not just the UK FTA, which increases foreign direct investment coming from the UK, but to acknowledge that this is important for all OECD countries so we can have more investment from overseas in New Zealand to boost productivity across our country. This will help all New Zealanders with the cost of living crisis that we're currently under, but it will also help our exporters grow.
Finally, I think we need to acknowledge the real reason why this is such a huge deal for New Zealand and why the ACT Party is so proudly supporting this bill. It's because the UK is the world's fifth-largest trading partner—
David Seymour: Economy.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —economy—and now one of our largest trading partners. It's a significant opportunity for us because the economic modelling that New Zealand has done shows that our exports to the UK could increase by over 50 percent, and that will boost our GDP from around $700 million to $800 million every year. The UK modelling shows that they expect around 1 billion dollars of GDP per year increase for New Zealand and around 7.3 percent increase in UK exports. So it's good for our exporters and it's good for our consumers. It's good to be part of a country that acknowledges that free trade is important, and it's good to be part of a party that is the strongest proponent of free trade in this Parliament.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): A few weeks ago I had the pleasure and privilege of attending the farewell for Her Excellency Laura Clarke at Homewood. Normally, the Homewood Ball is something of a great occasion to attend, but this one was particularly special, and it wasn't because Laura Clarke can speak te reo Māori and that her children, who have been here for a number of years, were learning te reo Māori. It wasn't because of the festivities that had been held over because COVID had stymied the Christmas plans. It was because there was a real sense of achievement that a group of different people from different organisations had come together and achieved and landed something absolutely historical, something more important than had been landed in about 50 years, and that was the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the UK.
I spoke to Chris Insley from Te Taumata, who had also done a submission, a really powerful submission, to our select committee about the benefits to Māori and the Māori economy and the way that this negotiation had been so different from previous ones, where there was just unprecedented face-to-face contact, and how proud he was of that, and the benefits that it would bring to the Māori economy, which we know was $68.7 billion in 2018 and which a Chapman Tripp report in 2021 says will grow by 60 percent over the next five years. So when I hear the Green member speaking about Te Tiriti and the problems about this gold standard UK - New Zealand free-trade agreement, I'm not sure that we're talking about the same Treaty. Certainly the people we heard in the select committee from Te Ao Māori, people like Chris Insley, had a very different perspective, and I'm inclined to take their word for it rather than politicians sitting in this House who don't represent those communities, as well intentioned as they are. 
Now, we've heard a lot about the economic benefits of this. It is a gold standard free-trade agreement. It will eliminate all tariffs between UK and New Zealand both ways, and I repeat "all tariffs". That is absolutely remarkable: 99.5 percent of those when the agreement comes into effect and the rest of them over a number of years. So apples, butter, cheese, beef, sheep, meat, and so on. But I want to really say that this is much more than just the economic side of it. This is about the commitment and the deep friendship between the UK and New Zealand that has never been more important than now in a space of contested geopolitics, contested political ambitions, ideologies, and rules-based orders. We have heard about the value base that has not only allowed us to sign this agreement but also enabled negotiators to be able to do so in a digital world, in a virtual world, through COVID. That speaks volumes to the level of friendship, the deep level of friendship, that we have with the UK and also speaks volumes to the commitment from both sides for this agreement. 
I can say that I was the former director of the British Council in New Zealand and the Pacific. I know how much the UK values the friendship with New Zealand. Today, happenchance, I was having a coffee in Copperfields with my successor, Natasha Beckman, who's doing a fantastic job. That organisation's been in New Zealand for 70 years. There is a big difference in the scale between the UK and New Zealand in terms of what we stand to gain. It is a massive market for us, but I would just urge people who are listening at home to remember that this is more than just the economics; this is about our friendship. I absolutely tautoko the teams that have made this happen. I felt that at the farewell for Her Excellency Laura Clarke. And I really want to tautoko her for what she has done for that agreement. It's a day of celebration and I can't believe that I'm speaking about the same bill that the Opposition clearly don't want to celebrate, because it is a great day for us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Well, as a member of the Opposition, I feel it's my duty to rise and celebrate this bill, because, since its very inception, the National Party has been welcoming and, indeed, congratulatory towards the Minister for getting it across the line. So I'd just like to correct that for the record, to the member of Taieri over there.
As discussed, I do rise on behalf of the party to support the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. My family was actually one of the very first farmers to put frozen mutton carcasses on the ship Dunedin that went all the way to London back then.
Tim van de Molen: 1882.
NICOLA GRIGG: So—thank you, Tim van de Molen; I'm not so good at dates. So we do indeed celebrate our export industry.
And while we're on history, I think it does need to be acknowledged to this House that this agreement would never have actually come about if it weren't for the groundwork laid by the National Party and various National Party trade Ministers, particularly the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Todd McClay. Because while Labour was out there with their signs and their placards protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, National was out there getting out around the world and getting deals done, getting deals inked, and they started with the UK and the EU and the Pacific Alliance. I often think back to that former National Government and some words that John Key always used to use, and I quote him where he said, "New Zealand will not get rich selling to itself." And that's always stuck with me, because it really, I think, identifies the huge importance that trade has for New Zealand.
So it is good to see the Labour Party has finally put down their placards and got on board with the idea that free trade is a good thing for this nation. And one would hope that in a utopian world, perhaps the Green Party might also see a similar sense, but I think that unlikely.
The immediate elimination of 97 percent of tariffs on our exports is unprecedented. Damien O'Connor: I think I have described in the odd interview to the country that this deal is a cracker. So well done for getting it over the line. We do congratulate you and your predecessors and, of course, the many, many officials who have done the hard yards and actually got the groundwork done, and paved the way for you to sign and ink the deal.
The UK is a very important market to New Zealand because of our deep and abiding historical links, and obviously the future which we see as very bright. It is our seventh largest export destination. Many people have discussed our two-way trade already at about $6 billion. And I think, in the context of Crown debt heading towards $164 billion, our exporters are going to play a crucial role in rectifying the New Zealand economy. So securing high-quality trade agreements and comprehensive free-trade agreements is a really important part to that solution. Already, our agri-exports are tipping $52 billion. That too is unprecedented. And I would like to acknowledge the agricultural sector for the fine indictment on that very, very hard work that they do.
I'd also note within this particular bill the inclusion of that increase in foreign direct investment. The National Party does also agree with and support that. To raise that screening threshold from $100 million to $200 million for non-Government investors is key. I do note huge concern at the moment around the performance of the Oversees Investment Office, which also falls under that Minister's purview, and I do hope that he has got the blowtorch to their feet at the moment.
As we said at the time of the signing of the agreement in principle, the Australia-UK agreement was the benchmark for where New Zealand should have been aiming for in terms of the time frames for that tariff-free trade. And it is really good and pleasing to see that the dairy tariffs occur pretty quickly, but we are disappointed and would like to register our disappointment on behalf of the red meat sector that that tariff elimination will take quite a lot longer than our Australian counterparts. And while it does appear our quotas of sheep meat will be greater, beef will be less, but, obviously, in trade deals there is always some give and take.
Anna Lorck: Back to the negatives.
NICOLA GRIGG: Anna Lorck, I haven't finished. We would also like, in my remaining 9 seconds, to acknowledge the British desire to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the momentum that that is gaining. And the National Party encourages the Government to pursue that.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. I always enjoy going after the member for Selwyn. It doesn't matter how bad I am; I'm always better than she was! And I must say one other thing, though: seriously, I'm surprised the Māori Party has not chosen to take a call tonight on this bill, the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill, which does great things around embedding Te Tiriti issues in trade. That's something that this Government has done, and I commend the Minister for taking a new approach to trade agreements, in making sure that they are values based and that not only are they focused on enhancing trade but they are focused on enhancing the quality of that trade and making sure that all aspects of trade—the environmental bottom lines, the working conditions of the trading nations, and things like Te Tiriti and indigenous people's rights—are respected in the trade area. I think that this Government has really moved the way we think about trade agreements here, and this is one of the first trade agreements of real significance that's a top quality trade agreement not only in terms of the reduction of tariffs but also in pushing forward those other agendas. So I really commend the Minister for the hard work that he and the whole team have done on this, and it is great that we do have the Opposition benches largely in support of this bill as well. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.





ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise from an export-driven region as the member for Tukituki and Hawke's Bay. There are big benefits for Hawke's Bay in this trade deal. And not only is it going to see us continue to deliver and maximise the opportunities from all the great things we grow in this region—and do we grow some good things? We do wine. We do fantastic, award-winning wine. And perhaps the National Party, particularly the member Todd McClay, could take a leaf out of the positive book of growing great regions. Because all I heard was whining—not wine, whining and whingeing. Whingeing and whining about what they couldn't get. And yet on this side, this Government, where we absolutely support free trade and have a record of securing great deals, it is being done under this Government, the Labour Government.
Now, if I talk about our region—and I'd just like to acknowledge what the Hawke's Bay wine region said "We are a big winner, a big winner of the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the UK." Our largest export to the UK is wine, approximately 500 million a year. Overnight, $14 million worth of wine tariffs will evaporate. Now, that is just phenomenal, absolute brilliant results that we're going to see through free trade and doing business. It's about produce. It's about doing things with our wine, our kiwifruit, our honey, all the great things that absolutely champion New Zealand across the world. It is about celebrating these great things that we do as New Zealanders. We are an export-driven economy. We grow jobs in our region.
I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Napier Port, who last week celebrated the opening of wharf six, another way for Hawke's Bay to absolutely maximise the most from our export-growing potential and to be able to free up even more opportunities for us to be able to export hundreds of tons of our quality exports. That's right, wine. That's right, we've got honey. We've got kiwifruit, we've got cherries, we've got apples, we've got lamb, we've got beef, we've got everything. And it's coming out from an export region like Hawke's Bay.
That's why this is how we need to continue—continue. Unlike—unlike—that side of the House where they just whinge and whine all the time. How about taking a bit of time to celebrate? How about—absolutely that negative National Party never got the deal done. Labour got the deal done. We've had record after record of doing the deals. And I thank everybody who has got this free-trade deal over the line. I'd like to commend this bill to the House with absolute positivity and admiration for everybody who's been part of it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'd love to say to the other side, because of Anna Lorck's actually exceptional speech, that I've run out of adjectives be able to use. But unfortunately, that's not the case.
Anna Lorck: Not positivity. Come on, get that positivity going!
SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh no, I'm very positive. I think this is a very good agreement and it's actually really positive to see that Labour has returned to the bipartisan approach to trade. And so, look, the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill—particularly for those at home—this is not the trade negotiation itself. This is the piece of domestic legislation that's required to bring that that treaty, that trade negotiation into effect. And those who have sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will have already spent some time going through the agreement, but I think it's really important for New Zealanders at home to understand that the way that our system works, and in the likes of this free-trade agreement (FTA), this is done by Ministers, the Government of the day, the executive, and obviously through the likes of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—they negotiate the deal and they bring it back to Parliament. The select committee—as the Speaker will know—for various reasons will interrogate it, look at it, but it doesn't really bring about substantial changes. And then we are here tonight, as we say, the first reading of a piece of domestic legislation. Being a staunch monarchist, I love the idea that once this is signed, the same woman, the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Queen of New Zealand—as I say, the same person will sign off this piece of legislation. And I think there's a lovely comity in that. 
Look, this is a very good agreement. This is a very, very good agreement. It's one that, obviously, has come out of Brexit. And that's not me opining on the Brexit question, but it has come out of that moment in time and, rightly, those speaking tonight have acknowledged the immediate, now-past high commissioner Laura Clarke—or rather, coming to the end of her term, her work. But I think it's also useful to mention in passing Jonathan Sinclair, who was the then high commissioner at the time—only for a few months, it must be said, but who had things started.
I think it's also important, as others have done, to acknowledge the Minister—or all those, actually, all the Ministers involved. But it's right and proper to acknowledge Damien O'Connor, who is the current Minister, and the work that he's done, and through him, too, all the officials within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have championed—there's too many to name. I'm conscious the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in the House—to acknowledge her work as well. These things are big, and it takes a lot of work and effort. 
So, look, overall it's very, very positive, and it's on the background of that that I just want to raise a couple of, I think, relatively small points from my side—more considerations; as I said the trade deal is done. But just signalling with my arts, culture, and heritage hat on, we've obviously seen a change in the copyright laws, or rather we will see within I think  15 years that New Zealand has to move its copyright laws from 50 years to 70. I'm happy to be corrected on any of that—that's going to be a little bit of an adjustment for various Kiwi artists, those who rely on copyrights. For what my own opinion's worth, I'm more in line with aligning with other countries around the globe, and I'm conscious for New Zealanders used to a particular system that any change is disquieting. But I think the more regular or normalised our rules are with others, the better. 
I noticed, too, we have an artist resale rights scheme being put up, and for those at home—"R"s in a very long sort of elongated "R"—but artist resale rights scheme basically says that if you are selling artwork, there can be a royalty on resale. So just because I might buy a piece of artwork at first, I don't get to enjoy all the benefits of reselling it into the future—the artist gets some money.
So there's two points I just want to raise in this first reading on this. The first is: I think there'll need to be a bit of explanation to the public to understand what this is about, and obviously getting the scheme set up. But I also understand we're going to have to have another piece of legislation come to this House to bring that into effect. So again, I think particularly for our artistic community to understand that the legislation we're discussing tonight does not bring about that resale rights scheme—another piece of domestic legislation will be required, and I encourage the Government to begin consulting on that swiftly and bring that legislation to the House.
The other hat I want to quickly put on is around customs. Look, it's not going to be a surprise to this House that by and large that activity between the UK and New Zealand already works very, very well. But I see that in the agreement there's a commitment to robust electronic systems, and I suppose it's not so much to the Ministers here tonight in terms of foreign affairs and trade, but through to the Minister of Customs to ensure that the necessary resources are put in place, that New Zealand can make this work and work well. But I actually have quite a lot of confidence in that the customs guys and women are amazing and do a great job. 
A couple of other wider topics—and again, this is not a complaint, but I'm a great believer, Minister, in CANZUK—this is an acronym for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK; a much, much greater cooperation. I think this free-trade agreement, particularly around the movement of people, is a really positive step, but it's certainly my bias—or happy prejudice—I think, to want to keep working towards a much more mobile, flexible system of movement, effectively, movement between our countries. And the reason I mention that is I think that's a good in itself. There is much which those five Commonwealth realms share in common, but I think a wider part of it—and it's something I've waxed lyrical on for many, many years, and particularly, not to New Zealand, but to our British counterparts and certainly to our American ones who we're still waiting for an FTA from—is that we must now in New Zealand and in the UK, Australia, Canada and certainly in America understand trade is as much about our national security and sovereignty; it's as much about our national security and sovereignty. 
And I know, and I'm sure Ministers on the other side of the House get this, often we get told off for our reliance on the likes of China, for example. Well, my message remains to the likes of the United States as it has to the UK over many years: signing free-trade agreements with us in New Zealand is vitally, vitally important. And to put it in a different context: we have free-trade agreements with China, or an agreement with China. We don't with the likes of the States. And as I said, up until recently we did not have one with the UK. So it's really positive—really positive to see this in place. 
Recounting a bit of history, I did have the pleasure, it would have been about three-and-a-bit years ago, of actually meeting with Liz Truss when she was then the trade Minister—I had the great pleasure of having lunch with her, a private lunch, which then got me somewhat into trouble because then the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time were a bit miffed at why I was having a one-on-one lunch with her and they were not. But, you know, those are how things break. I think that's interesting. And I noted at the time—to be somewhat anecdotal—that the Brits, if I might be so derisive, were already nicking our New Zealanders to go into their Foreign and Commonwealth Office because they didn't have any of the expertise. So again, being somewhat tongue in cheek, Ministers, I suspect New Zealanders in New Zealand and New Zealanders in the United Kingdom have negotiated this agreement, which is probably one of the reasons it is relatively—if not very, very—good.
Last couple of points. It's echoing what others have said and I know what I believe pretty strongly—this is in the Government's agenda, supporting the likes of the United Kingdom to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think that's a positive thing. Obviously, these bilateral agreements are positive, but turning them into something multilateral is very, very good. I will just signal the EU side of things; I think it's positive that we're moving towards an agreement, but there is a little alarm in my head, and it has been noted by others, that the last agreement that is signed is often the datum point for future ones, and I think that will be a challenge for the Government moving forward as it seeks the new—and it will keep seeking, I'm sure—free-trade agreements. Those they go to, doesn't matter if it's India, or parts in South America, or South Asia, or wherever—Africa, those countries will be looking not so much to the gold standard, which is this free-trade agreement with the UK, but they'll be looking towards the EU one. 
But with that little caveat aside, just wanting to acknowledge again in this first reading the great work that has been done, I look forward for this progressing swiftly through the House and want to once again reiterate the National Party's support for this agreement.





ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It is a great pleasure to stand and take the final call on this first reading for the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill. I have taught economics; I have taught trade agreements in schools for a long time. We're often talking about those big numbers, you know: increasing New Zealand exports up more than 50 percent, increasing real GDP between $700 million and $1 billion, saving $37 million per annum on tariff elimination; that is the stuff we have been talking about when we think about how good or how bad a trade deal might be for the last few decades.
I'm so excited for the economics teachers who will be teaching about this deal in the future, because what they'll be talking about is how progressive it is, how actually what we are doing is talking about how inclusive it is, how we're thinking and ensuring and locking in accountability around sustainability and trade that we want to make sure that our planet is a good place to be in a little while. It would be an exciting place to be an economics teacher in the future.
We've heard about the big numbers and that they will happen very, very soon and this deal is progressive and ambitious. It is a chance to maximise opportunities and minimise risks with global issues including environmental issues such as climate change. There are far-reaching environmental provisions in this deal. It's exciting stuff. It commits us alongside the UK to work together on those climate change commitments. It affirms our commitments to the Paris Agreement and preserves our right to regulate for environment and climate purposes. We heard concerns about those issues, and I'm pleased to stand here and reassure members that this is a progressive and solid deal.
I just want to, I guess, talk about the real impact of this different type of deal. Some say we shouldn't be global leaders in sustainable food and fibre because poor practice will simply slip in behind us and replace us in global markets. The clever thing about this progressive agreement is there's a bilateral commitment to global progress on sustainable development.
Just a couple of different things: we've heard about the big stuff, and I want to narrow in a bit. A particular industry we've heard about from our fabulous member from Tukituki is our fabulous wine industry. I just want to reflect on the grape growers and wine makers from Marlborough who have reflected on the fact that tariffs don't just come in numbers and dollar bills but actually through technical barriers. This agreement removes so many of those technical barriers, and they are excited.
I just want to finish by reflecting even more particularly in a more granular way on the impact of one little company and future of our export industry: the Raglan Food Co. Coconut-based yogurt—if you haven't tried it yet, best you go out and get yourself some. They were recently celebrated as the supreme winners of the Primary Industries Good Employer Awards. They're not just local leaders, they are national and global leaders. They are proudly carbon zero, proudly certified B Corporation, Toitū Envirocare—they are living wage employers; they contribute to their community in the sustainability and restoration of their local environment.
This deal is for exporters like them. This is our future: for our exporters who are innovative and ambitious and for our children. This is a deal that is not just about taking advantage of the fact that we are the best in the world, but we are the best for the world. I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 107
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 12
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.





DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.





Instruction to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): It's been a night for a few little hiccups. I move, That the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 13 October 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.  





A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 107
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10. 
Noes 12
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.





FOREIGN AFFAIRS (CONSULAR LOANS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr Speaker, I present a legislative statement on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.
The bill ensures the Government has the ongoing ability to issue loans to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents who require consular assistance while overseas and are facing exceptional circumstances. The bill, by empowering the Minister of Foreign Affairs and their delegates, allows New Zealand's consular officials to continue the longstanding practice of issuing consular loans where it is essential to ensure the immediate safety and wellbeing of citizens offshore. That practice has been in place for at least the last 25 years.
The bill is necessary to provide the express statutory authority required to issue loans under the Public Finance Act 1989. The practice of issuing consular loans did not require express authority under the Public Finance Act until that Act was amended in 2013. The need to provide express authority to enable the ongoing provision of consular loans was only identified by officials in 2020, a period of unusually high demand for consular loans caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill provides that loans may be issued to a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who is in distress and where exceptional circumstances exist and if doing so would provide short-term assistance and be consistent with New Zealand's consular functions. Such loans are an important tool for assisting New Zealanders offshore whose immediate health and safety is at risk and who have no other means of financial assistance in order to resolve that situation.
The bill also validates consular loans already granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in good faith during the period after the Public Finance Act was amended in 2013 and before the ministry received in 2020 its current delegated authority from the Minister of Finance to lend money for this purpose. By advancing this bill, we will preserve an important tool in our tool kit for assisting New Zealanders who find themselves in distress and without other means of immediate assistance as they travel overseas and engage with the world. I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm going to cut to the chase: National will support this bill, though we're slightly confused—and this is not throwing stones at the Minister. We're sort of slightly confused by when, in many ways, going through quite a fulsome process that may have been able to be sorted through a statutes amendment bill or somewhat, but we can raise that in select committee, and that's, again, not throwing stones. I think this is a good bill; it's certainly a necessary bill. So I just want to reiterate, again, National's support. 
It's a very small bill that takes up four pages in total, particularly if you include the schedule, and, with no offence to the Parliamentary Counsel Office, had they formatted it slightly differently, it would only be two pages of actually substantial legislation. So there's not a lot in it. But you know, we're in Opposition and therefore I'm going to see how long I can talk on this, which is me attempting to be generous to the other side of the House.
Hon Aupito William Sio: Come on!
SIMON O'CONNOR: Look, it's a bill that's come about—and William Sio is optimistic I'd run out then, but no, sorry, I have not. 
This is a situation where law changes have had unintended, unexpected, and certainly unanticipated consequences. As the Minister who's sponsoring this bill—Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who has just resumed her chair—has pointed out, there's something called the Public Finance Act of 1989, which sets out, strangely enough, the use of public finances, and, in particular, what the Crown can and cannot do. There were changes in 2013. I was in Parliament at the time, but well, I'm a straight-up, honest man; I can't remember anything about it. But clearly—clearly—it made changes which had flow-on effects. So I'm trying to introduce some humour into, basically—and a very bad attempt. 
But in 2013 there were some legal changes to that Act which have then had flow-on effects into the space of consular loans. So for those at home or anyone in the House who is still listening, it's always been the practice that New Zealanders, be you a citizen or a permanent resident—or, it should be added, another person who is attempting to assist a permanent resident or a citizen—our consulates, our embassies are able to provide loans. Really important to stress that word. It is a loan; they are not gifts. I think it will actually be interesting for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to inquire, more out of curiosity, how large these loans can be, on what terms they are given, and, to be honest, it would be interesting to know what does or doesn't happen if they are not paid back. But in practice, these loans have been given out.
But it was in 2020 that officials—and it will have been, I strongly suspect, because of the COVID dynamics and people desperate to get home, finding it very, very difficult and certainly expensive—realised that actually these consular loans being given out were being done illegally. So this piece of legislation is, in effect, doing two things: one, making it legal, once this gets Royal assent, to give out loans, and, unusually for parliamentary practice, it also looks backwards, and so it's going to validate loans that have been given out since 2013, as I say. That retrospective legislation, as you know, is relatively rare. I think all of us—well, most of us; I can't speak for the Green Party—don't like to see retrospectivity, but I think in this case, it makes a lot of sense.
For the legal beagles—the likes of Christopher Penk and others—I'm sure they have read the Public Finance Act 1989. I did take the time to do so. Every good MP has done so; I haven't. You can read into that what you want, but no, section 65K is what's, effectively, the offending part, which has caused a lot of these problems—again, not intended. Section 65K says the Crown must not lend money except under statute. Except as expressly authorised by any Act, the Crown must not lend money to a person or an organisation. As people will know in the House, we pass legislation all the time to authorise the Crown to be able to spend, loan, give money, so social welfare, health, defence—you name it. Obviously, what powers are given to the Minister of Finance to borrow, you know, like billions of dollars a day—that's all explicitly done in statute. So where we've ended up with these consular loans, it was not explicitly written into legislation, and therefore the Crown, ipso facto, has not been allowed to do such loaning. 
So this is a good bill. It's going to, ultimately, allow the Public Finance Act of 1989 in area 65K to be honoured correctly, and, again, to make it expressly authorised via this Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill, to make it very, very clear that the Crown can lend money in these circumstances, and, once again, introducing a retrospectivity to ensure that those loans done in the past are legal. 
So to begin finishing up there—I mean, I've noticed I've only spent sort of five minutes; I could start the speech again. But no, in all seriousness, thanks to the officials—obviously, the likes of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade I assume—who had detected this and have brought it to the Minister's attention, to acknowledge the Minister as she's going to shepherd this through the Parliament. As I indicated right at the start, the National Party, all humour aside—well, attempt at humour—is going to be supportive of this. We look forward to it coming to the select committee and, as I say, it's only a small curio or a curiosity. It would be interesting in the initial briefing to get some sort of sense of these consular loans, how often they are given, what sort of amounts are given out, and, as I say, how quickly they are repaid or otherwise. I just, again, want to stress that, particularly to the Minister or her officials listening, that's not to block the bill or anything. It's just, I have to say, a curiosity from this member at least. So it gives me great pleasure—seven minutes in; now I feel OK with the whips. And William Sio's laughing; all is well in the world. I commend it to the House.





Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): It's a pleasure to follow the speaker on the other side in support of this bill.
This is not about new policy. This is a technical correction in the bill. For over 25 years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has assisted New Zealanders in distress overseas by providing temporary financial assistance by way of a consular loan to them when they had no other means of financial assistance and their immediate health and safety was at risk. So for over 25 years, this has been done in accordance with the authority in the provisions of the Public Finance Act 1989 until the Act was amended in 2013. 
Anyway, so that's what we're doing tonight. We saw in the pandemic how necessary this was when New Zealanders and their families were, for a number of reasons—lost passports or could not get home safely—required consular assistance, and they were able to receive that consular assistance.
Many times the provision of safety, shelter, when returning home, was not possible during the pandemic. So a majority of those loans were issued at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. They were typically around $3,000 or $4,000. So I think it was really, really—still necessary at this point in time. But as I said, we were doing this under the provisions of the Act 1989 until 2013 and somebody—anyway, so we're correcting that.
Happy to support the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the tabling of this bill for consideration.





Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Look, I do confirm that National support this legislation. It is an anomaly that needs to be fixed. The work that is done by our missions overseas in helping or assisting New Zealanders is extremely important for those who fall on hard times or who are desperate. It gives us the opportunity to help them to make sure they get home. 
There is a question for other speakers of the Government as to why this needs to go to a committee and then come back to the House and take up extra time. If it is straightforward, just fixing an anomaly that was there previously and there are no challenges with it, I'm not sure why we're not just taking all stages with this one debate and then voting. And then for those who are uncertain, it's fixed; and for those who are needing assistance, they can get it. 
The Minister may also be able to instruct one of her colleagues, as this has been found to be not legal at the moment, if it's been happening from the moment the Government found it was illegal, are they still providing assistance and doing so illegally? In which case, there is a necessity to do this a lot more quickly.
The final point, I think, is in around our immigration settings. There will be New Zealanders overseas who are in relationships long term, who are married, and who want to return to New Zealand, and their spouses or partners don't have the visas to allow them to come to New Zealand as permanent residents or as citizens. Once they are here or they've applied overseas, they will get those sorts of things given to them, but can that assistance be provided to them and their children—a New Zealander overseas in London, for instance, who for whatever reason has fallen on hard times and must return to New Zealand—can the assistance be provided? Perhaps they have been in a relationship or married for a period of time and have children. Is the assistance available to them also, given that they are not New Zealand citizens or permanent residents? They may like the Government to provide clarity for us on that. But it is important that this provision is available to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and that the funds that have been given out against the law are rectified as quickly as possible.





INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I don't mean to be dramatic, but, to me, this technical bill, the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill, as has been described by my colleague the Hon Aupito William Sio, is actually also about what it means to be a New Zealander, because it's incredibly important, if one finds oneself overseas in distress, and we've heard that word used, in difficult circumstances, with no back-up, alone and desperate, to know that the country that one belongs to is going to step in and provide support and that the details of how that will be sorted out—it will be sorted out fairly and that help is available. There's incredible social capital in that, and that can't be underestimated, because that speaks to our democratic institutions. We can't have democracy without trust and faith in our institutions, and so these small numbers of consular loans actually have a huge impact on those who receive them and the goodwill that they have to our country. I certainly know that I would want to know that my family, myself, could rely on that from the country of Aotearoa New Zealand should we need it.
The second part of this bill is technical, and it has been said in the House that it needs to clean up what has been illegal loans. That's incredibly important as well, because to maintain that trust in our democratic system, we need things to be legal, we need our processes, our rule of law to be correct. So we are doing that cleaning up tonight to make sure that what we have is in order after the 2013 amendment that my colleague spoke to. So, on those two grounds, this is actually quite an important bill even though it is technical, and it's a real pleasure to hear that others are supporting it. I commend it to the House.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to very briefly speak on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. As others have said, this is an important bill but it is very simple and timely. It's just the change to the statutory authorisation to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs explicit ability to issue or continue to issue consular loans to New Zealanders overseas when they need them. I've been in that position, as many have in the House, where we have been overseas or lived overseas, and it is heartening to know that we have consular support, including financial support, when and if we do need it. Of course, those types of supports have become more and more essential in a time of pandemic, and our connectedness with our overseas whānau has come to the fore or been challenged over the past 2½ years. So it's a technical bill, it's a simple bill, it's a timely bill, and we do commend it to the House.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. As others have said, it's quite a straightforward bill, for a number of reasons. First of all, it's not actually a bill that changes policy. It doesn't change what happens. It's already, as the explanatory note and general policy statement say, a longstanding practice to issue consular loans, which previously didn't require express authority under the Public Finance Act until that Act was changed in 2013. Now, that means for the last nine or so years, for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade through its embassies around the world to issue a loan to a New Zealander who found themselves stranded overseas, they would be technically breaking the law. So this bill tonight is not changing the policy. It is, rather, retrospectively, or at least for the future, making legal something that everyone accepts should happen but technically is not legal at the moment.
It also is worth noting that this is not free money that will be handed out to any New Zealander who may have run out of money at the pub. There are specific criteria for consular loans. You have to be in distress, exceptional circumstances must exist, and it must relate to a person's immediate health or safety. So it's not as though this is a lender; it's more a lender of last resort for people that find themselves in deep difficulty while overseas.
And I think there is something—perhaps not uniquely Kiwi about it, because people from many different countries travel and get themselves into all sorts of trouble. But I think it is perhaps more Kiwi than for most countries to have this network and this kind of assistance. There's not many of us and we're from all different walks of life, but the one thing we have in common is that we are travellers. If you're a New Zealander, there's one thing I know about you for sure, and it's actually the only thing I can be certain of, given the great diversity of people that make our country home and call themselves New Zealanders. But I can be sure that, at some point, you or your ancestors have paddled, sailed, flown or otherwise got yourselves to New Zealand for a better tomorrow. We are the quintessential nation of immigrants. We are people who have travelled further across the globe to give our children a better tomorrow than anyone else. Some people will say, "Actually, what about Australians?" I just make the point that Australians, if you look at the map, haven't travelled quite as far as New Zealanders for a better life. And some people who know their history are also aware that Australians did not travel quite so voluntarily either.
To travel to seek a better tomorrow on different parts of the world is a quintessentially Kiwi thing. And often we find that we want to explore the rest of the world and find out what else is out there. We are a country that has perfected the OE—and that's the second time in recent history that the Prime Minister's tried to defend herself against my charges she's made New Zealand unattractive to young people, by pointing out that her and I both spent time and learnt overseas. Well, the OE is something that means young New Zealanders find themselves travelling and may often get into situations of bother and difficulty. And if the bank of mum and dad is not immediately available, a consular loan may be what gets them out of trouble.
I, personally, in my travels, have never taken advantage of something like that. I have had some interesting times out there, but one incident that I always recall was a time, probably about 15 years ago, I was in DC and I needed to get some documents notarised by a New Zealand passport holder. So I went to the Kiwi pub in New York a couple of days before, and, ironically, there were no Kiwis there. I was in DC a couple of days later, and I looked up and found the New Zealand embassy. And what an oasis of Kiwi-ness in the middle of that mad city was our embassy! The funny thing was, I'd been living in North America, with Canadians and Americans, for a few years—my own accent had started to take on a bit of their timbre—and these Kiwis inside this embassy, I think they only talk to each other, because I got in there and it was just an oasis of flat vowels [Speaks with an exaggerated New Zealand accent] and they're all talking like this. And I thought, what a wonderful thing. The way they had it set up, they had, you know, mist and fern and ponga fronds inside, and they'd really made a great effort of making this oasis of Kiwi-ness. I got there and I found someone that worked there who was obviously a Kiwi, and I got them to notarise my documents and that was all good to go. And then I said, "Well, you know, is there a fee?" And they said, "Oh, look, bugger it, we don't know. We probably should charge it, but we don't know how, so it's on the house." And off I went on my merry way, to continue my exploration of the capital of the United States. It was a good time, made all the richer by being able to visit New Zealand's network of embassies around the world.
So I always think, when I think of these consular loans and this extension that the Parliament is ratifying tonight, or at least putting through the first reading, of the role that having that network of embassies around the world can play for our small, or at least numerically small, nation of people who love to travel. Because, despite biological reality, Kiwis certainly do fly. And if we're going to be flying, I think that it's important that our laws—in very limited circumstances, with the obligation to pay it back—allow our embassies and consulates to advance moneys to New Zealand citizens who find themselves in distress and need to borrow some money immediately for their health and safety to be preserved. So, with those thoughts recorded, I would like to further commend this bill to the House on behalf of the ACT Party. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. For over 25 years the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been assisting New Zealanders in distress overseas by providing temporary financial assistance by way of a consul loan to them when they are in distress or when they don't have other means of financial assistance and their immediate health or safety is at risk. This is an important service for New Zealanders in distress.
COVID-19 was a good example, when thousands of Kiwis were stuck overseas, and some of them didn't have any means of assistance. And so as COVID-19 has shown, the circumstances can change quickly for any of us, really. As someone who has a lot of family links overseas, when things go wrong for me I like to look around and then, you know, be able to go to my embassy for assistance. In some places this could be quite crucial and critical; in fact, it could be lifesaving. So because of that this bill is quite technical but in a way it's also straightforward and simple, and it's essential. So I commend it to the House.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I join others across the House in commending the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill to the House. The point of the legislation has been pretty well covered by others. I will just add that I think there's a lot of good public law in it, small as it may be, and, of course, all public law is good public law, as I'm sure we all appreciate. 
It's actually an exercise in emphasising the importance of the rule of law, in a way, because this is saying that the Government and its agencies are not above the law. I think it was President Nixon who famously or infamously commented that "When the President does that, it means it's not illegal." But, of course, if the New Zealand Government does a thing that is not authorised by law, or in fact is expressly prohibited by law, then it is, nevertheless, under our constitutional arrangements, capable of being illegal or, perhaps I should say, at least not lawful. 
So it's important and appropriate that the Government and Parliament take seriously the fact that, at the moment, on our statute book we don't have the ability for our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its various representatives overseas to make the loans that others have referred to. So we don't even need to concern ourselves with the theoretical possibility of an action that's not expressly authorised but nevertheless may be legal because it's not prohibited. In fact, as others have explained, an amendment to the Public Finance Act 1989, which was made nearly 10 years ago, put the situation such that loans cannot be made in these circumstances. Prior to that, as others, from the Minister onwards, have explained, it had been a longstanding practice that New Zealanders in distress would be able to have loans made to them in certain circumstances, and the criteria are set out in this bill, presumably carrying on that previous tradition and, indeed, as I say, authorisation that such loans could be made. 
The reason that this is important, as I say, is to demonstrate and enable, indeed, the New Zealand Government to comply with the law. And to do that it needs to provide this authority going forward, but also to look backwards for that intervening period where such loans have not been lawful and to say, "Well, actually we're deciding that those things we will regard now as having been lawful, notwithstanding they took place in the way we've described." So it's an exercise in retrospectivity. 
Ordinarily, of course, the law—well, at least I should say, sometimes the law frowns upon retrospectivity, most obviously in the criminal law. We don't make offences or punishments that didn't exist at the time that the offence or the act or omission was committed or took place, but in this case it's something of a victimless crime. There's no particular reason not to allow these things to be retrospectively validated. Frankly, that's good for the good name of the New Zealand Government. It's also good for the individuals, the citizens, or permanent residents, as the case may be, who are overseas and who have been made such loans in their distress and, as others have pointed out, subject to various terms and conditions of the repayment.
The criteria that are set out in this legislation are simple enough on their face. As others have said, at the select committee it will be an interesting exercise to understand the limits of the powers and maybe interrogate that a little bit. The Minister herself may already have a good feel for that, because it is the Minister of Foreign Affairs from time to time who is given such authorisation. I don't know the extent to which she or he would be able to delegate those powers again. That's, to me, quite an interesting point and, again, it might be thrashed out at the select committee. But the Minister must be satisfied that the person is in distress—"satisfied" as in satisfied that that condition is met, of course, not satisfied in the sense of deriving any satisfaction from it—also, that exceptional circumstances exist. So not only some manner of distress but also, I presume, an inability to gain equivalent assistance elsewhere, maybe an inability to take out a loan locally for reasons of not having a banking or other sort of commercial arrangement possible in that country, maybe due to lack of a legitimate or acceptable local identification and so forth; also, that short-term assistance would be provided. 
So for all these reasons, National has been supporting the bill. We think it's an important measure to tidy up the statute book and allow these loans retrospectively. So we commend the bill to the House. 





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I just intend to take a brief call this evening, because what this bill seeks to do is to, effectively, fix an issue of a technical nature now that it's been brought to the attention of the House by the Minister. Mr Penk is right, when he talks about the retrospective nature of the legislation and how it's an important balance that any Parliament needs to consider in terms of whether legislative provision should be one that includes a retrospective approach. At the moment, the process is clearly not satisfactory in law.
What is this bill seeking to achieve? Well, it's seeking to achieve a fairly straightforward opportunity for New Zealanders and Kiwis who—whether they're on holiday, whether they're on business—for whatever reason, they are somewhere overseas when they go to, as Mr Seymour puts it, the oasis that we know either as a consulate, an embassy, or a high commission, that there is a straightforward process to provide financial support to whānau who are in dire need, in unfortunate circumstances, and who might be meeting a particular need around health and safety. I commend this bill to the House.





Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And not to be out of step with anybody tonight, I also stand in support of the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill tonight. I think most people, as has been evidenced by the contributions tonight, would agree that providing practical support is a really important service to the New Zealanders who find themselves in distress overseas. As we all know, circumstances can change. There's things that we've witnessed on several occasions over the last two or three years and someone can, for a variety of reasons, simply get caught without the means to get home. And when that happens, it's incredibly important that they can look to their New Zealand Embassy for that support.
So as has been well traversed tonight, the bill simply seeks to re-establish the legislative authority for what is a longstanding practice, and it's certainly not seeking to create any new policy approach. What we do know is, since 2014, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided consular loans to around 443 New Zealanders to either return home or to simply shelter in safety when returning home isn't the best—or even possible—solution. What we also know is those loans are typically around about $3,000 to $4,000, and they're commonly for replacement passports or for flight tickets home. 
The retrospective nature of this piece of legislation has been mentioned, and while retrospective legislation is unusual, it is certainly appropriate—as has been commented on tonight in this particular case—because it doesn't actually change those rights and responsibilities between the two parties, between the ministry or between the recipient of the loan.
So to summarise, the bill is needed simply to correct an error and to ensure that the consular loans can continue to be accessed by New Zealanders in need and given with the proper authority. So I commend this bill to the House.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call, the final call for the National Party, on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill this evening. It's lovely to be back in the House after the recent parliamentary recess. I think, for me, that highlighted one of the reasons why this is actually quite timely and important to have this going through the House now. We've heard a number of, I think, pretty apt descriptions around why this is appropriate and necessary. Indeed, I support those, in terms of the general tidying up of a slight error that had been in place for a number of years, actually, and had gone through largely unnoticed. And, while still enabling the intent to occur, it was actually not specifically operating under that delegated authority. So it is good to tidy this up, and I say "timely" because we've seen, over the last few weeks—last couple of months, really—a significant increase in the number of Kiwis now starting to travel again as the borders reopen, as the world re-engages and reconnects after COVID-19. We are seeing a lot more Kiwis taking that opportunity to embark on their OE or to travel again for business or to go and see family members, or whatever it may be. There's any number of reasons for travel, and I think, personally, it's a fantastic thing for Kiwis to do, to get out and see the world.
I was actually fortunate enough to be part of a parliamentary delegation, just in the last few weeks, that travelled to Europe. For me, I really enjoyed the opportunity to get up there, because I love travelling but also to engage on trade- and defence-related topics, which are really relevant. But, on that delegation, every one of the members of that delegation lost our luggage in Frankfurt. Now, this is part of the chaos that's going on up there at the moment. But, for me, it just highlighted that unexpected things can happen at any time. I think that's part of the intent of this bill: it's to enable an appropriate response to be made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the Minister specifically, to support a Kiwi, a permanent resident or citizen, to actually have some support in one of those situations where something unexpected has happened and they have been left short, with no funds or no access to funds, or any number of other scenarios—no identification documents or whatever it may be. So having the ability for our consular services to provide that support is an important consideration, I think.
It's nice to have that backstop, for those Kiwis that are travelling, and for us to be able to provide that sort of support as well, to know that we can aid Kiwis when they're going through a particular challenge like that, which, of course, would be extremely stressful for anyone who was facing those sorts of circumstances where they were unable to get back home or had no money, lost their passport, any combination of those sorts of factors—illness, injury—where they just need some support and they just want to get back to their family and friends to get on with life in the love and care of their home environment. So tidying up this little glitch, I think, is particularly timely given we are seeing now so many Kiwis starting to spread their wings again and travel around the world. So, on that note, I happily commend this bill to the House. Thank you.





MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And talking about timely, isn't it a coincidence that as the other co-chair on the European delegation I get to take a call after my colleague Tim van de Molen. Actually, my colleague just mentioned that unexpected things can happen, and didn't we see that on our delegation. Not only did our luggage get lost for five days but all members managed to get on quite civilly. And actually, I think we enjoyed each other's company. So there you go—unexpected things happen.
So what this bill does is it deals with a very important tool that we have in our tool kit and a service that assists New Zealanders overseas in distress. It has been mentioned by several members now, but the COVID pandemic, of all things, has definitely shown us that circumstances at any stage can change very quickly, and people find themselves in hot water and for whatever reason are unable to get themselves home. And it's very important that in those circumstances they can then look to their embassy and have some support and assistance.
So this is a service that has been provided for over 25 years, with the ministry assisting New Zealanders in distress by providing that temporary financial relief by way of a consular loan. I guess as the last speaker, I'll just tie a few other strands together. One of the thoughts is that this bill is not seeking to create any new policy approach. It is retrospective, but it's to make sure that we have the power continuing to make loans for providers in the legislation, as we have for the last 25 years.
It is also important to note, as a previous speaker has mentioned, that roughly between $3,000 and $4,000 is commonly the cost used to replace either passports or tickets home. The previous speakers also mentioned that this is a very small but important bill, and it means that we can ensure that we preserve an important tool we have to assist New Zealanders in distress overseas, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.





DIGITAL IDENTITY SERVICES TRUST FRAMEWORK BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 17 May.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, when we last considered this bill, we had completed call number two. We are now on call number three.
JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm delighted to take a call on this bill, and I know other members are also very keen—which is great—to take calls on the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill.
The bill is now in its second reading. As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I'd like to acknowledge all of those who made submissions on this bill. I'd like to acknowledge the committee members, many of whom are in the House tonight, for their work on this bill. I'd like to acknowledge all of the officials and the staff in the parliamentary precinct who worked through 4,500 written submissions—so quite a lot of interest in this bill.
But to me, the most interesting aspect was that we received, like I said, 4,500 submissions. But an overwhelming majority—4,049—were received in the last two days. I attribute this to the influx of misinformation campaigns on social media that caused many submitters to believe that this bill was related to the COVID-19 vaccine passes, which it actually was not but it was about a new regime that would develop rules for the provision of safe, secure, and trusted digital identity services. 
I'd like to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill to the House, and I know it had support of all parties in the first reading. I'm hopeful that that support will continue, because it is a really good, important piece of legislation in terms of people being safe online.
For the sake of time, I'll leave my contribution there because I know others also want to contribute. A really important piece of legislation, as we become more online—you know, more digital—in the way we conduct our lives. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a pleasure to take a call on this important bill. And it is actually a very important bill because, as we should know, our identities, our digital identities, are becoming significantly more used in terms of just our normal access to Government agencies, to councils, to actually just part of banking and every other aspect of our lives. We as people tend to demand the best of services, and so many of those services now are provided through a digital network, it is important with the digital framework that people can have a real trust in it. And I note the comments of the member who's just resumed his seat, Jamie Strange, from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it's really important that we understand that there are people who are very concerned about conspiracies. After some time in Parliament and many years as a lawyer, most conspiracies tend to end up being—and using a polite term—more like just mistakes. And what I would say to them is that this particular framework bill is nothing about getting more information on people, it's actually focused on trying to make our information that we readily put on a digital medium safer for us, and to protect us from people who do want to misuse that information.
We had, when we were in Government, the RealMe system that was set up, and certainly it's something that I use, and I think many people do. But it is probably something that, having been setup in 2018—technology is moving so fast—we need to be able to continuously keep up to date. This is not going to be the last bill on this sort of issue because technology is moving so fast. Certainly the advice that I'm hearing from people in the United Kingdom and Australia around things like open banking is going to mean that we are going to have to constantly keep this sort of technological advance at the forefront of our minds in Parliament.
This should not be a political issue; this is an issue that is actually about enabling New Zealanders to be safer on the internet. It should always be about understanding that, although politics tends to come into all things where resources are required and need to be used, this is not one of those areas, because this is like reading and writing. This is that basic now. Our children's generation and the children after that, they will consider this the most basic thing that we should be putting in place.
So the National Party supports this bill. Obviously it will need to be amended at various stages, even after it's enacted as a statue, but that will be for the future, as technology is changing. What we should never think is that a piece of law, but also a bill like this, is ever going to always be fit for purpose. It may be fit for purpose now; it may be fit for purpose the next few years. But we are going to end up having to revisit it, and we should do so, as a Parliament, with the sort of willingness that was shown on the select committee to actually work across and try and find the best answer for Kiwis. So I'm happy to support this bill and I commend it to the House.





NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also echo all of my colleagues who sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, one of the best select committees in Parliament. We work very collaboratively together, as the member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Judith Collins, has spoken about. 
Technology—we are really at the new frontier in terms of how we govern, how technology is used. I always talk about how technology is neutral, but it's up to those people how we choose to use it and for what reason we use it, and then who uses it gives technology its definition in nature.
As the chair of the select committee has already mentioned, we received a large amount of submissions. However, I think the majority of them actually didn't really submit in terms of relating to the real substance of this bill. I think this bill could have been one of the most misunderstood bills I have had the pleasure of dealing with in this House so far.
So I just wanted to put on record that this bill is about setting up a framework whereby the Government and the consequent board that was set up, the Trust Framework Board, will make sure that we have a set of criteria that we will judge a technology company or a place that issues a digital identity whereby the accreditations—if they meet those criteria we can accredit that person. Meaning that as a consumer, as a citizen here in New Zealand, you can trust websites, you can trust entities that have been accredited by this board with your personal information, with your own identity information.
So this bill is all about the safe governance of your own data of your digital identity online. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.





CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'll stand and begin my contribution late this Tuesday evening by reflecting on the comments of one Hon Judith Collins, when her statements were around how this will not be the last, kind of, piece of legislation that deals with the internet and identity and the challenges that we begin to unpack by grappling with this issue.
And on that, I'd just reflect, while we're talking about great select committees, that the great select committee of the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been looking into a briefing that the Greens instigated on scams, particularly in the space of online scams. We've been learning a lot about the differences between authorised and non-authorised, about the kind of relationships that, obviously, people can formulate through these technological means, particularly in the context of the likes of a global pandemic where our relationships become all the more strained and people become all the more isolated.
Obviously, coming back to the substance of the legislation, this Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill, as Naisi Chen alluded to, there were nearly 4,500 submissions made to the select committee. However, a vast majority of those, I understand around 4,000 of them arrived in the final two days and were assessed as being in response to some of the—I believe it wouldn't be inappropriate to call—misinformation campaigns. The bill closed for submissions the night before the red traffic light framework came into effect.
However, among those submissions there were a number of deeply substantive ones. However, obviously many did not necessarily relate to or misunderstood the content of the bill. So in response to those submissions, the select committee has added a new clause clarifying the Crown's responsibility to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti and explicitly outlining where, throughout the legislation. Of course, I'd note here on the record, as the Greens always do, that we believe that you should give effect to Te Tiriti, not just to those watered down principles.
The select committee has also included new provisions requiring that the trust framework board and its Māori advisory group set how and when they will consult with iwi and hapū, giving more specifics to the substance of the legislation there. They've renamed the "trust mark" the "accreditation mark", and only allowed issue for services rather than for providers, for when an organisation offers multiple services, only some of which can end up being accredited. They've clarified that regulations must be made by Order in Council regarding setting rules for what can be accredited, such as the types of services and reporting requirements. This is, of course, just cleaning up what that process looks like. They have also ensured tikanga Māori as part of the complaints process from inception. It's unique to design a system from inception that includes these things, and removing some of the complexity and processes for individuals in making complaints, which, of course, is critically important in streamlining that process.
They have increased transparency via removal of a secrecy clause, and increased accountability of providers by removing immunity from proceedings under the Privacy Act. They've also expanded the existing two-year review clause to require consideration of privacy and security outcomes and Māori engagement.
Now, reflecting on the earlier comments of the Hon Judith Collins, and to the effect of how this stuff will be used in practice, only time really will tell. We're starting to see that with some of the other legislation that we have in place around, for example, the digital and harmful communications legislation. And here I'd just give a shout out to Councillor Sara Templeton down in Christchurch who, obviously, used that process and that relatively new and relatively untested piece of law to unmask those who had been harassing and bullying her online.
The department, in their recommendations to the select committee, pay particular attention to the submissions of the Data Iwi Leaders Group; many of their proposals, obviously, regarded strengthening recognition of Te Tiriti within the bill and Māori engagement. However, some of the proposals that were made by submitters that would have been supported by the Greens were unfortunately not implemented. So here I will foreshadow some of the things that we'll be putting forward at the committee as a whole House. But here are some of those changes, firstly, that key submitters put forward which were not progressed but reflected on by the select committee, and in their report. Both Internet New Zealand and the Council of Civil Liberties suggested that the TFB or the trust framework board and the authority should be established as an independent Crown entity rather than run within the Department of Internal Affairs. They were contending that there is an inherent conflict of interest in Government agencies both administering and in regulating digital identity services, such as such as the infamous RealMe—for anybody who has ever gone through the process of getting a student allowance.
Internet New Zealand and the Council of Civil Liberties also suggested that the failure of the TFB or the trust framework board be required to consult with or appoint a member with expertise on accessibility for disabled people. Here I'd also shout out to another piece of associated legislation that is, of course, the Election Access Fund Act coming into effect, which members of the public can submit on and make sure it's shaped up as best as possible so that we get a more diverse Parliament in the next election.
Internet New Zealand also suggested a longer list of required entities for consultation on rules, including the likes of the Human Rights Commission. The PSA similarly suggested workers' representatives be consulted. Internet New Zealand also suggested limitation of non-accredited activity, a five-year transition period, which amounts to the full regulation of the sector rather than a more watered down opt-in approach to accreditation the department is taking initially.
Some of the submitters were also concerned that the bill does not prescribe security requirements, such as information access restrictions and data storage locations in the primary legislation. That, of course, relates to the point that I was making before about Order in Council and leaving these things to regulations and rules can, of course, mean that it is not afforded the adequate parliamentary scrutiny. However, the department rebuts that this allows flexibility for changing technologies, and, of course, as many in this House who've been around for a while would note, that it often has trouble grappling, particularly at pace, with developing technologies. I'd allude to an earlier transport select committee where Uber had to be explained to members of the committee.
Many submitters, including Internet New Zealand, suggested broader consultation with the public be undertaken on the bill. Again, in principle, this is something that the Greens would support. But the point remains that the underlying intention of this legislation to regulate the increasing prevalence of digital identity services here in Aotearoa, and providing a secure framework to do so that is trustworthy and accountable, is important and a policy principle that the Green Party wholeheartedly supports. We also wholeheartedly support those improvements that have been made throughout that select committee process on notably stronger mechanisms for Māori engagement through the process of designing rules. 
I said that I would make points about those Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that will be coming everybody's way in the committee of the whole House, although I can see that my colleague across there—Tāmati Coffey—is looking ready and raring to go in his contribution, so I hope that they will be substantive, Mr Coffey. But those SOPs—feel free. Feel free to reflect on them in your speech if we'd like to all take a moment and reflect on the pace of the House, the fastest lawmakers in the West here. Those SOPs—and I'd invite members who will speak after me to indicate, maybe, whether they'd contemplate them within their caucuses and maybe support them—are threefold. 
The first is to include rainbow issues expertise on the trust framework board—surely something that Mr Coffey and other members of the rainbow Labour caucus could agree with. The second is to include accessibility for disabled people expertise on that trust framework board. And the third is to include a requirement to consider whether the trust framework board authority should be an independent Crown entity as part of the existing two-year review of the legislation. So just to clarify on that final point, it's not about prescribing that that is the format that it should take. But per the submissions that I have alluded to throughout my contribution in this debate tonight, of course, this is about reflecting at that two-year mark—they've already baked into the legislation review—whether the format is appropriate to sit within the Department of Internal Affairs or whether it should be an independent Crown entity as, of course, was recommended by both Internet New Zealand and the Council for Civil Liberties. 
So with that, the Greens are proud to see this progressing, but, of course, we'd like to see all the more improvements as is obviously the job of this place. And I hope to see other members of Parliament making points about exactly these things in their contributions to come.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't want to interrupt the member, but just regarding mentioning Supplementary Order Papers still to be debated that have not yet been seen, the strict rule around mentioning them in second readings is that you can mention them in passing, but they are not to be debated. So the invitation to other members to debate them, it's not on the table. We'll go to the next speaker—Dr James McDowall.





Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak briefly on the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill. As previous speakers have outlined, this is a new regulatory framework to establish the goalpost for a secure and trusted identity system, one that is interoperable and, most importantly, not mandatory, and hopefully it can improve services for those who choose to use it. The fact that this is opt in is incredibly important. Apart from the obvious issues around forcing companies and users to get on board, a mandatory regime would stifle innovation and seriously undermine innovation.
This legislation, this framework, is useful in a world where a much larger, much greater number of people are working remotely. Simple identity verification and other tools would be helpful in a lot of sectors, and especially in the legal sector—for instance, for when they are purchasing property, if you're lucky enough to be able to do that, or verifying your identity in other ways, especially during lockdowns, although let's just hope we've seen the back of those.
As others have noted, a lot of submissions came through, and I think a lot of concern has been aired on various social media platforms that this is some sort of quasi form of China's social credit system, and I think these sorts of concerns have been absorbed into a range of implausible theories. Look, I've seen that system in person over in China, and I'm very certain that the Government here in New Zealand does not have the capability of running or creating such a scheme. If they could do that, they could probably manage KiwiBuild.
Compliance is one thing that has to be there, but it could cause issues with incentives or disincentives for companies and organisations to actually take part in the scheme. We've seen this in a lot of other sectors. I think one example is the anti-spam laws that we have in this country. You know, there's pretty severe fines for breaking those rules, and how well has that enforcement actually been? I know that as a member of Parliament, we certainly get signed up to every newsletter on the planet, and technically that violates our anti-spam laws. So, who knows?
I think the way this has been set up—the three regulatory bodies, the governance board, the Māori advisory group, and accreditation authority—is a fairly sensible way and structure of going about it. I'm sure that in the committee stage, we will debate the Green Party's Supplementary Order Papers. I think with the Māori advisory group, this is not a co-governance issue at all; this is actually a very good arrangement for ensuring that cultural awareness and engagement is integrated into the process in a way that is balanced and appropriate, and I think even just that attribute alone kind of counters this idea that this is some form of central control or some sort of secretive communist takeover.
So with that, we're happy with the bill. Certainly, there'll be some discussion, and I look forward to that in the committee stage. It's a welcome development in our tech space, and I commend the bill to the House.





Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to make a short contribution on a late Tuesday evening to the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill. Now, as has been canvassed quite widely tonight, it is important that people absolutely trust the way that their identity and their identity data is handled. Providing people with greater control over that, over their identity data, will certainly help maintain and build on that trust as well. Currently, the digital identity environment in New Zealand is, as we have heard, largely unregulated, which really does expose people, and it also exposes businesses as well, to risks such as online fraud, and to privacy breaches as well.
Now, internationally, key trading partners like Australia and the United Kingdom are also modernising their digital identity services and their systems, and they're taking a similar approach to what New Zealand is taking. So there's international mutual recognition that our digital identity trust framework is a critical first step in full interoperability. As we all know, that sort of full interoperability, innovation, and collaboration on digital identity services is going to be difficult without clear and without really consistent and without a coordinated approach led by Government. Hence this bill.
Now, as a member of the coveted Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—so coveted, in fact, that I wasn't actually a member at the time when the thousands of submissions were presented and heard, but I understand that many of them, as has been discussed, weren't necessarily specifically relevant to this piece of legislation. Nevertheless, it does go to show that the general topic and the sphere of interest for many people is topical. I also understand that the select committee made several changes, including in response to concerns from Māori—a requirement has been to add and consult and invite some submissions from tikanga experts who have knowledge of Te Ao Māori approaches to identity.
And with that, and safe in that knowledge, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Harete Hipango.





HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I stand and speak on something that I know very little about, other than taking a keen interest this afternoon to read the report from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and also some of the debate notes—actually, they were notes provided from the library, in terms of a debate pack. So following on from my colleague, Hon Judith Collins, who spoke first for the National Party to this bill this evening—Ms Collins is our spokesperson for research, science, innovation, and technology. I'm spokesperson for Māori development, so again, as I've done previously on many bills before the House and debates, I look at this through a Māori lens. So with the report that was provided by the select committee, and also looking at the bill itself, my eye has been drawn to the specific provisions in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to the engagement, with a Māori context and perspective to this.
So the select committee report encapsulates ensuring that there is that inclusion, that inclusiveness, specifically at clause 8A of the bill. Again, of particular note is the commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, or, as referenced within the select committee report, the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. My legal eye will draw me to the legal principle of what's known as contra proferentem. At clause 8 of the bill—clause 8A—there's the juxtaposition in terms of the reference. It's been referred to as Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. So for those who have a knowledge of what that principle or rule of contra proferentem is—and I'm going to bring up my phone, which is going to digitally recognise my face as recognition for me to be able to access to it. And I'm of a generation that this is all quite alien and something that I've yet to learn about. 
So coming to learning about, for the benefit of members in this House this evening and members in the public, the contra proferentem rule—it's a rule of contractual interpretation which provides that where a clause is ambiguous, then the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interest of the party who drafted the clause. So I raise it as an issue because I've noted and detected with different pieces of proposed legislation, bills that have been brought before the House, there is an inconsistency in terms of the incorporation of reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or the principles of it. And the contra proferentem rule, from a legal perspective, gives priority to that party who didn't draft the legislation or the contract or the agreement.
So turning to the Treaty of Waitangi, this legislation is making reference and giving priority to the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi and the meaning of that. Now, members of the public and members of this House may not be cognisant of that, but in terms of consistency of how this is applied within legislation or the bill, which will in time be legislation, that's something that I think this House and members of the public should have their attention drawn to.
On that note, too, in looking at the material that had been sourced from the library, I note that the submitters—and I looked at the 4,000 submitters, and I looked through to see if there'd been any particular submissions made by Te Mana Rauranga, which is the Māori Data Sovereignty Network. It may have been; I'm not sure that it was, but I'm picking up on the comment from my colleague, Ms Collins, that this bill in its current form has been designed and has been scrutinised so that it's fit for purpose at this particular time. Māori data sovereignty is a keen issue that will draw the eye of those who are there to ensure the protection of Māori data and the sovereignty, and the collection, the protection, the utilisation of it. So it may be that, in time, this bill, although it's fit for purpose at this time, will need to be redesigned to incorporate the fact that the particular interests and issues of Māori data sovereignty have not been properly encapsulated within this bill. On that note, the National Party commends this bill to the House.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are living in a fast-paced world—te ao hurihuri. The world is turning and it needs us to catch up, and making sure that we've got a trusted digital services framework is incredibly important. Coming here for the second reading of this bill means that we're another step closer towards making that happen. I congratulate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for going through the process of listening to the concerns of the people. 
I also note that the work that's been done to reflect Te Ao Māori perspectives in a digital identity system is actually crucial. We need to make sure that Māori have participation in that. We need to make sure that that's reflected in our Treaty partnership, and, to give effect to that, the bill is going to establish a Māori advisory group with specialist information about Māori interests and knowledge. The board has applied to seek the advice of the group on matters of tikanga Māori and Māori cultural perspectives, and the board must also give effect to the group's advice to the extent that it considers reasonable and practicable after taking into account other relevant considerations. 
The work that's being done here isn't something that's going to be forced on all New Zealanders. I know that that was a concern of some of the submitters during the process. This is something that is going to be quite straightforward for those people who choose to enter into it. 
I think it bodes well for the future of digital identity services, and it will enable us to catch up to where other places around the rest of the world are currently heading. So I commend it to the House. 





GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Back in 2019, research was carried out that found that 79 percent of New Zealanders did not feel in control of their personal information. They were concerned about their personal data and how organisations might use it. In this piece of research, they found that nine out of 10 people stated that the idea of being more in control of their digital identity was something that was really desirable. This is what this piece of legislation is about. It's around ensuring that people have control of their online data; in this ever changing, ever moving world, where things are constantly happening, that they are in control. And so, being a member of this select committee—hearing submissions, hearing some challenging submissions, looking forward to one day being back on that select committee—the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill I commend to the House. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As others have done, I commend the bill to the House. Others have made comments about the nature of the bill, also commented on the process. I haven't been part of that august body that is the EDSI committee, as it's popularly known—and I do mean popularly—the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I started that acronym expansion not knowing how it would end up, but I think we got there in the end. That was dangerous stuff! The heart is racing! 
So there has been a lot of interest in the bill. And as others have noted—and, indeed, it's noted in the report itself—there was a lot of interest at very much the last minute—literally the eleventh hour, actually—with some huge number of submissions. I think I read some 3,600 between the period of 8 p.m. and midnight on the final night alone—so a huge amount of interest. And as a local MP, I was contacted by more than one constituent asking for National's position, asking if I was aware of certain provisions and their effects. I will say that, of course, whenever a constituent contacts an MP—well, I would hope that that MP would take that very seriously, make sure to understand the bill and its effects and its meaning, and to be able to either share the outrage of the constituent and undertake to do something about it, or perhaps, as was the case in this instance, to be able to gently assure the constituent or constituents that, in fact, the meaning and effect of the bill was not as they'd been led to believe.
Others have referred to misinformation. Perhaps more kindly I think we might say that there was a degree of misunderstanding around what the bill was intending to do and is intending to do. Others have noted the purported connection between this bill and the COVID vaccine regime. It seems to me clear—and I've done my diligent best to understand and check—that there is no connection really in that regard. So, fair enough, of course, to raise that, but I think we're in a position as a House to say that we shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be explained in another way—and I paraphrase a famous saying there. And I do it respectfully, but I think the genuine misunderstandings that have been allowed to come up around this bill are something that we should take seriously, and take the opportunity as a House to reflect on and to place on the record our view and understanding of exactly what it actually does.
So others have done that pretty well—or very well, actually, I should say—and I don't intend to rehearse the points that they've made. The Hon Judith Collins made the point I think very astutely that it will be changed in the future. It will need to be adapted, it will need to be amended. That's common enough with Acts of Parliament. The law changes; practice changes. And of course the reason in this case we can say with confidence that there will be change is because the technology that underlies the legislation itself will change.
I don't need to take much more of the time of the House, I think. We're getting perilously close to the end of the evening's entertainment. And I use the phrase "entertainment" rather loosely, of course, but others can be the judge of that. Anyway, the key point really is that at its heart this is a framework bill—the clue's in the title. I think I'm right in saying that my colleague and friend Melissa Lee made this point in her own contribution: it's a framework, it's a foundation, it allows rules to be set under the primary legislation that this serves. And the way that that happens is a series of rules or regulations—and I use that phrase deliberately. The Regulations Review Committee—speaking of august bodies—wrote to the EDSI committee and made the point that rules could be made either by Order in Council or by the Minister. And the report does a pretty good job, I think, of explaining the distinction being based on the content of the rules. So that's, I think, enough from me—quite enough from me, indeed. So with that I leave my contribution, except only to say that on this side of the House, we've made it tolerably clear we do continue to support the bill.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take the final call on the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill, following on from Mr Penk. The night is nigh, and so perhaps this will be the final contribution before the House is able to rise. 
But I want to thank members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. There is often, I think, quite a competitive nature in the House when it comes to references to select committees and wanting to be on particular ones. But when I read through the report from the select committee, what that one has identified is a number of changes that obviously came to light as a result of listening to the community submissions and identifying those.
I have to reflect that Harete Hipango referred to the contra proferentem rule, and I remember that, actually, from when I was teaching year 10 in a school when it concerned Te Tiriti. So it was a nice reminder to be reminded of that rule and what it means in terms of falling in favour of those, particularly in treaties, where it is constructed not perhaps in their favour.
Many colleagues have said this evening that digital identity is one of the most important things that is, I guess, significant in any state; in any opportunity. So this bill delivers on that, and I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. Pō Mārie.
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.