Parliamentary debates: Friday, 18 September 2026

09:00

I present a legislative statement on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Today, the Government is building on its commitment to restore law and order, to fix the basics in law and order, and to build a future where all New Zealanders feel safe in our communities. The critical part of that is ensuring that our streets and our town squares feel safe for everybody who visits, works, and lives there—

Not in Wellington.

—and every New Zealander should be able to walk through their local town centre, visit a park—in Wellington, in Auckland, in Napier, or in Taupō—take their children to a public place, get to work, and run a business without being subjected to intimidation, disruption, or disorder.

Public places belong to everyone and they should be welcoming, accessible, and safe, and yet for too many New Zealanders, that has not been the case for a while. Across our cities our business communities, residents, workers, and visitors have voiced growing concerns about persistent disorder in our public places. We’ve spoken about behaviour that makes people feel unsafe, discourages families from spending time in the town centres, deters customers from local businesses, and undermines confidence in our public places. This legislation represents part of this Government’s efforts to turn that around.

The bill amends the Summary Offences Act to provide police with the power to issue move-on orders to somebody engaging in disorderly, disruptive, or threatening behaviours; interfering with business; breaching the peace; begging that interferes with the public; or rough sleeping, or to someone who is continually occupying a public place. The move-on order will require a person to leave a specified area for 24 hours. People who are begging or rough sleeping could return to the area while the order is in force for other purposes.

Let me make one point clear. It will be a criminal offence only if a person does not comply with the move-on order, and we’ll hear a lot of nonsense about this topic, but that’s the reality. Move-on orders are a practical tool for police to intervene early, restore order, and prevent situations from worsening. They’re certainly not criminalising homelessness. It’s about reclaiming our town squares, our CBDs, and our central business districts for the enjoyment of people who live there, who work there, and who visit there.

On that basis, it’s about restoring confidence to our public places, and it is part of the three years of effort we’ve had, in this Government, to restore law and order. The choice that people have in the election coming up is whether to stay strong on law and order, or go back to where Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori took us in the years before. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

09:03

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel a weight of responsibility today because we are about to pass a bill through the House that targets our most vulnerable. Now, it’s often been said that the mark of a society is how you treat your most vulnerable, and if this is how we treat our most vulnerable—by moving them along when they’re in their hour of need and by telling them they need to be somewhere else when they’re in our public spaces—we’re not focusing our resources, as we should be today, on providing them with homes, with help, and with support, then this is a very, very shameful day for our Parliament.

We’ve heard a lot about how the bill works and we’ve been through an extensive process of analysing this at the committee of the whole House stage and also at the Justice Committee. I want to again acknowledge everyone who attended the select committee and made a submission on this bill. We had thousands of people oppose this bill. Thousands of New Zealanders came to this Parliament to asked the Government to listen. They asked it to listen to the lived experiences of people who work with homeless people, asked it to listen to their lived experience of people who are homeless or rough sleeping, and asked it to listen to the lived experience of people who work with our New Zealanders who are living in poverty, which has, unfortunately, got worse under this Government. But, instead of listening to New Zealanders, this Government has turned away, and on the most pressing issue that we heard in select committee, this Government’s silence has been deafening.

There was no change to any of the provisions in relation to rough sleeping. There was no change to recognise that many people who are rough sleeping in New Zealand or homeless are not there because of choice; they’re there because of poverty and they’re there because of terrible life circumstances. They are there because they have no choice, and instead of providing them with things that we know that work, like a warm, dry home, we are saying, “We don’t want to see you; we want you out of our sight.” That is absolutely shameful.

I want to reflect for a moment on the people who brought the lived experience of those who have been homeless on the streets of New Zealand. Now, for most people that may see homelessness, they may see it as being someone who is homeless, but for those people, they are actually experiencing something that will kill them. Homelessness kills people in New Zealand. People who are homeless pass away 30 percent sooner than the general population, and that is a huge reduction in life expectancy for people living on our streets. Living outside in the cold is so bad for you and kills you in such a slow, painful way that the experience of listening to some of those people was very harrowing, and so I want to acknowledge all of those people who tried to get the Government to remove the begging and homelessness provisions from this bill.

We acknowledge that when this bill was first introduced, it included children. The fact that that, in and of itself, was a provision in this bill should be of total shame to this Government—that this was even a proposal put forward. But the people spoke on that and, thankfully, in relation to children, that provision will no longer go forward, and I want to thank everyone who made strong submissions on that.

We know that this won’t work, and the reason we know that it won’t work towards addressing some of the issues that the Government has raised in terms of antisocial behaviour in our cities is because other countries have tried it and it hasn’t worked. In fact, just recently, the UK has got rid of its vagrancy law, which has been in place for such a long time, and decided to have a goal of ending homelessness. This Government has gone down the totally opposite track and brought in an archaic law that decades and decades of experience in other countries shows does not work.

Another reason why this particular proposal should not move forward is that we went through in detail about the powers that the police already have, and this is not about saying that there isn’t antisocial behaviour in our cities or that it isn’t important. We all want safe city centres, we all want all of our public spaces to be safe and secure, and we want to make sure that every person who utilises those areas feels safe, and that includes the people who are homeless. It was brought to my attention by community housing providers that those who are homeless are actually, statistically, more likely to have a crime committed against them than to commit a crime against other people. When we consider who we are as a society, we need to include those people who are homeless or rough sleeping as well, because they, statistically speaking, are actually more at risk.

We know that the police already have powers and we know that police officers can tell people to move on. Police officers have a lot of mana within our society and our community. Most people, if they’re told to move on by a police officer orally will do so.

Then we looked at the Summary Offences Act and we went through almost every provision in relation to the antisocial behaviour aspects of this bill, and that is already a power that exists within New Zealand law. It was almost mirrored in the Summary Offences Act, and so not only do police, obviously, have powers to ask people to move on, they also have powers within the Summary Offences Act.

And that means that there is very little policy impetus for actually bringing this bill, in terms of the antisocial behaviour aspect, which is what the Government has asked us to focus on.

I have to say, it did grate me when I heard the Prime Minister say what we need to be thinking about when we’re looking at move-on orders is Chuck and Mary getting off their cruise ship and walking down Queen Street and seeing something that they didn’t want to see. That person is part of our community that Chuck and Mary may see and not be comfortable about. That person is a New Zealander. We need to be looking after their interests and making sure that we provide a solution for them.

The frustrating thing about this is we know what the answer to that is. It’s programmes like Housing First. It’s making sure that Kāinga Ora is well-funded. It’s making sure that we fund community housing. It’s making sure that we have emergency housing that is actually being able to be practically used. It’s making sure that we have things like emergency housing special needs grants available to people.

We know what works. If the Prime Minister is concerned about that, those are the kind of things that he should be focusing on: providing that person with help so they can make sure that they’re living in a safe environment. He should not be focusing on the perceptions of others when they come to New Zealand, because if he’s just focused on moving a problem away, that is not solving it; that is just moving it on to somewhere else.

It’s been said again and again in this debate: move on to where? Move on to a suburb? Move on to a place that’s adjacent to a city centre? All of the local MPs—if this bill has the effect that the Government intends it to—will soon be hearing about some of the issues that have been raised in our city centres in their own backyards, and that is just pointless. Let’s look at the root of the issue here and support people.

We didn’t have a lot of time to talk about it in committee stage, but almost every party in Opposition put forward a proposal to amend the bill which would provide some kind of duty to assist the people when they interact with someone from the Government or a provider. We had proposals that when police interact with people who are homeless or rough sleeping or begging, that there is a reference to the Ministry of Social Development and that those Government agencies actually take responsibility for making sure that something happens to ensure that that person is safe and that they receive stable accommodation. Now, this isn’t a big ask. These services are already available, but somebody needs to take responsibility for that.

When we look at people who are struggling in our community, when we look at people who are the most vulnerable, when we look at people who our society has failed, what we say is our answer should not be “move on”. Our answer should be “How can we help you? How can we get you out of this place which has got you to such a terrible situation where you have nowhere to live, you have nowhere to go, you are asking for money on the street, you have no future being here unless you are assisted to move your life forwards.”

This is a shameful day for our Parliament. It’s a shameful way to treat our most vulnerable.

09:13

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that criminalises homelessness. This is a fact. This has been the facts since the beginning.

Let the record show that this Government has made choices to increase homelessness. They changed the criteria for the most vulnerable people in Aotearoa seeking to access emergency housing and made the criteria of those making decisions to assess whether that person contributed to their own homelessness. They do not collect any reliable data on who is experiencing homelessness and where, which means that all of the front-line housing organisations have had to come together and pool together every scrap and shred that they have from the front lines to try and paint a picture of what is being experienced in Aotearoa right now. Even then, that reality is denied by the Ministers in this country.

Let the record show that this Government chose to cancel thousands of State houses. Let the record show that this Government chose to reinstate no-cause evictions—the provisions by which a renter can be kicked out of their home for no reason at all. Let us look over to the UK and see that no-fault evictions are the leading cause of homelessness in that country and that that was what was stated in the regulatory impact statement when it came to no-cause evictions and that they still did it anyway. And the UK has actually just repealed no-fault evictions because it is so disastrous.

Let the record show that they did not fund the Housing First need that existed, that front-line organisations from Auckland to Christchurch to Wellington to Dunedin said, “If you fund us, we will be able to get every single person off the streets.”, and that their requests were denied. Meanwhile, they hand out massive tax cuts for landlords. Meanwhile, they themselves accumulate more houses at a time of record homelessness. Shame—shame on them.

You’ve already lied about that one. Are you going to apologise?

Let the record show that they sanctioned benefits of the most vulnerable people in this country—

My apologies to interrupt the member, but interjections coming from my right should not be bringing the Speaker into the debate. Please refrain from doing so.

Let the record show how shameless they are that they can’t handle the truth, they can’t shut their mouths and listen to the consequences of their actions. Because these are the choices that they made and this is the response to the homelessness that they caused and they can’t handle it—they can’t handle it.

They are the ones who chose to use unemployment and unemployed people as a tool to manage interest rates while talented and skilled people in this country languish on the jobseeker benefit. They cannot handle the consequences of their own decisions. That is why they want to render the people that they have made vulnerable invisible.

But this will not solve the problem. This will not end homelessness because they did not even attempt to address the root factors of why there is record-level homelessness in this country. It makes them uncomfortable to see what they have created. That is what we are talking about here today.

Let the record show that Police do not have their back. Let the record show Corrections, the Ministry of Justice do not have their back; the front-line organisations, the officials, and every single ministry did not have their back on this decision. Let the record show that businesses do not support what they are doing today. Let the record show that over 50 businesses in Wellington City do not support what they are doing. Let the record show that K Road association in Auckland Central do not support what they’re doing. They don’t have the support of businesses. They do not—not in our name here in Wellington Central, not in any city across this country because they are so far out of touch.

Let the record show that we put forward an Amendment Paper for a duty to assist, that we put forward a pragmatic solution which would require the Ministry of Social Development to provide assistance to every person who had been moved on—a provision that exists in other countries around the world and helps people who are experiencing homelessness access the support that they need urgently. Let the record show that they had the opportunity and they said no—they said no.

Paul Goldsmith is the only Minister I have ever heard talk proudly about this bill. He is the only one that I have seen get up in the media and talk proudly about criminalising homelessness. When I have engaged with Chris Bishop, the Minister of Housing, in my housing portfolio, he has never talked proudly about the move-on orders, and that is because, actually, I think that Cabinet Ministers in this Government are ashamed of this policy.

It’s an idea that Paul Goldsmith has been pushing for decades—for decades—but it does not reflect the communities that he lives in or that he wants to represent, which is probably why he’s never won an electorate in his life. Guess what! He won’t be back here after the election because their party numbers will not get him back in there. So this is his last cruel attempt to punch down on people he has always hated. He has always hated homeless people. He tried to do this as an Auckland City councillor. He had to wait until he got himself in here on the list—on the list. Because let’s be real, an electorate MP could never say the things that he’s saying, which is why his colleagues don’t repeat the things that he says.

Let the record show that that Minister who has brought this bill through does not even understand the system that he is in charge of. Let the record show how petty and pathetic this response is compared to what other people during his time as a councillor did. I brought this example up in the second reading of this bill. At the time when Paul Goldsmith was an Auckland City councillor pushing to ban homeless people from the inner city, there was another man in Auckland City that saw the rise in homelessness and chose to do something different. That man was Judge Tony Fitzgerald, who established the homelessness court. It shows that you’ve got two different people here. You’ve got Judge Tony, who understands the criminal justice system and understands the complexity of homelessness and what is required to fix it, and then you have cruel, mean-spirited, nasty pieces of work like Paul Goldsmith, who turns around and decides to rally up all the homeless people, send them to prison, and lock them up. It is disgusting.

This is one of the most shameful days in our country, because you can end homelessness. As I said in the second reading, it is possible to end homelessness. The evidence-based solutions to ending homelessness are abundantly clear. If only this House would not be so ignorant and would listen to the actual people who are working on the front line, and what they have told us will work, if only we just supported them, we gave them the resources necessary to open more emergency accommodation across the country, to provide the wraparound care that people need.

I want to finally acknowledge the fact that the age that applies to move-on orders has been increased because of the Police, actually, and because—

Well, no, because we were lobbying as well.

—of advice from the Police—because of advice from the Police that you heard, Rima Nakhle.

We heard that advice—

You don’t know the conversations that take place behind closed doors, Tamatha.

—so I thank them for making that change.

You’re not omnipresent and know everything going on.

I wish that the Government—

Order! Order!

Oh, cut it out.

Members, interruptions should not bring the Speaker into the debate, and it is not an opportunity to have an extended period of sentence structure. They should be discreet interjections and to the point. Apologies, Tamatha Paul.

Could I please have my—

We’ll reset it to one minute.

Thank you. What this is is defensiveness from the Government. They cannot control themselves from responding, from the truth. But guess what! You’re not just gonna hear it in here; you are gonna hear it over the next two months. They are gonna hear it for the next two months. When we come into Government and when we reverse this cruel, punishing law, they will hang their heads in shame and will for ever be remembered as the cruel Government that chose to put the cruel ideas of a few over the wellbeing, potential, and humanity and dignity of the most vulnerable people in this country that they will never speak to—they will never speak to. They get into their limousines, they drive through the city centres, they go through the tunnel to the Koru Lounge, and then they go back to their mansions. That’s how it works.

Have a conversation with the people that you are making decisions on behalf of. Have a conversation to the people who are on the front line, who know this better than they will ever do, because they were born with silver spoons in their mouths and they have no empathy at all.

Yeah, the member’s time has expired.

09:24

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Look, I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill.

Look, in ACT, we make no apology for having the backs of New Zealanders in regards to law and order issues. As I said yesterday, still the same day in parliamentary time, we came in, we inherited a mess in law and order, and this is yet another tool that we’re putting in place to deal with anti-social behaviour.

Let’s be clear: ACT secured the changes in this bill and we worked through it with our colleagues to do that. We believe it strikes the right balance. Look, we want to make sure that our streets and towns are safe for New Zealanders, and we’ll be campaigning on that just like we did last election. I commend this bill to the House.

09:25

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill.

New Zealand First strongly supports this piece of legislation. Putting aside some of the performance that we’ve seen so far this morning, I think we could reflect on the similar speeches that were reflected during the gang patch ban: “This will never work; this is the worst piece of legislation.” Actually, as we see in the streets, it has worked perfectly. The police who reflected concerns have been applauding the piece of legislation. Every meeting I go to with the police, they reflect on how positive that piece of legislation is.

This piece of legislation, despite this idea that we are all born with silver spoons in our mouths, I can assure you that we were not. As for riding around in our limousines, I can assure you I walk the Wellington streets every single day. This is not about punching down; this is about providing an opportunity to allow our communities to use our inner city centres. When there is an issue—and this is where we have great faith in our police, across this side of the House—the police have the powers to intervene. We’ve asked the police to do something. They have outlined the restrictions on doing anything practical, and this Government has delivered a piece of legislation that will give them the practical tools they need.

For a long time, law-abiding citizens of this country have watched our city centres, the hearts of our communities and economies, be handed over to those who think civilised society does not apply to them. So this bill takes our streets back. It gives an opportunity to put some common-sense tools in the hands of police. It ensures that constables are able to intervene. This idea that we are criminalising homelessness is just naïve, performative nonsense from the other side of the House. This is about allowing us to engage, to move people, and to intervene—provide those necessary supports that they’re saying we’re not providing. This is a really essential tool to give to the police.

This is the performance that we see on that side of the House where they make a lot of noise and recite a lot of performative nonsense because they won’t get challenged, because it’ll be put on YouTube, and then they get to say, “Look how powerful and strong we are.” What we’re actually doing is practical steps.

I’m the Minister for Seniors, and I recognise the concerns that older people have about even using a money machine in the town centre because they feel unsafe and uneasy. They talk about the issues they have about getting their access. So this is about ensuring that we can say to them that we’re doing things. This isn’t arresting people. This isn’t making people criminalised, as that side of the House would like to do. This is about providing an opportunity for them to move on. If they return, yes, then there’s an issue. Why would they return to where they’ve been told to move on unless they’re refusing to acknowledge the rights of other New Zealanders?

Absolutely, New Zealand First fully endorses this bill and commends it to the House.

This is a split call.

09:29

The heart is heavy today, this morning, waking up to messages from whānau on the streets who have accessed some form of device to message me direct to say, “Please save us. If this bill goes through, our lives will be 10 times worse than what it is already now.” By-laws across Tāmaki Makaurau have already been enacted. People have already been moved on for the last few months. Ask Aaron Hendry from Kick Back. He has been screaming from the rooftops of Tāmaki-makau-rau, on K Road specifically, that this bill is going to cause more damage than do anymore good.

Last night, this House had a choice: remove harmful behaviour from our streets or remove poor people from out of sight. The Government chose the second. It was offered a clean amendment: begging and rough sleeping could have been removed as stand-alone triggers, while every power dealing with threats, intimidation, disruption, obstruction, and breaches of the peace remained. Government members voted to keep poverty in the clause. That vote tells us what this bill is really about and who it’s really for.

A person may now be ordered away, not for harming anyone, but for asking for kai. In a cost of living crisis where no food banks have been replenished with the necessary funding that they need, begging for kai should not be criminalised. For sleeping, they will be criminalised for arranging the only positions they have in a way that suggests they may stay. Then comes the legal machinery: the order, the duty to leave, the risk of the breach, a fine of up to $1,000, and possible jail time. No home, no money, but here’s a fine, and dare to challenge the fine or refuse to move—go to jail. That’s the logic this House is about to make law, and that is heavy.

The Justice Committee did remove under-18s, and we supported that correction, but an 18th birthday is not a housing intervention. It doesn’t make the person safe, nor does it cure a trauma, produce a tenancy, or return whenua. In the words of a rangatahi living on the streets of Tāmaki-makau-rau through the More Than a Home report by Manaaki Rangatahi: “My moko will have a whare.” That’s the promise of intergenerational repair. This bill offers intergenerational displacement.

For Māori, homelessness didn’t arrive without history. Whenua was taken, communities were fragmented, te reo and mātauranga were attacked, and economic policy channelled Māori into insecurity and then blamed whānau for the outcomes. Dr Kathie Irwin describes that path across generations. You don’t arrive at old age without economic security by chance. Policy walked wāhine Māori there, and now, on their own whenua, wāhine Māori may be told to move. Wāhine Māori are actually disproportionately represented in today’s population of homeless across Aotearoa. The Coalition to End Women’s Homelessness names the truth.

Aotearoa is home for Māori. Wāhine Māori are not without a homeland; they are unhoused through a process of colonisation that failed to protect their rights. Te Pāti Māori will not call that failure neutral, and we will not accept another coercive Crown response as the cure. We put practical safeguards before this House: somewhere safe and accessible to go; a duty of care; protected access to healthcare, food, transport, and outreach; a necessity and proportionality test; protection against repeated orders; early independent review; and transparent Māori data, which is needed. The Government refused every single path from displacement to support—shame! Shame on you.

The Youth Homelessness Prevention Bill, which I put through this House, would require action before homelessness. It’s about preventing the problem. You cannot hide nor disguise the truth that exists across our streets. You cannot hide, and you should address the problem and face it head on. Stop hiding the truth. We have more than 100,000 people in desperate need of housing. You have more than 160,000 homes across this motu with no people living in them. Unlock them and house our whānau. House them directly now. The solutions already exist.

You had only one shot and you’ve failed to deliver it. That is the same on your record, and I thank the member to my right who noted every single attempt that we, on the left side, have made.

We will continue to fight, despite the fact that the House rises—7 November is our chance to make the necessary change to create a better future for Aotearoa and for all our mokopuna. We absolutely oppose this bill.

09:34

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a shameful bill, not simply because it criminalises homelessness, but the fact is that this Government has proven yet again that they in the pockets of the few. They are in the pocket of lobbyists and not of New Zealanders. They are a Government that does not care about you, as New Zealanders, and your interests.

This is a Government that doesn’t care about evidence or about data. This is a Government that see itself as being above the law. This is a Government that perpetuates schoolyard bullying behaviour in trying to oppress the people of Aotearoa, and trying to befuddle them and gaslighting them into thinking that they are the ones who are the reason for the situation and the circumstances they’ve found themselves in. That is false, and those members know it. I don’t know how any member of this Government can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and think about what they have done. How do any of them face themselves? How do any of them face their families, or face their communities, for those of them who are electorate MPs?

The Minister of Justice has said that this is a bill that is for every New Zealander. We have heard through the Justice Committee about the people who will be harmed as a result of this bill. Where is the so-called every New Zealander who will be hurt by this bill? What about the seniors, who have seen a massive increase in homelessness? We have heard from Housing First Ōtautahi that seniors make up the highest proportion and the highest increase in the social housing register. Not only are they more vulnerable but there’s also the added stigma of asking for help.

Where is the so-called every New Zealander when women and children are going to be hurt by this bill? We’ve heard that they are in city centres, in well-lit places, because they are the places that they feel safe. They are the places where they can find support.

What about the youth who will be harmed by this bill, particularly rangatahi Māori? What about the rainbow youth who will be harmed by this bill? What about the disabled youth who will be harmed by this bill?

Now, you hear members of that Government talking about “Well, they just need to move on.” Move on where? Where are they going to be moving on to? We have yet to hear the Minister or anyone definitively tell us where are they going to be moving on to.

Our co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, our Auckland Central MP, put in an amendment for a duty to assist. We’re not asking for the moon. All we are asking for is a requirement that if they get moved on, that there is a requirement that they be directed to the support that they need. That should be basic—that should be fundamental—and yet the Minister doesn’t give a crap.

We reiterate again that nobody wants this bill. The police don’t want it. Members of the communities, Retail New Zealand—I want to thank those people who came out, including the seniors and the elders, and said, “I have never experienced homelessness, but I know this bill is wrong.”

This Government doesn’t care about the voices of our communities because—I reiterate again—the only housing policy of this Government is prison. That is their only housing policy, and they will continue to tinker with the data and they will continue to reject people because that is their performance indicator for the Ministry of Social Development to reject people for emergency housing. The Greens will not support this bill, because we know there’s a win-win situation if we have warm, dry, and safe housing for all of us.

09:39

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to take a little bit of time with my contribution this morning to talk about what transpired at our select committee process, because I actually think that there is a lot of emotion, and I recognise why that is the case across the House in many different forms. But I actually want to talk about why I think the select committee process—

Some of us do care, actually. But that’s hard for you to comprehend.

No, no. Tamatha Paul, I didn’t criticise or yell out once during your contribution. I listened.

Did you talk to your colleagues?

I listened—I listened. And I like to think that I’m standing here and I’m about to talk about what we did at the select committee. We had nearly 8,000 submissions. We undertook over four days of full oral hearings from submitters—recognising that there was a large amount who had issues with the legislation. We took those views seriously. We, as the Justice Committee, did what I think New Zealanders would expect of us as a committee to do: read the submissions, listened, worked collaboratively in the select committee, but then also—not just there but then also outside of that committee with our ministerial colleagues to say, “These are the issues we as a committee are hearing from the general public. Please can we look to see if we can make some recommended changes there.”

I’m really proud where we landed. One of the first things we heard was that the age that this legislation, when it was first introduced, was for anyone of 14 years or over. By far, a number of submitters from across the country told us that that was not right. So we took that back with us, as members of the committee, took that to our Ministers, we took that to our colleagues and said, “We’d love to see it increased to 18.” I’m glad we got to that right place. That’s what I think New Zealanders expect of the select committee.

Then we had things like whether the fine was too high—$2,000. There’s many, many Kiwis out there who simply would not be able to afford the $2,000. We got that changed to $1,000. Then there were the things about the provisions for freedom campers and if they got caught up in this—or people out there who collect for charities. Many of us in this House have stood out in public places and collected for organisations like the Breast Cancer Foundation, on Daffodil Day. I collected, a couple of weeks ago, for my local Dementia and Alzheimer’s. There was never any intention of this bill applying to people undertaking that work. We remedied and corrected that.

Then there were discussions around begging and unreasonable begging. The ability for people after receiving a move-on order to come back to the area. Whether police needed to actually believe someone provided false information or needed to be able to prove that they had provided false information. Those are the things that we, as a collective Justice Committee, fixed and tidied up in this legislation.

We did our job. Not just “we” as in the National Party and the ACT Party and New Zealand First but “we” as a House. I say thank you to those members who engaged and worked collaboratively on the select committee to get the bill to a place where we think we can be happy to progress it in this House. That is what we are focused on. That’s what I’m proud of as the chair of the Justice Committee that we’ve delivered for the House and for the people of New Zealand. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

09:43

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good to hear that kōrero from the chair of the Justice Committee. I accept some of that kōrero in terms of wanting to at least address some of the issue that people had brought up. There’s no doubt the select committees work better when there is a bipartisan approach.

I think, though, with this particular one, while there are a few things like that the chairman has talked about—and rightfully so, and I’m pleased they came out with the right result—the reality is that it is still not enough. It is still not enough. I acknowledge the chair addressing those areas, and I’m pleased to hear that, but it’s not enough.

You can hear the pain and the frustration from members on this side of the House today because the reality is that more than 98 percent of the 7,680 submissions opposed the bill. So we can’t get away from the fact that, while there was some work done to address a few issues, a huge majority—98 percent of the submissions—said no to this bill. They say no to this bill because it’s a cruel bill.

The Attorney-General himself—or was it herself at the time? Was it Judith? I’m not sure—identified New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 issues. It may well have been Judith Collins.

It was Chris Bishop.

Oh, it was Chris Bishop. OK. Thanks for that. So there we go, one of the most senior Ministers in this Government, if not, close to the most senior Minister, the Attorney-General identifies New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, and what is the response from the committee? What is the response from the Government? They continue with this nonsense.

No one wants the police to have these arrest powers for the homeless. These rough sleepers need support, need help; they don’t need prison. This is what people are saying. We’re also clear, too, and you’ve heard that today, the Government created the homelessness we’re seeing. Every single housing advocate warned this Government their re-definition of who could apply for the emergency would result in more homelessness. We said this to the Minister of Housing—he happens to be the Attorney-General too. We’ve said this to Tama Potaka. But it’s just on deaf ears all the time.

What happened after the Government ignored every voice in the sector and changed who was eligible for emergency housing? Well, we had the exact spike in homelessness that was predicted. Our advocates were saying that.

I saw Helen Robinson in the gallery last night. I want to acknowledge her work; tremendous work, in terms of what’s happening on the streets in terms of what’s happening from Helen and the City Mission, who are doing the business, having relationships still with this Government, as they must—as they must. But their budgets are being cut back. They’re living off the smell of an oily rag, and this passionate advocate Helen Robinson, who sat in the gallery last night and watched all the kōrero, continues despite the continued attacks from this Government.

How did the Government go about dealing with the homelessness their policy manufactured? Well, I’ve said it before with Minister Goldsmith, they’ve criminalised being homeless. It’s as simple as that. He won’t accept it and the Government won’t accept it, but they’ve criminalised a whole area of homelessness to gloss over—to gloss over—their social policy failure.

Like everyone else on this side of the House, we believe that this Government should be ashamed of the actions they’ve taken—so ashamed at the poverty they’ve caused, and now they prefer to arrest the homeless so that they won’t be embarrassed in front of the cruise ship tourists. This is what it’s coming down to. Of course we want to support business people in Auckland. Everyone on this side of the House wants to do that. But we must show some humanity, and humanity is not being shown in this instance. It’s shameful.

These Kiwis, these people, some of them are down on their luck—we all know that. But many of them are our whānau, our community, and we throw them into the street and then we criminalise them on to the street. Of all the malice and spite that the Government has overseen in the last three years, arresting the homeless is surely one of the most obscene strategies and actions that a Government could roll out with.

But I do want to congratulate Minister Goldsmith. I think he deserves congratulations here. We should salute what he’s done, because back in 2008, when he was an Auckland City councillor—he’s actually been trying to arrest the homeless for 18 years. In a Radio New Zealand report from 2008, Minister Goldsmith was quoted as saying, “It’s unacceptable for vagrants to be seen on the city streets” ,and he wanted the police to move them on. Well, congratulations, Minister Goldsmith—18 years later, you finally got your wish. You can finally arrest the homeless for offending your sensibilities. It’s a shame he’s not here—it’s a shame he’s not here. Minister Goldsmith is proof-positive that if you’re mean-spirited for almost two decades, you too can rise through the National Party ranks to kick someone out who is weaker than you—to kick someone in the guts who is weaker than you.

So I want to congratulate Minister Goldsmith! He and I do a few things together, and I forgot to congratulate him this morning in terms of achieving a lifelong ambition in terms of criminalising the homeless. Well done to “Goldie”! Well done to Minister Goldsmith. And to any other young aspiring National Party candidates out there, this is the way forward for you. Declare war on the vulnerable, declare war on the weak, and you too can rise up to be one of the most senior members, if not the most senior-portfolio holder, in the National Party. Well done, “Goldie”—you should be ashamed of yourself.

Not me—not me.

My apologies, Mr Speaker. Not you, of course; Minister Goldsmith should be totally ashamed of himself.

You can’t move on someone who has nowhere to move to. That’s the point that everyone’s making. You know, it’s like, “We’ll move them on, kick these ones out, kick this one out,” Move to where? Why don’t they move to Minister Goldsmith’s house or go to Minister Potaka’s house? Where are these people going to go? It is such a ruthless, cold, heartless strategy, and I’m sure that if you’re not going to listen to Helen Robinson, who has the feel of the streets in the Auckland inner city, then who are you going to listen to? All this bill is doing is criminalising poverty by another name. Fining desperately poor people is nonsensical. Under this bill the homeless can be fined $2,000. Where are people who are homeless going to find 2,000? [Interruption] Oh, from the ACT Party?

No—you got the number wrong.

Well, what’s the number?

It’s $1,000.

Well, I say it’s $2,000.

Well, you’re wrong.

I’ll still say it. I reckon it’s $2,000, so let’s debate it. I’m sure it’s $2,000. Maybe it’s not. Who cares anyway? You are still attacking the homeless, and who’s going to be paying the fines in terms of the homeless? The ACT Party donors? We know that there are hundreds of them. It is such a sad state of affairs here. In the last couple of weeks of Parliament, we have an unprecedented attack on vulnerable people.

Yeah, like the Speaker!

Yeah, we heard what you said. We heard when your ACT member played up in the House. You didn’t say a word, did you? Gutless wonder.

Back to the bill.

Anyway, coming back to the topic—

That’s out of order.

Well, you’ve got to be out of order sometimes—I have to put you in your place. These ACT members who breach rules all the time don’t say a word when their members break the rules. But I come back to the homeless—

He’s a joke.

It is a joke, you are a joke, and the ACT Party is a joke. This bill is a joke. Shame on the ACT Party for supporting it. Shame on New Zealand First. Shame on this useless, rotten Government who continue to attack the vulnerable. So go jump in the lake.

09:53

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill. I was actually involved at the start of it as a member’s bill after conversations with my area commander in Hamilton, Andrea McBeth. So for members opposite to be saying that the Police are opposed to it isn’t really accurate, because the area commander Andrea McBeth had done a paper to support this right across the country, and, in fact, the district commander was also very supportive of it. In every state in Australia, they use move-on orders in different ways and with different strengths and jurisdictions.

There is this thing called Summary Offences Act 1981. If someone is displaying anti-social behaviour—for example, they are drunk and their behaviour is starting to escalate—the police can’t do anything. They can’t do anything until the behaviour escalates to such a point that they can then arrest the person. The problem is that by then, violence has often been undertaken, and there has been damage to property and damage to people, and the move-on order is a way to intervene early to prevent behaviour escalating.

So the move-on order is actually quite broad. It is about anti-social behaviour. You could even, for example, have a creepy dude in a van scoping out school children, which is completely inappropriate and disgusting behaviour but there is nothing the police can do. But with a move-on order, they can ascertain that that’s inappropriate behaviour and issue a move-on order on that vehicle. So the point is that although this bill has been weaponised by the Opposition as being against the homeless and the rough sleeping and the begging, that is a very small part of a very broad and holistic bill.

Police have a range of skills and discretions that they can use and deploy. One of the worst things we can do for those that are sleeping rough and begging is to do nothing. The Opposition would just like to point the finger at the Government and say that we’re being mean and we’re being cruel, but the reality of it is that leaving them in those conditions is being cruel. The move-on order is an opportunity to intervene, to ascertain why they are there, and to actually say, “This is not acceptable for you and for anyone in the community.” It is an opportunity to offer support.

So this bill is far broader than what the Opposition would have us believe. It’s another tool in the tool box for our police force, and I am pleased to commend it to the House.

The next call is a split five-minute call—Dan Rosewarne.

09:56

As this debate comes to a close, I just want to acknowledge the thousands of New Zealanders who took the time to make a submission, appear before the Justice Committee, and share their experiences. Their contribution actually made this a better bill than the one that first arrived in the House.

This legislation as introduced would have allowed move-on orders to be issued to vulnerable 14-, 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds. It took submitters, officials, Opposition members, and ultimately pressure from within the Government’s own support parties to have that removed. That was the right outcome at the end of the day. A homeless young person needs help; they don’t need a move-on order.

The bill that leaves this House today is less bad than the one that entered it, but the core problem remains unchanged. This legislation is built on the idea that if a social problem becomes less visible, then somehow it is solved—when it hasn’t been. If someone is sleeping rough tonight in Wellington, Christchurch, Auckland, Dunedin, or anywhere else in New Zealand, they will still be sleeping rough tomorrow whether they receive a move-on order or not, and if somebody is struggling with addiction, mental health challenges, family violence, or poverty, those challenges do not disappear simply because a piece of paper tells them to move on down the road.

The Government talks a lot about reclaiming public spaces, but public spaces already belong to all New Zealanders. They belong to the business owner opening their shop in the morning. They belong to the family heading into town for the day, and, yes, they also belong to the person who has nowhere else to go. What troubled me throughout this debate was that the Government seems determined to treat homelessness as a matter of public disorder rather than a sign that something else has gone wrong. Most people sleeping rough are not there because they choose that life; they are there because housing costs have become unaffordable, because relationships have broken down, because of mental illness, and because of addiction. It is also because they have experienced violence and the systems that are meant to be there to help them have failed.

When those failures occur, I don’t think that New Zealanders expect Parliament’s response to be to move them along. I think they expect us to ask how we can actually fix the problem, and the reality is that this bill creates absolutely no housing. It creates no emergency accommodation, it creates no new mental health services, and it creates no new addiction programmes. Also, it creates no duty for anyone to provide assistance. What it does create is another enforcement tool and another consequence for people who are already among the most vulnerable in our communities.

Throughout this process, we heard officials raise a lot of concerns.

We heard legal experts. We heard charities, churches, service providers, and community organisations, and we even heard from people who worked directly with businesses and city centres who questioned whether this approach would actually achieve what the Government claims that it would achieve. At every stage, the same question keeps surfacing: what happens after the move-on order has been issued? The Government has never actually properly answered that question, because if there is nowhere to move on to, then the move-on order becomes little more than a mechanism for shifting people out of sight when the cruise ships arrive, and out of sight should never be confused with out of hardship. The Government will no doubt point to this bill as evidence, as taking action. But legislation should be judged by whether it solves a problem, not whether it actually generates a headline.

Will fewer people be homeless because of this bill? Will people be housed because of this bill? I don’t think so, and for that reason, that’s why we don’t support the bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

10:01

Mr Speaker, thank you. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the Justice Committee chair and the members, who went through a process that was not easy for any one of us. The vulnerability that people who are affected by this bill, successive Governments have sought to use tools that they had and that we are now trying to have to help them out of the vulnerable state that they’re in. Move-on orders are a tool for a specific portion of people when they are vulnerable and on the streets.

I acknowledge also the previous speakers who have spoken with civility and dignity, and I acknowledge the politics from which they speak. However, when people in this House speak and perform in a way that inflames the public, I think that it is really quite unreasonable and they take advantage of people who are out there and who are vulnerable. It’s sad. I understand the politics behind it, but I don’t understand when things are misrepresented and mis-declared, and mainly to incense a public that’s already vulnerable.

I myself thought through this bill and took the time and asked many people about it, and I have come to the point that I can stand here and commend this bill to the House.

10:03

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if Paulo Garcia spoke to any homeless people or people who were on the brink of homelessness, because, as a central city MP, Christchurch Central city MP, we have a homelessness problem, as do many central cities and other places in New Zealand. And it’s got worse, you know. This Government has made homelessness worse. It’s extraordinary to hear Tama Potaka come to this House and celebrate that he has cleared out emergency housing, and he doesn’t know where they’ve gone. Sure, some have gone into social housing or private housing, but we know, and I know, that a number of our homeless people could be housed, but this Government chooses not to house them. This is what they choose to do.

I had a person come into my office who had once been a scaffolder, had fallen off the scaffolding, had very seriously injured his back and went to hospital, lost his job, lost his accommodation while he was in hospital, turned up at my office in his car for housing assistance. He was told that he didn’t need emergency housing, so he went and slept in his car in a car park until his back got so infected that he went back to hospital. It was only at that point that we managed to persuade the Ministry of Social Development that this man needed a place to sleep. That is Government policy. That is not an administrative error. That is a direction from the Government about when they’ll provide housing.

So is it any surprise that retailers are concerned, that people are troubled when they see people on the street? No, it’s not a surprise, but the cause of it is these Government policies. They have chosen that. They have chosen to put a squeeze on our economy and people. The car park at the Holy Trinity Church was being used as a place for people to sleep, a place that was relatively safe, that had running water and sanitation. I went down there and spoke to people, the number of people who had had jobs but lost their jobs and couldn’t keep paying their rent. So to make ends meet, they left their rental, rather than running up rent bills, and whilst they tried to sort themselves out, they were living in that car park.

Now, the sad fact is that it’s pretty hard to sort yourself out, find a new job, look good for your job interview, keep good nutrition, keep yourself looking tidy from a church car park in a ute. But they were doing their best. But that is a choice that this Government has made. They have chosen to increase unemployment. They have chosen to squeeze the Public Service. They have chosen to make it harder to get a job in this economy.

And you know what they’re doing in housing? Here’s a frightening fact—here’s a frightening fact. In Christchurch, they have built more prison cells than houses. That is the kind of approach that this Government has to problems around homelessness in New Zealand.

So what we’ve now got is that when someone is without shelter, when someone is hungry and alone, what’s the response of this Government? Is it a compassionate response that says, “Brother, I will feed you. Sister, I will give you a roof.”? No, it’s not—let’s move on; move out of sight. It’s entirely unworkable. The fact of the matter is that here we are. Someone is sitting on the street and they want some food, some money to help them with their rent.

Look, we know; we’re not going to pretend that all of these people are easy to deal with. We know that they sometimes have mental health, addiction issues. They have criminal records. They’ve come through the State system, perhaps through State care institutions and prisons. They’re people who have suffered harm and trauma, and they themselves may have caused that as well. But there is no one who is undeserving of our help. There is no one who is undeserving of our help.

Here we have a Government that says, “If you beg, we can move you out of sight. And if you come back and beg again, you’re a criminal.” You’re a criminal for being in need, for not going away and getting out of my sight when I want you to. It’s like an evil Victorian parent—“Get out of my sight. I don’t want to see you.” It doesn’t disappear the problem. In fact, it exacerbates it. We know that these people, that the people who need our help, are vulnerable. We know, and we accept—on this side of the House, we accept—that there is social harm going on here.

But we want to address the cause of the harm. This is a sticking plaster over a wound. This needs genuine attention. There are ways—we know there are ways—to address this. We know that the mental health issues can be addressed. We know that the housing issues, even for the most difficult to house, can be addressed. We know that the addiction issues can be addressed. We know that the income issues can be addressed.

But this Government is making choices. It’s making choices not to address the causes of this harm. It’s making the choice to appeal to the least-attractive instincts of the public, to say, “Those people are not us, they are somebody else”; to say that they are not deserving of compassion and care; they’re deserving of punishment and exclusion. Those are the principles that I would hope are most foreign to this House.

Look, the select committee did listen to a lot of the submissions, and changes were made. It was interesting, and, in some ways, gratifying, in a sense, to see the change in demeanour of the members of Parliament from the other side who were listening, who came in thinking one thing, but when they listened to the stories—when they listened to the stories, and when they listened to the evidence—they came around.

And, of course, one of the most compelling was about the Minister’s initial idea, that you could move on and then fine or possibly imprison a 14-year-old for not having somewhere to sleep—a 14-year-old for asking for something to eat. The mind boggles that someone, somewhere thought that was a good idea. That person was Paul Goldsmith. That person, Paul Goldsmith, is the person who’s entrusted with our justice system. And his initial idea was to criminalise 14-year-olds because they don’t move on and they beg more than once. That is the person that we think—well, that this Government thinks—is best trusted with the justice portfolio.

So here we have a bill—it’s not as bad as it was, but it is a bad bill. It doesn’t fix the problem. It doesn’t provide a roof over anyone’s head. It doesn’t fill an empty tummy. What it does is it moves the problem away, out of sight, out of the Government’s mind—but I hope it’s never out of our mind.

10:13

I’ve heard a lot of talk about the champagne socialists on K Road and all of those over there and how bad this is—they’ve said this is awful.

I haven’t heard anyone on the other side talk about the business owners in South Auckland—the migrant business owners that are trying to pay off a mortgage. I haven’t heard anyone talk about the Indian Business Association that gave a submission in support of this bill. No, they only go over there when they want votes—when they want to harvest votes. This is helping our migrant communities as well. I commend this bill to the House.

10:16

on behalf of the Minister for Food Safety: I present a legislative statement on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

on behalf of the Minister for Food Safety: I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to begin by thanking the chair, Miles Anderson, and the members of the Primary Production Committee. This bill came back to the House with bipartisan report, and that does not happen by accident. It happens when members are willing to sit down with a technical bill and do the work—and it is technical. The agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM) framework is not a subject that fills the public gallery. But it decides what a vet can reach for, what a grower can put on a crop, and how long a good product sits waiting for permission. The committee treated that seriously, and I am grateful for that.

I also acknowledge the submitters, and I will come back to them, because there were a great many. I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the officials at the Ministry for Primary Industries for their work on this bill.

This bill did not come out of nowhere. It comes out of the agricultural and horticultural products review carried out by the Ministry for Regulation in 2024. That review went and asked the regulated parties, “What is getting in your way?” The answer came back loud and clear: the cost and the delay of agrichemical and veterinary medicine products was holding this country back against our competitors.

The products we are talking about are not marginal. They are newer pesticides that are safer to use and that keep our produce at export quality. They are inhibitors that reduce environmental impact. They are the products that let a farmer do right by an animal or by a waterway—if they can get hold of them.

Broadly, the bill provides for streamlining approval pathways so that regulatory effort matches the level of risk and removing barriers that serve no purpose; strengthening the use of trusted overseas assessments so we can make proper use of international science instead of repeating work that has already been done well; modernising public notification methods and regulatory processes so that people can actually follow them; improving manufacturing oversight through a good manufacturing practice scheme, so that product quality stays high; and updating technical provisions to give applicants clarity and consistency.

Overall, these changes make the ACVM system clearer, more flexible, and easier to navigate while holding firm on what the system exists to protect: public health, animal welfare, trade and primary produce, and agricultural security.

Now to the submissions: the committee received 1,168 of them. I want to acknowledge every person who sat down and wrote one. A good many of those submissions raised matters that sit outside of what this bill does. I do not brush those views aside. People who take the time to write to a select committee about the products used on our farms and orchards are entitled to be heard, and there are other forums where those particular questions are properly dealt with. Of the submissions that went to what this bill actually does, there was broad support for its intent, along with sensible recommendations for minor and technical improvement. The committee took those up and made six changes.

First, submitters told us that the original wording on overseas regulators’ assessments did not make it clear enough how those assessments should be weighted. That was a fair point. The bill now requires that trusted assessments from recognised overseas regulators be taken into account alongside other criteria, including New Zealand - specific scientific information.

Second—and so that recognition keeps meaning something—recognised overseas regulators must now be reviewed at least every 10 years, with recognition withdrawn if one or more of the criteria are no longer met. A tick of approval that is never revisited is not worth a great deal. Let me be very clear on this point because it matters more than any other in the bill. Overseas assessments do not determine ACVM decisions. They are evidence and they sit alongside the rest of the evidence. New Zealand - specific risks must still be properly assessed. This bill is not about cutting corners; it is about not doing the same work twice.

Third, on transparency, the bill as introduced allowed more flexibility in how public notifications were made. Some submitters were concerned that removing mandatory Gazette publication would cost them visibility. They were right to raise it: public notifications will continue to be published in the New Zealand Gazette and they will now also be published on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) website. That is a better outcome than the bill arrived with, and it came from submitters.

Fourth, some submitters asked how a decision on a good manufacturing practice certificate could be challenged. The bill now makes it clear that those decisions may be reviewed. A manufacturer is entitled to know that a decision affecting their operation is transparent and can be tested.

Fifth, I want to acknowledge the Regulations Review Committee, which spotted that the bill did not require reasons for granting exemptions to be published. The select committee has addressed that. Reasons for all exemption decisions will now be made public.

Sixth, the bill picks up minor consequential and technical amendments, including updated cross-references to reflect recent changes made by the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Act 2026.

I want to draw out what these changes have in common. Every one of them leaves the system more transparent, more accountable, and more durable than it was when the bill came into this House. This is what the select committee is for, and it is why I’m pleased to see this work reach this point. I thank everybody who contributed to it. I do note concern from some submitters about shifting approval time limits out of the primary Act and into the regulations. I want to make clear that moving those time limits into regulations means that they can be kept current and tailored to different kinds of applications.

The intent is to make Ministers and officials more accountable for their performance against these time frame targets. It should be a priority for the Government, when this bill is passed, to progress these regulations so that the applicants have certainty over those time frames. Any changes to time frames will not affect the level of scientific scrutiny applied to an ACVM application. I look forward to the bill going into more detail during the committee of the whole House, and on that note I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

10:24

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Labour is supporting the bill at second reading. We do, however, have some amendments that we have tabled that we will be speaking to in the committee of the whole House. We’ll go into more detail about those. We did hear some concerns about the lack of recognition of potential impacts on the environment, but those will be things that we do cover off in the committee of the whole House.

I want to acknowledge my fellow colleagues on the Primary Production Committee. We are a select committee that does work well together. We try to come to agreement on most things, as much as is possible, and we recognise that this piece of legislation is going to be of benefit for our agriculture sector and farmers and growers.

We often hear from the agricultural sector that things take too long. When there are things that are available overseas that are not available here, the process tends to take an awful long time for it to become available here in New Zealand. There is a fear that with the length of time that these processes take, it can make us less competitive in the market if we don’t have access to a lot of the products, medicines, etc., that those overseas do have. An example of where that has been an issue is an insecticide—a vital insecticide, actually—for mealybugs in grapes that reportedly, as of November 2025, has been sitting in that approvals system since 2019; while potato and onion growers have been waiting for a new, more environmentally friendly product to deal with thrips and blight.

One of the benefits of this piece of legislation is where we might be currently using a chemical compound or a medicine—I’ll talk about a chemical compound, perhaps, more so than a veterinary medicine. There could be an alternative that is being used overseas that is a far more environmental option that we are missing out on here. If we wish to remain at the forefront and competitive, this is going to be a piece of legislation that will enable it to happen.

This piece of legislation came about as a result of the Ministry for Regulation doing an agricultural and horticultural products review. I do think that this has been a sensible thing that has been brought forward to the Primary Production Committee for us to review. It does implement policy changes arising from this particular review, and the bill does give effect to recommendations that relate to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM Act). It was quite interesting because we looked at the ACVM Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act alongside each other, which made it quite confusing, I think, for a lot of submitters. They’re both quite technical bills, so it was a bit tricky.

It was a bit of a shame that it was a somewhat slightly shortened process as well, because I do think when we are dealing with pieces of legislation like this that could have quite profound impacts for us here in New Zealand, these sorts of pieces of legislation should go through the full-length time frame, not simply be shortened because the current Government wishes to get something through quickly. When we are dealing with our agricultural sector, whilst I acknowledge the need to have access in a timely manner to new products, our agriculture sector is what carries much of this country. So we do need to make sure that when we are dealing with legislation that we hope will have a positive impact, we need to be sure that what we’re doing does not in some way accidentally have a negative impact. I don’t believe that rushing through something like this is a good idea. However, here we are today.

One of the changes that we made to this piece of legislation, and I note that the Minister of Internal Affairs has covered off some of them but we did have quite a substantial amount of submitters too—over 1,000 submitters—and I do wonder if we might have had some more, should there have been a longer length of time. However, clause 10 of the bill, which would insert new section 8AA, is around the publication of the exemptions that have been granted. It would give the director-general discretionary power to exempt agricultural compounds from the registration requirement.

Now, the Regulations Review Committee are very helpful when we’re looking different pieces of legislation. They go through it and then they will forward in things that they put up through to select committees to take into consideration. So they wrote to us with concern that the bill wouldn’t require the director-general to publish the reasons for making exemptions.

Now, in order for the public to have transparency—and, I think, understanding of why something has been exempted—it’s very important because, again, it allows people to understand why that decision has been made. And as I said, there is a huge risk, if we get this wrong, to our primary sector. So we agreed with the Regulations Review Committee and their concerns that the reasons for an exemption should be published. So that was something that the select committee made changes to.

I want to turn to the recognition of the overseas regulators, because there was some concern that should we go down this path, it would just mean that we’ll just take into consideration what they were doing overseas, and if that looked good enough, then we would adopt that. So I want to give assurance to the public out there that that is certainly not the intention of this piece of legislation.

Some submitters wanted more clarity about how overseas regulators would be recognised and monitored. We also recognised as a select committee that recognition should be subject to an ongoing review, and we considered that periodic reviews and public notification of those reviews were important, and it’s actually appropriate to show that we keep up to date—which is what part of this legislation wants to do: to keep us up to date with new technologies and medicines, etc. But a review would also allow us to keep up to date with changes that were also happening overseas, whether something was no longer suitable or there were better options out there.

The other change that I would like to talk about—I think the Minister might have mentioned, in her contribution, the thinking about the overseas evidence that would be taken into consideration here in New Zealand. As I said, submitters were worried that would just mean that if someone overseas was doing it, then we would just base it on their situation, their circumstances, and their farming methods, and that it would automatically happen here. I note Minister did say that whilst the evidence that’s brought to us from overseas would simply be taken into consideration, it does not mean that it is instantly granted and that New Zealand - specific risks would have to be assessed and taken into account.

The New Zealand Law Society noted that the bill wouldn’t provide a right of review for some decisions that were made. So the select committee thought that this is something that we needed to take into consideration as well.

I am pleased to stand and say that we do support this piece of legislation. We do have some changes that we would like to make through amendment proposals at the committee of the whole House. But, ultimately, we want to ensure that our agriculture sector does have access in a timely way to the chemicals and the veterinary medicines that it needs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

10:34

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasant surprise that the Government side have flipped the Order Paper and brought through this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

Now, this is a fascinating example of where industry lobbies. We’ve had some proud elucidations from a senior Minister in this Government’s Cabinet, Christopher Bishop, yesterday, that he’s very proud to be the recipient of industry lobbying.

This is an instance where those corporations in the world who manufacture agrichemicals, some of which are amongst the very biggest companies on our planet—huge agrichemical companies; the likes of Syngenta and BASF and Bayer—have very effectively lobbied through front groups that greenwash their intentions by having innocuous names like “Animal and Plant Health New Zealand”, which sounds great, until you find out that it’s Bayer and Syngenta and BASF.

What they want is what all agrichemical companies have always wanted since the Second World War, when we massively increased our production of novel synthetic chemicals, including those very most-toxic substances known to biology: human-invented toxic substances that were initially used, actually, in the wars—first of all, mustard gas in the First World War—and then they got banned through the Geneva Convention as chemicals for use against humans.

Those same companies started thinking, “Well how can we use these really effective toxic synthetic chemicals and make some money out of it? We’ll use them in agriculture to kill bugs that we don’t like and to kill plants that we don’t like.” So these companies make their billions from producing and marketing and selling these highly toxic substances. One example in New Zealand is a company called Syngenta, who are the global producer of a chemical called atrazine. Atrazine is a highly persistent chemical. It’s widely found to exist in ground water. It is banned in 40 countries around the world. It’s not banned in New Zealand.

These same companies want to have a means to more readily deregulate the use of agricultural chemical compounds and veterinary medicines. Now, some of those agricultural compounds seem innocuous and seem bland. But, in fact, what they really are seeking and what this bill does is it deregulates. It deregulates the scrutiny that the public are allowed to bring through our regulatory frameworks on these compounds and these chemicals.

Some of those include “novel biologicals”, as they’re called, some of which include genetically modified biologicals. Those need to supposedly go through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Act as well, which is one of the reasons the select committee dealt with both the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill at the same time. It seems obvious—well, it at least seems obvious to me and perhaps others on the committee—that it would be logical at some point in time for us to combine both these pieces of legislation because there’s so much crossover. But that’s not what this bill does today.

We have come away from that whole process at the select committee—when I say “we”, I mean the Greens—with some concern about the actual underlying motives behind this deregulation. It is no accident that it’s come through David Seymour’s Ministry for Regulation, the proposal that we reduce the regulatory oversight. One of the more extraordinary experiences that I’ve had in my time at Parliament was attending a public event over this bill where David Seymour was asked at the end of his introductory speech to one of the organisations there advocating for this deregulation if he’d done a sufficiently good job, and he said, “This is a good example of industry lobbying.” I really appreciated him saying the quiet bit out loud, because this is a good example of agrichemical industry lobbying. There’s a very intimate relationship between the agrichemical industry and the genetically modified plant and crop and microbe industry, because those companies—the likes of Syngenta and BASF and Bayer—see the opportunity in producing novel compounds that are not just chemical but also biological and also potentially self-replicating. There has been drawn to our attention an issue with the release of a double-stranded RNA compound in field-trial form that has already occurred since 2018 in this country, in 114 field trials. It may be that that was done without the appropriate scrutiny of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

That was not brought to our attention at the select committee. We scrutinised heavily at the select committee about whether this legislation or the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act involved a lowering of the bar on public scrutiny and regulatory oversight of these chemicals and substances and were repeatedly assured that they did not. I have not come, I’m sad to say, away from that process convinced that that is actually correct.

So, for that reason, we think that it’s inappropriate to bring this bill under urgency. This bill deserves more scrutiny and should have had more scrutiny, and we will be voting against this bill. In the committee of the whole House stage, we intend to bring some amendments that we think could improve the bill and we would seek the support of the House for those amendments. I also want to recognise that it is not unreasonable for those who are genuinely seeking to find less toxic options and genuinely safe biological and new chemicals and substances to move away from current dependencies on more toxic chemicals. We don’t disagree with that principle. That is correct. I do seriously question whether the problem is the actual law itself or whether it’s the systems we have in place to deal with appropriate vetting and assessments on these new chemicals and substances so that they can get to market more quickly.

We have heard that message from those in industry, who I believe are absolutely good faith actors and are genuinely trying to get alternatives to more toxic chemicals. We’ve heard that message, just to be clear, and we are sympathetic to that, but we do not believe that this legislation in its current form gets the balance right. We are not in support of a deregulation of what, in effect—alongside the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the agricultural compounds bit of it and the veterinary medicines bit—can lead, potentially, to faster pathways to chemicals that have not been sufficiently scrutinised.

I just want to make a final note that there is very little contention around the question of veterinary medicines. We are very keen to see faster access to veterinary medicines. We support that component of the intention. Not unlike human medicines, there is already much more scrutiny of veterinary medicines. So if something is approved for use in another jurisdiction, for use on animals, we can be much more certain that it is safe to use on animals here. As there should not be barriers to use of approved human medicines in other jurisdictions, there should not be barriers to use of veterinary medicines in New Zealand. So that is a component of the bill that we support.

But, on balance, overall, we are not satisfied that this bill is in the public interest. We will be voting against it and we will be asking a number of questions at the committee of the whole House stage. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

10:44

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in the second reading, and I’m very pleased to do so. The Primary Production Committee examined a lot of submissions over quite a while and came up with the finalised document that we see in front of us today.

Look, I just want to cover off a few things that have been said in the House today. In our own commentary, the select committee’s commentary, we said, “We note the bill does not amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act), nor alter New Zealand’s regulatory settings in relation to GMOs or GE. Any GMO or GE product would still be subject to approval under the HSNO Act. Additionally, any use of overseas regulators would still have to meet New Zealand’s legislative requirements as the approval of GMO- and GE-based agricultural compound products is already restricted through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and other legislation. We consider that no further changes are necessary.”

Now, I’d just also like to point out that both Labour and the Greens voted to shorten the report-back date, and Labour has never raised any concerns with this bill at the select committee stage and voted in favour of the changes made and voted in favour of the bill as it is now.

I am very thrilled to have this bill come to this stage. It’s been a real sticking point for farmers and growers that a number of products that are available in like jurisdictions around the world are not available to us. These products are generally ones that are far more effective, and in many, many cases they’re far safer than what is currently available. I commend this bill.

10:46

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. This is a really important bill—$64 billion worth of primary exports to this country, so it’s absolutely critical that we have access to world-class, gold standard agrichemicals and veterinary medicines.

It had become clear through this process that the system was constipated. It has taken a very, very long time to get new agrichemicals particularly registered in New Zealand for use, which was holding back our farmers and growers. There were some very real world consequences here. There was a few aspersions cast about Bayer in Steve Abel’s speech, but Bayer actually withdrew from the New Zealand market. They sold their Hawke’s Bay research property, which is not a step forward for New Zealand. We need these chemicals to be able to be researched in New Zealand conditions. So the idea here is to get access to less toxic, more effective chemicals more quickly.

Having said that, the consequences of getting this wrong are really high. We’ve had the dicyandiamide (DCD) incident with the urea treatment that ended up showing traces in the milk that had significant consequences for our exports, particularly into China. So we do have to have really good regulations. This is fiendishly complex. The interface between the hazardous substances and new organisms (HSNO), the work we’re doing trying to upgrade gene technology and how that flows into the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines (ACVM).

We were concerned to find out through an Official Information Act process at the end of last week, actually, that the double-stranded RNA treatment for varroa mite is being trialled in New Zealand. That wasn’t disclosed through the select committee. That had got through the HSNO process because it had been treated as a hazardous substance rather than the new organism. So that throws a light on how tight have we got our regulations. I think this probably sits more in the HSNO—New Zealand First has leaned towards that view. In our review of the HSNO Act, we have to make sure that anything flowing through into the ACVM is absolutely not in conflict with our gene technology legislation of the day.

In terms of what the select committee did, I mean, there was a huge amount of work getting through 1,100-odd submissions. Some key changes in there in terms of the overseas regulators—that’s one of the key things this bill looks to do: take more accountancy of work that’s already been done overseas. What tends to be happening now is we’re just starting from scratch and not putting enough weighting on to work that’s already been done overseas.

The key change there from “have regard to” to “take into account” does mean the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries does have to take more weighting on those overseas regulators’ findings. That’s not the be all and end all; we still need the checks and balances. And we will certainly, through the committee stage, be asking some more questions about that interface between HSNO and ACVM and how we’re not going to have a repeat of this double-stranded Resource Management Act (RMA) situation. But it does make sense not to start absolutely from scratch. We’ve been doing it now, which is really held up our process and is denying our farmers and growers access to world-class chemicals and medicines. New Zealand First continues to support this bill.

10:51

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start with the unfortunate point that the Green Party came in initially supporting this bill. But, like a lot of bills that have been through in this term of Government, it actually got worse at select committee. My colleague Steve Abel has already outlined that we will now be opposing this bill.

It’s really clear that the intent is generally sound—it’s to speed up approvals for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines by reducing regulation. Again, my colleague Steve Abel has pointed out how we have no problem, particularly around the veterinary medicine aspects of that. Just generally—before this is interpreted as, “The Greens actually like bureaucracy or slowing things down”—we absolutely support making regulatory processes more efficient where this can really be done safely.

I think it’s been really clear in understanding the implications of this bill that the substances and the chemicals and the compounds which we are talking about are those that can be genuinely toxic and genuinely unsafe and persist in the environment and potentially cause huge harm, or certainly heightened risk, to community and ecosystem health. That is our real concern: that there is deregulation of the system when it has such serious implications.

But we also acknowledge that in certain circumstances, faster approval of products and compounds which are genuinely low risk could have benefits for the country. That’s where we wish this bill was actually going in terms of actual safeguards. Now, unfortunately, the changes that have happened at the Primary Production Committee have only strengthened our concerns around significant lobbying from the agricultural chemical industry. There’s been a lot said about lobbying recently, and I just want to make it clear as well: it’s not the lobbying itself. Anyone can lobby; anyone can try and talk and have dialogue, and that’s great—we support that. It’s the fact that then the changes are actually put into practice and some are listened to and some aren’t.

The problem with a lot of these bills that are going through is that those who are listened to are the big corporations, are the vested interests, rather than the public good. At least my perception of government, and what I’d love to see this Government and every Government afterwards actually prioritise, is that public good and those safeguards for our communities and our environment over private profit. Unfortunately, we’re not seeing that there. It’s entirely possible that faster approvals don’t have to mean fewer safeguards, particularly when we’re talking about some of the most toxic substances.

The point I also want to make is that this is really concerning when it comes to limiting Māori participation in these processes. We know that our agricultural approval system needs to take account of Aotearoa’s unique environment, but also the fact that our communities, and particularly iwi and hapū, need to have a real say. There’s a very clear lack of requirements when it comes to Māori engagement, and it doesn’t require the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries to partner with or even consult with iwi Māori before approving agricultural chemical products that could harm te taiao. This is completely inconsistent with the Green Party’s view that we would uphold Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga in every sphere, but particularly those that could impact and risk so clearly the health of our environment and the health of our communities. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill, but we will be proposing some very clear changes. Thank you.

10:56

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was expecting a National Party speech.

So was I.

There we go. Here I am. I am not a National Party MP, to be clear. Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (ACVM Bill).

I am privileged to be Labour’s spokesperson for food safety. Of course, most food safety issues go to the Primary Production Committee, which sits on Thursday morning. At that same time, the Environment Committee sits and I am also lucky to be the environment spokesperson and resource management reform spokesperson. There has been a bit going through that select committee, so I have not been involved in the deliberations of this ACVM Bill, nor the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Bill that’s been mentioned a wee bit in the discussions.

But before this term of Government, at the end of the last term of Government, I was the Minister for Food Safety. This came about in quite unusual circumstances when Meka Whaitiri crossed the floor, and voila! I became the Minister for Food Safety, which was of course a real privilege and very interesting—lots of things to learn about in that portfolio. In that portfolio, I did go to a conference very near the end of last term, so approximately three years ago now, where there was some real disquiet about this legislation. Of course, what we’re talking about today is an amendment bill and it is an amendment to the 1997 piece of legislation that I have here ready for our committee stage. Whilst the legislation has been amended for some time, clearly there has been some slowness in the process and some inefficiency.

Back then, three years ago, I did agree that it needed to be looked at, so it’s good that this Government has done this. It’s unfortunate that we’ve taken three years to get to this spot and that we didn’t have the full select committee process. That’s relevant because there has been some real concern that I know we will talk about in the committee stage of the bill about what is currently called a provisional registration that becomes a consent for research and other information or other purposes. There was a concern that this process is going to let some products through that might have negative consequences and that the tests around that aren’t strong enough.

That has meant that there has been a flurry of tabled amendments, and I do note that some of these tabled amendments came from the New Zealand First Party, which was interesting, and were in the name of an associate agricultural Minister, Mark Patterson. They were to very much strengthen the provisions of this consent that used to be called a provisional registration. That’s always interesting, when you have one Government party and one Associate Minister of Agriculture making tabled amendments on a bill in the name of another Associate Minister of Agriculture. But it appears that they are no longer upon the Table.

However, in response to those concerns of New Zealand First, I have also drafted some amendment papers that didn’t go nearly as far as New Zealand First’s papers but did try to add in some additional comfort to those submitters who are concerned that this new consent process is just a little bit too wide and that some things that might be risky and might harm us and might harm the environment could get through. So that is what I will be focusing on in the committee of whole House stage, which, of course, we’re not yet at.

But I did want to respond to this point that was made by Miles Anderson that he seemed to be surprised that Labour would be offering up any amendments or criticising a process in any form at all. So that is the history of this process and why we are—of course, we were also surprised that we suddenly had a change up of which bill we’re speaking about. All of sudden—we thought there were three Treaty bills to get through before we got to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Yet, they have somehow disappeared, so that is interesting as well. So something—something—appears to be going on with the coalition, which is very interesting to watch and is not surprising that they can’t make up their mind on anything or work together.

As I was saying, we have this 1997 legislation. “The purpose of the Act is to (a) prevent or manage risks associated with the use of agricultural compounds, being … (i) risks to trade and primary produce; and (ii) risks to animal welfare; and (iii) risks to agricultural security: (b) ensure that the use of agricultural compounds does not result in breaches of domestic food residue standards: (c) ensure the provision of sufficient consumer information about agricultural compounds.”

So my reading of the legislation is that that purpose does not change. That is important because some of the amendments refer back to that purpose. That purpose is also relevant to the amendments that are on—and off—the Table about the considerations to things like the environment and the relationship with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO). There is a separate piece of legislation going through that amends that piece of legislation. I’m not talking to that except—full stop. I’m not talking to that.

But—however. No, these are all the wrong words.

As it turns out, you are.

No, I am not talking about them because I am talking about this piece of legislation, which refers to that other piece of legislation. Why that is important is because before you can get this consent to import, which is currently called provisional registration, you are blocked from getting that permission if you need a permission under the HSNO legislation. The Government parties and other people say well, the HSNO legislation—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that does a risk assessment on environmental issues. So if HSNO applies, then that will consider the environment, so then the argument is that then this piece of legislation, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, does not need to consider the environment because it’s already been considered under that other Act.

I understand that logic of that argument. What though, if you do not require a consent under the HSNO legislation—under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—should there be some provision for the consideration of the environment under the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines process and how does that relate back to the purpose that I just talked about, which is managing these risks to trade, to animal welfare, to agricultural security, food residue standards, and consumer information. These are questions that we will pursue in the next debate—to give some context there.

There are also some concerns over what these consents to import, etc. and use agricultural compounds for research and other purposes—how wide they can be. Because the way that it’s been described to me, these things are not for sale. If they’re something that comes in, it will be for a short term on the consent condition, and it’s to work out if they’re going to work in New Zealand or not. Why then would they be sold for commercial gain if they’re simply for research? So these are some questions that I will raise that go to my amendments. I want to assure the members opposite that those amendments have been written in good faith and they’re very much about just trying to give some comfort to those people who are concerned that this might be going just a step too far.

11:06

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a practical bill for practical people. It streamlines regulatory processes, reduces red tape. It backs our local vets and rural suppliers who support our farmers who feed New Zealand and the world. It’s about fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to speak on this special day, the Miles Anderson appreciation day. It’s always good to be appreciated from time to time.

Anyway, this amendment bill is another bill that allows our agricultural and horticultural farmers to continue to advance themselves and be the world-class producers that they are. Most importantly, it does that while maintaining strong protections for public health, food safety, biosecurity, environmental outcomes, and international trade obligations. I commend the bill to the House.

11:07

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s certainly been an interesting 24 hours, in terms of discussion around this bill. As my colleague Rachel Brooking pointed out in her contribution just now, there were some tabled amendments from one of the Government parties, the New Zealand First Party, in the name of Associate Minister Hon Mark Patterson that we did take some time considering, again, in good faith, and now they’ve mysteriously been removed. So we’re not quite sure—I guess when we get to committee of the whole House stage, they may reappear. We’ll find out, potentially, exactly what’s going on amongst the Government parties, although from the Associate Minister’s speech, it would sound like he wasn’t foreshadowing any amendments, so we’re a little bit confused on this side of the House about what the coalition Government is doing, although I think they’re quite confused as well. They’ve been a bit confused around who was taking a call before. And I think the country’s confused around what they’re trying to achieve also. So an interesting day, in terms of what is actually quite an important bill, Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

One of the things that this bill does that I want to talk to a little bit is—it streamlines the process for what was called provisional registration. That has now had a terminology change to be called a consent. And what that is is when a compound or a medicine is not being put forward by a company or a supplier or whoever may be putting it forward for that full registration process but it’s coming through for a temporary approval process but for a very defined purpose, usually around research and sometimes the research that’s being performed during that short time frame is actually being used to build a body research to go on to the full registration process.

One of the things I do want to point out is this is an amendment bill and so what it is doing is amending the existing Act. Actually, that process is not changing per se. There have always been two processes, one for a temporary provisional registration, which has now been called a consent, and one for that fulsome registration.

What I do want to point out is that having a consent and reaching the ending point of that consent doesn’t automatically lead to registration becoming automatic. They are actually two separate processes, so there have been some concerns raised around that but actually you still—just because you’ve received that initial consent does not mean there is an automatic registration process or that fulsome registration will necessary be granted.

In light of my comments earlier about amendments from New Zealand First and also some commentary from the Greens raising some concerns around the bill, I would note that this bill has been considered by the Primary Production Committee at the same time as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, which has not reappeared yet, and there is some interaction between those two bills. That’s interesting, again, in terms of what might be happening around the coalition Government discussions.

I did want to point out just a couple of changes that my colleague Hon Rachel Brooking has proposed which I think are very good. The second amendment that she’s made is that initial consent could have a maximum duration of less than five years, so I think that’s a good safeguard to ensure it doesn’t go on and on forever. She’s got a third amendment here [bell rings]—just keeping an eye on the clock—around ensuring there are some strengthened provisions around the impact of any compound or medicine on the environment. A further one which I thought was a very good amendment, again, following some discussions with officials: the fifth amendment which is when we’re talking about a consent, and selling something for consent, to note that it’s for commercial gain, so that consent is not to be for gain by selling a product, and that makes sense. It’s a sensible amendment because most of those provisional registrations, now consents, are done for the purposes of research, so we actually couldn’t find a decent rationale for why there might be a sale of such a product.

Finally, a note around research on the final amendment—and I have run out of time; I could have spoken for a lot longer. Labour is supporting this bill. We will have many, many questions at the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

11:12

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill is intended to improve approval pathways for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines; and reduce unnecessary costs, complexity, and delays for applicants seeking approval for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. Just because of some of the comments that were made in the House, I note that the Primary Production Committee was at pains to point out that the bill did not amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act of New Zealand’s regulatory settings in relation to GMOs.

Just the last thing: I do sit on the Regulations Review Committee and I’m pleased to see that the Primary Production Committee noted our recommendation that the director general published reasons for exemptions decisions and has recommended changes accordingly. I recommend this to the House.

Damien O’Connor. Sorry—Honourable Damien O’Connor.

11:13

It’s fine with you, Maureen—sorry, Madam Speaker.

Touché.

Look, thank you, Madam Speaker. The Opposition has every right to be wary of this piece of legislation. On the face of it, it sounds OK. There have been calls for many, many years—probably going back a decade or so—to actually have this process streamlined. Indeed, it is a cautious approach that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Government agencies over time have taken to the approval of the ongoing evolution of veterinary medicines and agricultural products into this country. We, more than pretty much any other country in the world, are reliant on our primary production sector—agriculture, horticulture, and other areas—so it is really critical that we look at this very, very carefully.

We have every right to be suspicious of what has been a stupid Government that has rushed through legislation time and time again that has proved to be faulty. We cannot afford to do the same thing with this piece of legislation and indeed the fact that it’s been rushed to under urgency is a risk. I’m pleased to say that some of the amendments that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking is going to table, I think—

She has tabled.

—tabled—are necessary. They are necessary because, in one particular area, the omission—elimination—of any environmental consideration is just stupid. Absolutely outrageous.

I’m not unfamiliar with the kind of goods we that we’re talking about here. I’ve been a dairy farmer, grown a few boysenberries, and so understand that the chemicals that we use are critical to good, efficient production. But they’ve got to be used in the way that they are meant to be used. Kiwi growers and farmers are very, very innovative and have been over the century, which has kind of served us reasonably well, but it’s also actually meant that people cut corners. As we see the evolution of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, there will be new innovative ways of creating them—not just GE or GMOs, but actually incorporating chemicals that may be banned in some countries but not in others, so ensuring that what we have through our borders is safe for use, and then is used according to instructions, is absolutely critical.

Most of the laws or many of the laws we make—most, in fact—in this House are for a minority of people who don’t want to do the right thing, and so, once again, that’s what we are talking about here. There’s great enthusiasm from the chemical companies around the world to sell a bit of stuff into New Zealand. We’re not a huge market but, from an agricultural perspective, it’s reasonably solid, so they have been coming to us on numerous occasions over the years with new products, and they’ve been frustrated by the process through the EPA and other Government agencies. This bill aims to streamline; it creates a new consent regime for research and information gathering. That’s OK as long as it’s robustly implemented. It allows recognition of overseas regulators, as long as that is ensuring that the advice that is brought to New Zealand from research and, I guess, oversight in other countries is legitimate, is credible, and is honest; that is absolutely critical and important.

I think the concern that I have through this bill is that we will rely on the director general to make all those judgments. A lot of that occurs at the moment but what we’ve seen over the last almost three years, now, is a growing political influence over public servants, and that concerns me. The lobbying and the amount of money that has been paid into political parties that are governing, for fast track and for other projects—

Be very careful about making assumptions about that.

No, these are facts, Madam Speaker.

It’s inappropriate to make those comments.

Madam Speaker, there has been a growing amount of donations to political parties that currently serve in the Government and all of those amounts and the people who have donated are publicly available. I’m referring to that.

We’re talking about veterinary compounds—

What concerns me is the influence over fast track that we have, then: the political—or the potential for there to be influence over processes like this. That is why the Opposition has to be absolutely robust in our scrutiny of this critical piece of legislation, because the members over there—one of them, a well-known and respected farmer; she knows the importance of the misuse of things like dicyandiamide, where we hadn’t done our homework, we hadn’t done an maximum residue limit, and in fact what could have been a very good emissions mitigation tool in the agricultural sector has now been eliminated because the homework wasn’t done.

My concern is that this change in legislation might allow shortcutting and influence over the director general that might lead to another terrible outcome for our primary sectors. So we need to be cautious; we need to have in place obligations around the potential environmental impacts of bringing these chemicals into our country and having them tipped out or wasted—so what happens on farm. Now, although there’s veterinary oversight, large volumes of veterinary medicines can be dispensed to a farmer, with a vet signing it off. If there’s a change in a farming system or something goes wrong, they could be left with a large volume of unused veterinary medicines or chemicals.

Indeed, I had some myself on a farm. The process of disposal is really, really messy and difficult, so the potential for those things to be tipped into a stream is real—is real. Some of that might be insignificant in terms of environmental impact, but some of it not so. Consideration of the potential for that to be wasted into the environment should be part of the consideration when it comes to approval. That’s one issue that my colleague is going to pursue as we move through this.

Low-risk products to be exempted from registration by the director-general—again, the assessment of what is low or high risk is actually really, really important. We need to ensure that that is followed through in the way that is intended, not in the way that could come under possible commercial pressure.

Modernise notification, manufacturing compliance provisions, statutory time frames—a lot in this bill is really sensible progress, as was said by members of the Government. But I come back to the point about our obligation to put in place legislation and regulations that protect us from the potential misuse or abuse of something in this system that is so critical to our country.

If we end up with a maximum residue level—take for example, another thing that the Government has done under the guise of efficiency. They’ve allowed farmers to go out and use drones for spraying. Agricultural operators are strictly controlled because these chemicals are really important. If they get in the wrong place at the wrong time, they can get into our food chain. The point being, the Government’s enthusiasm to deregulate everything means that there are growing risks to our international reputation and to our food systems that might jump up and bite us big time into the future.

As any responsible Government should, or, in this case, the responsible Opposition, we have to scrutinise and look with some cynicism at the possible outcomes of the passage of this legislation—accepting, of course, there can be some improvements. There always can be. But the ideology of the Government, which is to deregulate and leave it to the market, leaves us exposed if the provisions in this bill are not followed through.

My concern—and the Primary Production Committee has had a look at it, I know, and made some adjustments. I’m not saying this is irresponsible, but I’m saying if we don’t close the gaps and put back in an obligation around the environment by the Government supporting my colleagues’ amendments, we have left open a door that could bite us into the future. This can be a useful piece of legislation, but we have to be mindful that it needs to be improved through a few amendments that will be tabled by the Labour Party.

11:23

We listened to the sector, we did our homework, and we are now delivering. We are cutting the red tape and getting things moving. We are fixing the basics and building the future.

I commend this bill to the House.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.

11:26

Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of the tabled amendments relate to clause 40 and are around clause 40, but before we get there, I’ve got some questions on the way through. My first question is about the definitions. I love this—when you get to go to the lobby and get the principal Act. I have a copy of that, but it’s got all these little pages in it, which can be quite difficult to follow. I apologise in advance if I’ve missed something that’s in one of these little amendments that goes into these hard copies of the Act.

My first question, though, is about the interpretation. We’re at clause 4, and clause 4 amends section 2 of the Act that is in my hand here, and it includes “approved form” and “approved information”. What I’m interested in—and I’ll raise it probably in another minute—is why there is no definition of “registered trade name product”. Throughout the legislation, there is this term, “registered trade name product”. In fact, if you look across to clause 9, so just on page 7 of the amendment bill, at new section 8, you will see at (1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i), (3)(a)(i), and at (4)(a)(i) this term “registered trade name product”. The Act defines both “trade name product” and it also defines “registered” product, but I’m wondering how the two interact.

This is important, because it’s an important term throughout the legislation, because it’s the main substantive approval, as I understand it, that you get. It’s also relevant because the wording is different at clause 5(2). It’s talking about “an assessment”, and then it says, “to decide whether it should be registered as a trade name product,”, which is then different from the term that’s later used, which is “registered trade name product”. It may be that it’s because, you know—are they meant to be two different things: you can be registered and not a trade name product or you can be a trade name product that’s not registered, or can you only ever be a registered trade name product?

It’s a question that goes to quite a lot of the legislation in terms of what we’re thinking about with this bigger application process that is undertaken, subject to—I think it’s around sections 20 and 21 of the principal Act that go to this registration. If she can make a comment on that, that would be very useful—where we’re going with these terms, how we should best think about them, and how it applies throughout the piece of legislation. That’s my first question. [TheHonBrooke van Velden raises hand to seek call] If you do your hand, then I’ll—

11:30

I thank the member for the question; I will ask my officials for that technical piece of advice, but I thank the member for it.

I will move on, then, and thank you to the Minister for asking officials for that advice. That’s useful. And thank you also to the Minister in the chair for raising her hand—that is helpful.

Now, then, I would go on to page 9. This is at clause 10, and clause 10 is the “Exemptions from registration”—that’s the subheading before the new sections or clauses. At new section 8AA, it is “Exemption from requirement to register for agricultural compound or class”, and it goes through how that happens. Then, at subsection (4), there’s “Preconditions to granting exemption”, and it’s that “The Director-General may grant an exemption under this section only if satisfied that—”, and so we have: “(a) the exemption is not inconsistent with the purpose of this Act”. I refer to my second reading speech just now, to the purpose of the Act, which goes to risks associated with agricultural compounds, those being: risk to trade, risk to animal welfare, risk to agricultural security, to domestic food residue, and consumer information. That purpose in the Act doesn’t change.

I am interested in this issue of the environment, and we’ll come to this later when we’re at clause 40. The reading of that purpose—the word “environment” is not there. However, if you are concerned about trade in primary produce, then presumably there is some relationship with the environment there. We do have trade agreements that talk about the environment, for instance, the ones with the European Union and the United Kingdom. So trade is there; environment is related to trade and, also, agricultural security. Is there a space for the environment within the purpose? That’s one question.

My next question is at (4)(b), which states that the exemption can be granted, but only if: “(i) the likely cost of assessing and registering the agricultural compound … outweighs the likely risks”. I’ve missed out a few words there, but—so this is 8AA(4)(b)(i). This seems to be an example of where cost can override risks, because it’s “outweighs the likely risks”. This is of course an interesting philosophical point—and I know that the Minister’s party is particularly interested in looking at costs. So my question is: who are the costs to? Is it the cost to society? Is it the cost to the individual applicant? Is it the cost to—going back to the purpose—other people who trade in primary produce? Is it the cost to animal welfare? Can she tell us more about the costs, and who they are to? I might leave those questions there and see if the Minister’s got any responses, then I can move on.

11:34

Thank you. Look, I think I can tuck away, hopefully, the new section 8AA(4)(b) question about where the likely cost is borne. It is in the wording at (i), where it says: “the likely cost of assessing and registering the agricultural compound … under this subpart outweighs the likely risks”. So that is a cost of assessing and registering.

But to whom?

Well, that would be to the person assisting and registering, because somebody is not doing the assessing and registering if they’re not doing the assessing and registering. So I think it seems relatively straightforward. In terms of the other questions that Rachel Brooking has had, in regards to whether or not there is space for the environmental considerations: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act regulates environmental considerations.

In regards to her earlier contribution, regarding the registration of trade name products and the term “registered”: the terms “registered” and “trade name product” can be read together and should be read together. Only “TNP” can be registered.

11:36

Sorry, just that last one: was it “TNP”, and does that stand for “trade name product”? She’s saying that only trade name products can be registered, nothing else can be registered, and that is why they are read together? The officials are nodding.

Yes, then that would be correct.

Thank you. Better to use the words, even if I am guilty of acronyms—so no shade on anybody.

Just going back to that cost question then, the cost of assessing and registering, that it’s still the cost to who—is that the cost to the regulator or is it the cost to the applicant? So: broader or narrower? That’s the question there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m also on Part 1, and in the “Main amendments”—clause 4, section 2 amendments—the current wording has: “approved form means a form that is approved by the Director-General”. We’re on page 6, here. The Minister just pointed out that the definition of “environment” relates to that in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, which is a non-helpful point to make, because there is a close relationship between these two bills—which is one of the reasons they both came to the select committee at the same time. It is certainly my view that, in due course, it would be a good idea for us as a Parliament to work out how to combine these two pieces of legislation. That would certainly assist with the large amount of overlap and complexity. Part of that overlap is between—and that will be drawn out through the course of this committee stage, I hope—where an agricultural compound is also a genetically modified organism. The process by which it gets approved through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act before it can then be approved by the agricultural compounds Act.

For clarifying the definition of “environment”, I have an Amendment Paper tabled for clause 4. That after clause 4(1), we insert the words—simply—“environment has the same meaning as in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996”. That would go to the exact point the Minister just made, but it is not actually articulated in the legislation. So I’d appreciate, given that she’s made the point herself, that we could actually put it in black and white. That would not be a particularly controversial thing to do, but it would certainly clarify what the definition of “environment” is.

My second question is on clause 5, where, under (2)(aa)(a), there is now inserted “an assessment of the compound and consent for its use in research or for obtaining further information to decide whether it should be registered as a trade name product, subject to specifically imposed conditions:”. I wonder, because this question of research may come up in other parts of the bill, but it is pertinent because one of the things—that has only just been revealed to us through an Official Information Act request that landed this weekend just gone—is that, indeed, through a combination of this Act in its existing form, not in this amended form, obviously, there has been the release of an agricultural compound in the form of a field trial of a substance that had a double-stranded RNA component, which is being trialled as a solution to varroa mites—an admirable cause, let’s not question that. But there are questions around whether that should have been more properly classified as a genetically modified organism and gone through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act before it got approved through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

My question is to ask the Minister to expand on the intention and the reason for this amendment in clause 5(2), and the other component of that is whether it should be registered as a trade name product. Could she please explain what the circumstances are around which products are or are not registered as trade name products and why that might be an important thing to do?

11:41

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just ticking off the last question from Rachel Brooking in terms of who the costs are in relation to the risks: the costs are directly related to the assessment applicant. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with a question on clause 5, noting that clauses 9 and 10 are the more substantial bits. Clause 5, “Section 4A amended”, basically introduces a new scheme of the Act, and it’s specifically around the research element. What isn’t clear is with clause 5, subclause (2), when we’re talking about research: could the Minister clarify if the research restricts to in vitro or also includes in vivo? As in, when we’re looking at research, is it purely within a laboratory environment or would that research of that compound and testing be able to be done in, I guess, living organisms, which also means in public spaces, on plants, on animals, etc.? That is important from the perspective that if it’s done in vivo, you are potentially looking at like a more stringent requirement around risks of cross-contamination. I do want to check with the Minister on that particular clarification.

I’m going to move on to clause 9, knowing that others may have other questions. So clause 9 is the replacement for section 8, and I may have additional questions; I’m just trying to compare what some of the changes are. But I want to check in terms of a broader question—when we’re looking at agricultural compounds into New Zealand is when we’re looking at imports and exports. Can I just check whether the Ministry for Primary Industries or anyone else have had a conversation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around whether a lot of the things and the changes we’re making is in line with our existing trade obligations under various trade agreements? And particularly when we’re looking at a trade-named product, how would then certain jurisdictions and intellectual property be involved as a part of that?

My final question just on this particular part is that for certain trade agreements, we have a specific requirement around place of origin, in terms of ingredients, in terms of compounds. I just want to check in terms of whether even the labelling standards and requirements are also met as a part of this with our various trade agreements. Thank you.

11:44

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch on clause 10, under the exemptions from registration section. With this new exemption from requirement to register for agricultural compound or class, I’m interested to know, because this is all new, just following on from this, the reasoning—obviously I can understand some reasons for this, but I’d be interested to know if there’s been any work done on how many exemptions the Minister might expect to be granted each year under this new exemption framework. Because it would be interesting to know how this thinking came about to make this framework part of the legislation.

The other part that I want to ask about is around new section 8AAB, “Requirements relating to records, returns, and information”. Now, one of the changes that were, I think, made in the legislation was that it had to be notified to make it a bit more open and transparent—perhaps why something was exempted or not. I’m interested to know, when that information is made publicly available about exemption decisions, is the Minister sure, or what precautions will be taken, to make sure that the information around the decision when it’s published is sufficiently transparent, but still protecting the commercially sensitive information that’s been supplied by the applicants? Because I think that’s really important to know.

11:45

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was just wanting to go back to trying to find the original legislation, actually, because I’m referring to clause 10, new section 8AA, and coming down to subclause (4)(a), and this is regarding exemptions that may be granted by the director-general. An exemption may be granted if “the exemption is not inconsistent with the purpose of this Act as set out in section 4;”. The Minister may be able to clarify that for me, because I’ve kind of gone back to section 4 in the bill here and can’t find it. As I’ve said in my earlier speech, I’m a little wary and I do want to make sure that the objectives of the bill are clearly laid out in front of the House now, so that we are assured that this is not the—and could the Minister say if this is for the efficient processing and registration of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines? Or is it for the growth and progress of the New Zealand agriculture and horticultural sectors? Or is it for the management of the medicines themselves? I think it is really important that the Minister take the opportunity to clarify what is the purpose of the Act and what will it be when this bill is passed.

I then go to another question that I have of subclause (b), and it’s been raised by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking around cost. An exemption can be provided if “At least one of the following applies: (i) the likely cost of assessing and registering the agricultural compound, or agricultural compounds of the relevant class, under this subpart outweighs the likely risks from the use of the agricultural compound, or those … compounds,”. The question is of cost to who, and I know that was a question asked by my colleague. Does the cost extend out to the point I made earlier around the cost to the environment or to the wider community or to the sector and industry if something should get out of control and we have some residues picked up in some export? So it’s a question around the extent of the cost assessment, raised by my colleague, but, actually, I want to hear an explanation. And then you come back to clarity—absolute clarity—on the purpose of the Act and the purpose of the Act subsequent to the changes from this bill.

11:48

Thank you. Look, I’ll take the contribution by the Hon Damien O’Connor first in regards to what is the overall purpose of the bill. I mentioned this in passing in the second reading speech, which is that the products that we are talking about within this bill are newer pesticides and things that are safer to use in the country, and ultimately this will lead to a greater access to newer and safer products that can be used on farms or by people raising cattle, or even in domestic circumstances. However, it also has the additional purpose here of keeping our produce at export quality, and so there is, I guess, a double win-win here, where we are accessing newer and safer products, but in doing so, that actually helps us grow our export quality and have that at a higher and better standard. So that is that part of the contribution.

Second to that, there was also the question, once again, about costs, and I will just go back to the original contribution I made to the Hon Rachel Brooking, that in regards to the particular section the member was referring to, the costs are directly related to assessment applicants.

Going back to Steve Abel’s original contribution regarding his Amendment Paper and whether or not we should insert a definition for “environment” within this law, the Government won’t be doing that. We won’t be adopting that Amendment Paper. Inserting that definition into this Act, or bill as it is at the moment, would imply that the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act has some role in regulating environmental risk; whereas I mentioned before that there is a space for environmental considerations but that is in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—that regulates environmental considerations.

Steve Abel also wished to go into a little bit more detail regarding the circumstances around trade name products. The definition of “trade name product” is within the Act. A product needs to meet the test for registration in section 21 to be considered for registration.

Lawrence Xu-Nan had a contribution in regard to whether or not research is restricted to in vitro or to living organisms, and the response to this is that the applicant themselves would decide on the scope for their trials for the particular product or agricultural compound. However, it is then up to the approval process, during the application process, as to how broad that scope would actually end up being.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked whether or not the Ministry for Primary Industries had talked to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade around alignment with trade agreements. Yes, I can confirm that that did happen in the same way it happens with laws that do pass through Government processes. That was a consideration that was made.

There was also a contribution by Damien O’Connor regarding, I believe, section 54 about whether or not it’s an efficient process or about growth of management of medicines. The purpose of the overall Act itself has not changed. But I did discuss the wider purpose, I believe, of the intent. Damien O’Connor also did talk about whether or not the costs extended to the environment, to the sector, or to the public. No—it is, once again, about the cost to the applicant.

Then we had a contribution—I think it may have been by Jo Luxton; I’m not exactly sure if I can remember—about how many exemptions are expected under the new regime. The numbers are very variable, so it’s not possible to provide numbers at this stage, but that was also the situation under the current regulations.

11:53

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I will go to the Minister’s answer where she said the wider purpose or intent is for safer products to be enabled. That doesn’t come through in the unchanged purpose of the Act, and I was wondering if she thinks there would be some room to specify that in fact that is the purpose—to enable safer products to be registered in New Zealand. I can’t see that anywhere in the legislation before us, and if that is the Government’s intent, then it would be good to have that in the law. So that’s one question.

My second question goes back to the cost issue, and she has answered that the word “cost” there is the cost to the applicant. So that means that if it’s going to be too expensive for an applicant, then they don’t have to bother. That’s what her answer means: “Oh, sorry. The applicant says this is going to cost lots of money.” so an exemption can be granted if that cost outweighs the likely risk. This seems to be an unusual way to make a law, and I’m wondering if the Minister can give any other examples in a regulatory process where because the applicant is going to have a cost burden, they can avoid the registration process. That is my second question.

My third question is, again, on clause 10, on new section 8AA about exemptions, and I’m talking about subsection (4)(b)(ii)—I was at subparagraph (i); now I’m at subparagraph (ii)—and it says that another reason for an exemption can be that the compounds are already adequately managed by restrictions that apply under another Act to that substance or those substances. Is the most likely of those other Acts the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act (HASNO Act)? That would be useful to know because we know that—but, then, if it is HASNO, why does it need to be specified there? Could it also be the Resource Management Act (RMA) or the other statutes that it is anticipated would meet that test of already adequately managing the restrictions, noting that the Minister has said that this Act, this amendment and the principal Act, are not about the environment?

So if the HASNO Act and the RMA are there to protect the environment, that doesn’t, under her logic, have anything to do with the Agricultural and Veterinary Medicines Act or this bill. So would that, then, mean that those Acts don’t adequately manage the restrictions because they don’t go to trade, animal welfare, agricultural security, domestic food residue, and sufficient consumer information? That’s my third question. I’ll keep going, Madam Chair. I see that the select committee has made a change—that the reasons for granting an exception must be published. That’s a good change.

Now, I’m going over the page to my fourth question, which is about clause 16. This is replacing the heading to section 12 of the Act with “Public notification under section 14: information involving trade secrets, etc, to be withheld”. Then there is some repeal of the sections there. I would like the Minister to comment on who the information is being withheld from. Is it simply that if there is an Official Information Act request—and that is what section 12 of the Act applies to, as I can see when I look at it here. Is it simply to say that under the Official Information Act, if there is a trade secret, then information can be withheld, or does it go wider than that? That is my fourth question.

My fifth and last question in this contribution is on clause 18. I’m referring to subclause (4), which says “After section 15(3), insert:”, and this is about new subsection (4) of section 15—in clause 18—and it says, “The Director-General may waive the requirement to publicly notify an application under section 14 if, in the Director-General’s opinion,—(a) an emergency has arisen that involves risks to public health, risks to trade in primary produce, risks to animal welfare, or risks to agricultural security; and (b) the trade name product that is the subject of the application is likely to be required for use in that emergency.”

My question here is about the use of the word “likely”. I understand that emergencies happen and it’s important to be able to respond to them. But does the Minister consider that “likely” is a strong enough protection against the risks of an unregistered product being used because there’s an emergency? I know it’s only to waive the notification but, presumably, there will be groups that know about these things and might have an opinion, so would she consider using a different term that is stronger than “likely to be required”? So, you know, it’s like, “We really, really need to use this stuff to fix the emergency, not that we just might not want to.”

Can I just say that we seem to have got stuck back at the beginning. This bill has been through a select committee process, so when we’re getting down to scrutinising semantics and wording, I think we’re getting too far into the weeds. So I do encourage members to keep moving forward.

11:59

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to ask a question around clause 19, new section 16, the “Time limits relating to applications”. Now, I understand that we hear, quite often, that farmers and growers need access to, whether it be chemical compounds or veterinary medicines, in a timely manner. So I’m just interested to know, but I have a couple of questions with regard to this section here. What reduction, if any, in average approval times, does the Minister expect because of these reforms? I think that’s something that the wider public might be interested in knowing.

Then it talks about “The Director-General must decide the application within any period determined in accordance with the regulations.” This is the date for deciding the application. How is the Minister going to ensure that the pressure, if any, needed to meet certain time frames doesn’t compromise the quality and robustness of safety assessments? And what assurance can the Minister provide that faster approvals, if any, won’t come at the expense of maintaining strong domestic scientific expertise and toxicology, ecology, risk assessment, and regulatory science? And what benefits, on time frames, does the Minister expect to deliver for biological products specifically, and will the new framework provide a faster or more proportionate pathway for lower risk biologicals compared with conventional agrochemicals?

The Hon Mark Mitchell.

Mr Chair?

Oh, sorry, Mark Patterson—getting my Marks mixed up, apologies.

12:01

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I know we’ve had a change with the Chair—the previous Chair talked about getting into the weeds, but that’s exactly what we have to do here. This is a very complex piece of legislation which has quite wide ramifications.

I’m just on clause 10, new section 8AA(2)—this issue around the exemptions. We’ve got a very real issue here, where we’ve had a double-stranded RNA treatment on varroa mite that, only through an Official Information Act request, have we found out about. We found out there’s something like 103 such trials of these, sort of, novel compounds that are going on, seemingly, without much oversight from the public.

Now, we’re convinced that that this is an issue with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) primarily, but that’s where this exemption issue becomes quite critical. How deeply is this exemption going to be able to be applied? I’m keen to understand that in a real-world sense because, OK, we’re talking here about the ability to exempt classes of agricultural compounds. So that double-stranded RNA are used—in this case, for treatment for varroa mite on honey bees—if that becomes a class exemption, if a similar technology is used for a spray on to pastures to get rid of pests, what checks and balances are going to be used here? I just can’t see it. How are we going to capture that it’s going to be a case by case basis that takes into account—obviously, bees and cows and sheep are very different biological species—how that novel synthetic protein or whatever it is will interact? That’s how complex this stuff is; it it’s really complex: how they interact with each other will be totally different.

So I’m just concerned, here, that we’ve opened this to class exemptions where we need to have very careful checks and balances to make sure it’s case by case. I’d like some assurances, please, that this is, in fact, exactly what it’s going to deliver and we’re not going to open a door slightly, you know, and have a lot of stuff come through that, perhaps, has not—there might be some unintended consequences to that. So I’d like some assurances there, please.

12:04

Thank you. I’ll start with the latest contribution by Mark Patterson regarding his concerns around clause 10, new section 8AA, relating to the exemptions and whether or not that would enable the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) to be bypassed, especially when it comes to different forms of treatment. Look, the research trials are not unrestricted commercial use. They’re not for unrestricted commercial use. An approval is required under HSNO before the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) regime has any say. And so, therefore, I can give the member a form of comfort that the exemption clauses do not open up the risk that he has been referring to.

In regards to some of the earlier contributions by Rachel Brooking, she had a number of questions. Firstly, in regards to clause 10, new section 8AA(4)(b)(ii) For the reasons for exemption if the risk is adequately managed: this is the same test as currently applied for exemptions set out in regulations, and it is rare that there would be another Act adequately managing those risks.

Her second contribution was in regards to the term “likely” in exemptions for trade name products that were likely to be needed for an emergency. The term “likely” is a term that is well-understood within law and the Government is satisfied that the wording here is appropriate.

Her third question and contribution was in regards to whether or not we had examples where the cost burden can be exempt from registration. There are other examples of legislation where costs of complying do exceed benefits and then this, therefore, leads to exemptions under law. A clear example of this is the Organic Products and Production Act.

The fourth contribution is “would there be room to specify the purpose is safer products?” Look, the ACVM and the HSNO are complementary Acts and bills, and they ensure that all products on the market will have their risks managed appropriately. Therefore, we don’t believe, as a Government, that there is any need to be specifying the purpose for safer products.

The fifth contribution was in regards to the trade secrets, which was in regards to clause 11B—not exactly sure at this stage—oh, sorry, clause 16. And that was: trade secrets are the primary reason for this clause.

In regards to the contribution by Jo Luxton around shorter time frames and does that mean, potentially, less complete assessments—no, moving time frames does not change the statutory requirement to assess and manage the relevant risks.

12:07

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your responses there. One of your early responses I want to pick up on is that you did actually mention, in one of your answers, that pesticides are an example—

Just the use of the word “you” and “your”.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair. I apologise for that.

The Minister did mention, in one of her answers, that pesticides were an example of an agricultural compound. Now, this, I think, is part of the challenge for the public and certainly part of the challenge for us, as a Parliament, getting our heads around what is captured in this Act and what is not captured by this Act. So going to the actual definition, in the original Act, of agricultural compounds—and I certainly will not suffer the committee to have to hear the entire thing read out—does start by saying “any substance, mixture of substances, or biological compound, used or intended for use in the direct management of plants and animals, or to be applied to the land, place, or water on or in which the plants and animals are managed, for the purposes of—managing or eradicating pests, including vertebrate pests;”—and it goes on with a whole bunch of other things. That seems, to me, a very significant catch-all of just about every blimmin thing you could do on the land with a chemical or a substance or a compound. You said pesticides would be captured by that. That seems an obvious interpretation of the idea that it’s going to be used for the management or eradication of pests, including vertebrate pests. My question is: are there any herbicides captured by this legislation, or do herbicides sit exclusively in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act? I just would love to have some clarity on that.

Then my next question is around Subpart 2, where there are restrictions on importation manufacture, and that includes this question of exemptions. I’m in Subpart 2, section 8(3) amended by clause 9. “A person may sell an agricultural compound within New Zealand only if the agricultural compound is a registered trade name product; or is exempt from registration under section 8AA”.

I noticed on the Ministry for Primary Industries website, where it sets out to define in layperson’s terms what is captured as an agricultural compound, that it says “Substances that could be used as agricultural compounds”, for example—I should read the whole thing; it’s not that long. “They can be used as they are without further manufacture or modification, and they have a stated purpose fitting the ACVM definition. For example, if you bought a bag [of] ‘zinc sulphate’ without a stated use, it would not be an agricultural compound. If the same bag”—I insert in brackets for clarity: of the same substance, zinc sulphate—“had a label stating it is ‘for use on farm animals to treat foot-rot’, it would be an agricultural compound.”

Now, that seems very surprising to me, Minister, because you’re saying the very same substance without a label is not captured by the bill. But if it’s got a label that says you’re going to use it for foot-rot, it is captured. Can you please clarify if that definition remains correct in these amendments, or whether these amendments are actually tightening up so that you can’t just have an unlabelled substance in a package? And so long as it remains unlabelled, it can avoid the scrutiny of the regulation, which obviously would be concerning to us. Thank you.

Madam Chair!

12:12

Mr Chair—

Oh, Mr Chair. Sorry.

I want to move to clause 20, section 20 on amending “have regard to” to “take into account”, and I’m interested to hear the Minister in the chair’s reasoning for changing that wording specifically. I imagine the public will be as well, because I would have thought that “having regard to” would have been sufficient enough rather than having to “take into account”.

Can the Minister provide examples of circumstances where a recognised overseas regulator has approved a product, but the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries would have declined registration in New Zealand due to the previous clause that says “have regard to” rather than “take into account”? Because I think it’s important for us to understand why the Minister for Food Safety felt it so essential to change that.

Can the Minister also provide an example of a circumstance where a recognised overseas regulator has approved a product, but the director-general would have declined registration in New Zealand because of New Zealand - specific risks or concerns? Submitters raised concerns—and we did talk about this in our speeches—about the reliance on overseas assessments, that they might weaken New Zealand - specific scrutiny of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. I wonder if the Minister could tell us what safeguards exist within clause 20 to ensure that local ecological primary production and biosecurity considerations continue to take precedence where overseas assessments do not well reflect different climatic conditions or farming systems.

12:14

Thank you, Mr Chair. Apologies for misgendering you earlier—I hadn’t clocked the change in Chair. Just on Part 1, I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair on clause 21, so this is the new section 20A inserted, “Recognition of overseas regulators for purposes of section 20(aa)”. Slightly different questions to my colleague Jo Luxton.

My first question is in new section 20A(1) it says that “The Director-General may declare that a person in another jurisdiction is a recognised overseas regulator for the purposes of section 20(aa).” I’m interested in this use of the word “person”, and I’d be grateful if the Minister could put on the Hansard for us what the definition of a person is. What this this clause does—for those watching at home—is it allows New Zealand to recognise that another jurisdiction has approved a compound or a medicine and therefore make the same application in New Zealand. But I am interested in that use of the word “person” as opposed to an agency or an organisation or Government organisation. Or is it a broader use of the word “person”, so the word “person” as opposed to a named individual or a named role? So it could be the name of someone who is the senior person in a regulator similar to what is in this law, which is the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries is the person making the decisions. Or is it a broader use of the word “person”, as in a legal personhood type situation? I just would like to get some clarity on that particular part.

Then I just had some questions around (3A), which is the new piece added in by the Primary Production Committee, which states that “The Director-General must review the declaration at intervals not exceeding 10 years.” I’m just interested in why 10 years was chosen as the time frame, not a shorter time frame of, say, five years. Ten years does seem like a lengthy time frame for that review of a declaration to be determined. I’d just be interested in some explanations from the Minister about whether other time frames were considered and why 10, because it does seem to be quite a lengthy period of time. Thank you.

12:17

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I just want to move on to new section 8AA(5), added by clause 10: “The Director-General may grant an exemption under this section only if (a) the Director-General has done everything reasonably practicable to consult the organisations that the Director-General considers represent the persons who will or may be affected by the exemption;”.

We’ve got a little bit of subjectivity into the piece of legislation. I guess a clear explanation, given that the cost estimate—as the Minister in the chair said before—is one based on the cost to the applicant, not the cost to anyone else, so that’s a somewhat subjective judgement. Then we move on to practicability—that’s one—and then the persons who may be affected. There are three critical areas of assessment that this bill will allow as making change on the basis that it makes more efficient the process of application, but in my view opens the door to further risk. “Everything reasonably practicable” in a changing role of communication is something that maybe the Minister can give us an answer to what she considers as “practicable”.

Then “the persons who will or may be affected”: is that just the present farmers or horticulturalists, is it just the company that has made the application, or is it the distribution system that will, I guess, sell this? Or is it indeed future farmers who may be affected by some impact on the country’s reputation because we’ve made a mistake, or that there’s an MRL—maximum residue level—assessment that needs to be undertaken.

So my questions for the Minister are around “practicable” as a term and then the definition or who should decide “the persons who will be affected” that would allow an exemption.

12:19

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will start with the contributions from Steve Abel regarding whether or not the definition of herbicides are captured within the definitions of “agricultural compounds”. I can confirm that, yes, herbicides are captured as they are a subset of pesticides.

The second contribution from Steve Abel was in regards to substances being registered versus non-registered for specific purposes, and if a label doesn’t capture a specific use, would it not be covered by the Act? The note that I have from my officials is that salt is a great example to be used here. So salt is a known risk. However, the bill does not change that, but it would manage that, I guess, if it was registered for that particular use. But we don’t need to register salt or everything.

So the next contribution, then, was from Rachel Boyack, and she asked for the definition of “person”. Look, this is a well understood legal term. It applies to legal persons. I’d refer the member to the Legislation Act, where she’ll find the specific mention there. Rachel Boyack also referred to safeguards for biosecurity. The safeguards for biosecurity remain unchanged by this bill.

Jo Luxton then had a contribution in regards to “have regard to” versus “take into account”. I’m advised that this was actually a response that came through by the Primary Production Committee rather than the Government. My understanding is that this was changed through responding to submitters’ concerns, and in part recommendation 2 of the departmental report, where “take into account” puts beyond doubt that the director-general must actively consider all relevant information, including assessments of recognised overseas regulators when evaluating the risks and benefits of a product. It does not require the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to accept the overseas regulator’s conclusions, but this change clarifies that applicable overseas assessments must be considered alongside all other relevant statutory matters.

The subsequent question was: can MPI reach a different decision from an overseas regulator? Yes, I can confirm that is the case. MPI may reach a different conclusion where New Zealand law, evidence, or local conditions support a different decision.

12:22

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I’m trying to share it around.

Just for clarity, I only have the opportunity now to also respond to some of the questions by the Minister in the chair, in terms of my previous question. So I am going back just slightly.

Minister, you mentioned that it is up to the person or anyone who is doing the research in assessing, for obtaining further information regarding a particular scheme. Sorry, I am going to cause 5. It’s up to them, but can I just check that that also then includes that any assessment will have a risk assessment around cross contamination.

I’m going to just go forward a little bit. Now, picking up on what the Minister said before, I do want to check that when the Minister says “salt”, the Minister specifically refers to sodium chloride, because “salt”, as a basic ionic compound, could also potentially be toxic, right? We could have heavy metal salt. So I just want to double check that the Minister means sodium chloride.

We are asking a lot of questions here because there’s no regulatory impact statement for this bill. So a lot of the things and the risks that we are asking kind of manifested through the committee stage and this is the only chance we have to really engage with the Minister on this.

I really want to kind of tease out a particular example with the Minister regarding the exemption of class of agricultural compounds. This is new section 8AA(1), inserted by clause 10. Now, I want to acknowledge what the Hon Mark Patterson has said regarding some of the risks around this.

The example I want to give is, let’s say, for example, organochlorines. Although it’s a little bit outdated, it’s probably an area that most people are familiar with. This is something that we have seen reports here in New Zealand on, around the persistent organochlorines in our soil and air and water systems. They are considered a class of compound or agricultural compound. But each of them—so whether you’re looking at dioxins, whether you’re looking at PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, or whether you’re looking at the more commonly known dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, they interact differently. Again, their risk to the environment and to the human body also works differently.

So when the director-general exempted a class of agricultural compounds, are they required to know whether each of those individual potential compounds within that whole class would interact with the human body or with the environment, and how would they determine the long-term impact of some of those compounds? So, for example, it wasn’t until much later on that we saw some of the harmful aspects and the toxicity around DDT, and then it stopped being used. So it’s a long-term impact, and I think it’s also important to get clarification on, in terms of the exemption.

Finally, I want to check with the Minister—and I think this is something that the Hon Damien O’Connor kind of touched on—in terms of new section 8AA(5). But I actually want to focus on new section 8AA(6), because there seems to be a mechanism where the director-general can bypass the process for an exemption if it’s been granted urgently. But so far, from what I’ve heard—please correct me if I’m wrong—there’s been no clarification from the Minister on what then would be considered to be urgent by the director-general to be able to bypass that process under subclause 6.

So those are my three, maybe four, questions—if the Minister wouldn’t mind quickly clarifying the question on the salt as well.

12:26

Just a little question. I don’t have more questions until we get to clause 40, where I’ve got a number of tabled amendments. But relating to that is this word “sale”: in clause 9 here, new Subpart 2, “Main controls on importation, manufacture, sale, or use of agricultural compounds”, if we look at the definitions in the primary legislation, it says “sale includes barter, and also includes offering, exposing, or attempting to sell, or having in possession for sale, or sending or delivering for sale, or causing or allowing to be sold, offered, or exposed for sale; and also includes—”—and this is the interesting bit—“(a) delivering or disposing of by way of gift, loan, or otherwise; and (b) giving or distributing, in the course of business”—oh, that bit might have been deleted; I’m working off an old copy of the Act—“giving or distributing, in the course of business, as a sample or otherwise, without charge”.

The issue here is that that definition of “sale” is very wide and it includes things where there is no commercial exchange at all. So I was wondering if the Minister has considered or would consider an amendment to that “sale”, or wants to make some comment about why it is that that definition needs to be so wide. This is relevant to an amendment that I have in a later clause, in clause 40, about trying to use some language around where sale isn’t for commercial gain.

So just a general question on “sale” and “sale” being so wide to include giving away, which is not commercial, whether she thinks it would be better to change the definition so that “sale” is just about commercial gain, and then add in a gifting provision as well. Or if it’s for some reason more useful just to bundle the two up together—I just don’t understand the rationale for bundling up a non-commercial gifting with commercial sale. That’s the question there.

12:29

Thank you, Mr Chair. In regards to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about salt, which is my favourite contribution of the morning so far.

Aw!

I know, I know. Come on, guys, you gotta ask more questions about salt, clearly. No, this is a serious topic. This is about whether or not salt is defined as sodium chloride. Yes, yes, that was what my officials were talking about. Many compounds that can be used can simply be bought from supermarkets and we as a Government do not propose to regulate who can buy salt.

When it comes to the contribution from Damien O’Connor, he had questions in regards to consultation and what would be reasonably practicable for consultation and who are the persons who may be affected and consulted. Examples of what would be deemed reasonably practicable would be contact with peak bodies, public notification, and Ministry for Primary Industries stakeholder lists. “Affected persons” is a good-faith test with discretion in the same way as applies using the existing test within the Act.

Rachel Brooking then also had a contribution in regards to the definition of “sale”. She believes the definition is wide and would it be better to amend it? Look, the definition is wide because under the Food Act, people can try to use any excuse to bypass regulation by saying that they aren’t selling. We do not propose to amend this.

12:31

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on clause 20, the evaluation of risks and benefits—sorry, this is on page 12 of the bill if you’re looking—because this is such a critical part of the bill. I mean, my understanding is that there has been a change at the Primary Production Committee which is really beneficial in terms of more specific language being proposed here, changing “have regard to” to “take into account”, which we really support. But my question was about the director-general taking into account the recognised overseas regulators. I’m wondering in what ways does this replace or change existing requirements to evaluate risks and benefits explicitly in relation to manufacture and use in New Zealand? My understanding is that there are existing requirements and that that would be changed more directly for the director-general to take these into account. I’m really interested to understand that.

Then it goes on in clause 20 by inserting new section 20(aa), which requires these assessments from recognised overseas regulators when evaluating these risks. Are there specific frameworks or methodologies, I guess, that the director-general then takes to undertake this consideration, or are there sections in the bill where that is very clearly spelt out about what those methodologies or undertakings are?

Then my next question is on clause 21. This is the insertion of new section 20A. It talks about the declaration process itself, including public notification, consultation, and consideration of submissions. The whole point of that is presumably to ensure greater transparency. Some of our main concerns with this bill are that it does not specifically have any provisions for the consultation of iwi Māori. I’m interested in the public notification around that aspect. Is that purely a general public notification, or is there an ability within that for the director-general, for example, to assess what the actual implications are for the specific substance or compound and therefore then make some really clear decisions around that and specifications so that particular mana whenua or iwi and hapū could actually be specifically consulted on that, or is it simply a general public notification?

Then I’m interested in whether the provisions themselves within clause 20 allow sort of like automatic acceptance of overseas assessments or whether those are purely still a case by case basis. For example, we know how detailed these assessments often need to be. Sometimes we’re talking years and years of research and methodology to actually assess these things. Would there, for example, be a case for the director-general to do like a grouping or use an overseas regulator and set up more like a framework where they would say, for example, we would take this group of substances because they’ve all been approved by that company or whatever entity is actually involved?

Then finally, I’m interested in the reduction of duplication in terms of scientific assessments, particularly for, I guess, potentially less risky compounds, so like companion animal products or other non-food compounds. What are the different requirements based on the actual category? Like, do different categories have different methodologies that the director-general has to undertake or not? Thank you.

12:36

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Internal Affairs for her fulsome answers to our questions. My questions are related to clause 21 in a more broad sense with regard to recognition of overseas regulators. I’m just wondering if there’s been any thought given or analysis or thinking around whether the recognition of overseas regulators could disproportionately benefit larger multinational applicants that already hold overseas approvals compared to smaller New Zealand developers, Māori enterprises, and niche industries. Also how will the Government maintain and grow New Zealand’s domestic scientific capability if overseas assessments are used more extensively under the new regime, or is there a chance that overseas assistance may well be used more extensively? How will this bill improve biological products developed in New Zealand, particularly where these products do not already have approvals from recognised overseas regulators?

12:37

Thank you. Look, I’ll take the contributions by Lan Pham first. In relation to consultation with iwi Māori and regarding general consultation or whether it will be specific, the Government, including the Ministry for Primary Industries, does its best to identify stakeholders, which includes Māori.

Lawrence Xu-Nan then had a contribution regarding organochlorines. A number of organochlorines are prohibited to be manufactured, imported, sold, or used as agricultural compounds under Schedule 1 in the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines exemptions and prohibited substances regulations.

In regards to the other contribution by Lan Pham about whether or not overseas decisions would be accepted automatically or if it’s done on a case by case basis, no, the bill does not provide for automatic acceptance of an overseas assessment or approval. It would still need to be done on a case by case basis.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also had a query about clause 8AA(6) and what is considered urgent when bypassing the exemption clauses. This would be for biosecurity situations as an example. He also queried classes of compounds and whether or not the director-general is required to understand how every effect of a compound would work in this particular class. Understanding of the class of compounds is in terms of a—I’m sorry, I can’t actually read that particular bit of writing, so I’ll come back to that.

I will come back to clause 5. Will there be a risk assessment for cross-contamination? Cross-contamination is considered as part of the risk assessment in relation to the risks under the Act.

12:39

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the conversation we’re having now around how we practically implement the recognition of overseas regulators, because this is an important question, and it did come up in part at the Primary Production Committee around the risks to regulatory sovereignty for us of the extent to which we take on board determinations made in other jurisdictions. One of the obvious challenges, which the Minister hasn’t yet clarified for us, not that it’s necessarily been specifically asked, is that where we have these recognised overseas regulators—and I think it would be useful for the committee if the Minister could outline who those recognised overseas regulators are, which specific regulators she is talking about. But they don’t agree on how a particular compound should be regulated.

One very obvious example, and it’s useful that the Minister has pointed out that herbicides and pesticides are covered by this legislation, is the one I mentioned in my opening speech, atrazine. Atrazine is a substance which is legally used in the United States. It is banned in the European Union. Now, that’s an existing example. It’s legally used in New Zealand, so we are taking the lowest bar on regulation of that substance, and we are an outlier in terms of the 40 nations around the world that have actually banned the use of that substance.

My question is: will we, in accepting the determination of an overseas regulator, take the one with the highest bar or will we take the one with the lowest bar? That seems to me to be a very important question as to whom we are taking most into account in deregulation of scrutiny over some of these chemicals and substances. That’s my first question.

The other question I have, and I’m not exactly sure where it fits, but I think it probably could be in these sections 20 and 20A, and perhaps the Minister can expand on this, is: do these amendments have any determination or opinion on the processes around removal of toxic chemicals from the existing register of approved substances? The reason I ask that is because one of the strong cases made for this liberalisation of the regulatory framework is that it will facilitate our access to supposedly less harmful and less toxic substances and so-called biologicals. But the corollary of that is: are we reducing the number of toxic substances in that list of available ones or are we just adding to it? Thank you.

12:43

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to move on to clause 40, but I know that my friend Lawrence Xu-Nan has probably got more questions based on fifth-form chemistry—that’s ageing me, not him—

We’re going through the whole periodic table today, guys.

—on earlier parts of the bill.

Anyway, on to clause 40. This is the big—oh, I think it’s the biggest—new clause. It’s a big insertion, and it’s where we are—earlier on, there’s been a repeal of the provisions relating to provisional registration, and this provisional registration concept is now being replaced with these consents under clause 40. Those are “Consent to import, etc and use agricultural compounds for research and other purposes”.

There’s been a little bit of back and forth over the past week, and we’ve seen that from New Zealand First, with tabled amendments that have now disappeared—not on the Table anymore, mysteriously untabled. Is that a word—“untabled” amendments?

Disappeared.

I’ll allow it.

I’m hearing from the Hon Mark Patterson that they’ve disappeared. However, I had had a look at them and I’ve had a look at the Greens’ amendments as well, and it seems that there is this concern that this “Consent to import, etc” is not used as a back door to avoid the full registration process that we’ve been talking about, and that is the registration process for those trade name products. Everybody seems to agree that the process for trade name products is a big, robust process, and most of the changes aren’t about that big, robust process; they’re about this. My understanding is that these consents that were called “provisional registration” are really for research, and they are very much to work out whether or not you’re going to want to take a product through that big, robust process that I’ve just been talking about.

My first amendment, which is actually the last amendment in my little packet of tabled amendments, is to change the cross-heading. The cross-heading reads, “Consent to import, etc and use agricultural compounds for research and other purposes”, and I have put in the word “related” before “purposes” so it’s “and other related purposes”. This is just a very small amendment to try and demonstrate that these consents are not a back door for the big process and that they are very much for that research and other related purposes, not just other purposes. At the moment, the cross-heading is just “other purposes”, which could be very wide. You could argue that it’s constrained by having the word “research” in front of it, but by putting in the word “related”, as my tabled amendment does—and that was tabled on 17 September at 6.50.06 p.m.—then it would lead to some constraint.

I would like to talk to my other amendments as well, but I’ll start with that one and let the Minister know that my general approach to these amendments has not been to disrupt the whole scheme of the bill or anything like that. I note that Miles Anderson, in his second reading speech, queried why Labour was doing any amendments when, supposedly, he said, we’d voted for the select committee to have a short time—

You did.

We did not. He might want to consider that and he might want to come back and apologise, because I have checked the voting record.

My point is that we are not trying to undermine the legislation, but we are trying to give some comfort to people who are concerned that this consent process could be a back door. It’s not a back door. It’s not intended to be a back door. That is why I’ve suggested some tweaks, and this is the first of those tweaks. Thank you.

12:47

I will tick off the last one I had for Lawrence Xu-Nan before he gets on to another one.

Any chemicals involved?

Well, it was about classes of compounds. Yes. This was in regards to the director-general—is the director-general required to understand how every effect of the compounds happens in a class? Understanding of the class of compounds is in terms of the risks that need to be considered under the Act—is the answer to that query.

In regards to Jo Luxton’s contributions about overseas assessments—could these favour particular multinationals over New Zealand companies? It’s, I don’t believe, quite that simple. Overseas assessments do go both ways. They also benefit New Zealand companies that have done research overseas.

There’s also been a contribution in regards to the overseas assessments, once again, in regards to whether or not they favour a multinational over New Zealand. The system is available to any company, and there are potentially many companies not considered to be multinational that could utilise the system as well.

Steve Abel had a contribution regarding the overseas regulators and what bar we would reach, really, if there were different conclusions. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) will consider each relevant assessment in relation to the New Zealand situation, and MPI will then make its own decisions under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

Rachel Brooking has mentioned a multitude of amendments that may be coming, however managed to mainly talk about one. We do thank the member for her amendments. As a Government, we have considered all of them, but, unfortunately for the member, we will not be supporting them, as they do not make material improvements to the bill.

12:49

I see the Government members want to close down the debate just as we’re coming to the amendments. But I wonder what New Zealand First will do—if they will vote for a closure motion—after we have heard from the Hon Mark Patterson that this bill is very important and needs close scrutiny. Yet, his Amendment Papers have disappeared. I, of course, am thankful that the Minister has had officials check, look at my amendments, and I’m disappointed that they will not consider them when they are trying to respond to this discomfort. There is time to do them, and that one that I just mentioned is a very small, discreet change.

Anyway, if she’s not going to make the change, can she put on the Hansard what she thinks the scope of “other purposes” is? That is important; that’s why I put “related purposes” in. Can she comment on that? That’s my first question.

Then I will go to a second question, and it also relates to one of my amendments. These are all tabled, Minister. I think you said you might being seeing them; they’ve been on the Table and came in last night.

The next one would at new section 35AA, “Application”, which would be inserted by clause 40. So “a person may apply to the Director-General to—”

What’s the time stamp on that Amendment Paper?

17 September, 6.50.05. And it’s referring to the word “sell”. So you’re applying for to consent to import, manufacture, or sell—and I’ve got an amendment there that would say “sell for commercial gain”. That is because we’ve already discussed the definition of “sale”, and that can include gifting. So it’s just really to make the point of why you would be applying for one of these. That may be the wrong place for the amendment; I am no way saying that these are perfect amendments, but that is the point there—she can consider that. I’m more interested in this scope of “other purposes”.

Then we can go to other amendments as well. We have this clause 40 works through the application, the notification of that application, and the period within which that application can be decided, and then there is a decision on the application. I have some amendments around this, just because I think the wording could be clearer. But again, the Minister may provide some Hansard that could be useful on these issues.

So looking at new section 35AAD, which would be inserted by clause 40, that is decision on application. This is on page 21 of the bill. At (1), “the Director-General must identify the risks”—that seems very sensible; I’ve got no changes there. Then at (2), it says “The Director-General must grant the application if the Director-General is satisfied about the risks”. Risks are defined subsequently.

The issue here is the “must grant”. There appears to be no flip side, no requirement that the Minister doesn’t grant at (2). We turn over the page and see at (3), “However, the Director-General must not grant” if it requires a hazardous substance approval.

So what happens if you don’t require—not you, Mr Chair—if the applicant does not require a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) approval, so (3) does not apply, and we go back to (2), where is the ability for the director-general to not grant?

I’ve proposed some wording that—what is the wording? “Can only grant”—some change like that. Yes, “may only grant”—and this is at Amendment Paper, date stamped 17 September 2026 at 6.50.04 p.m., and that is just to provide a flip side. There might be another method to have a flip where the HSNO application is irrelevant. So it would be useful for the Minister at least to comment on why that’s not needed and whether or not—where those criteria are not met that that means that the director-general does not have to grant the—

12:54

I’d like to tick off a range of contributions. Firstly, to Rachel Brooking, in regards to her Amendment Paper about scope and what is the scope of “other purposes” under new section 35AAD(2)(a). The provision recognises that research and information gathering may support a range of legitimate purposes beyond registration. For example, a company may wish to compare a product it does not intend to register against another product that it intends to register. The activity must still be for research or information gathering and meet the requirements of the Act.

In regards to her other contribution around new section 35AA and the wording of “sell”. The member is quite right to recognise that we have ticked off the definitions of “sale”, and I would refer her to my previous answer. The proposed amendment by the member could increase risks to the bill by opening up a loophole.

Steve Abel also had a contribution that we hadn’t quite covered about toxic pesticides. The risk assessment takes into the level of risk of a product on a case-by-case basis. The Act provides for ability to reassess any registration of trade-named products.

Rachel Brooking also asked what happens if the applicant does not require a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act approval, can the director-general approve it? There is no requirement for the director-general to grant consent if the test is not met. So we believe that the law is sufficiently covered through this bill without amendment.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

Members, the committee is resumed on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Before the lunch break, we were debating Part 1; it’s the debate on clauses 4 to 76, which are the main amendments. I note from the previous work that’s been done in the committee, we’re around about clause 40 on page 20—is that about where we got to? Rachel Brooking is nodding. So the question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

14:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I’m on clause 40; some other people might be still getting up to clause 40.

That’s cool. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan will tell me where he’s up to when he gets up to his call.

He will—he will, indeed, won’t he? But I’m on clause 40. Before the lunch break, the Minister was being helpful with assuaging some of my concerns that I’d been trying to fix via Amendment Paper, and he’d been doing it by responses to me on the Hansard. That is very useful.

I have talked about my amendment to talk about selling for commercial gain, and it might be that I’ve put that in the wrong place, and I can do a Mark Patterson and withdraw my tabled amendment. What I would very much like to hear from the Minister in the chair, though, is about the comfort given to these consents that are not the big robust consents, these are the research consents, that they’re unlikely to be sold for commercial gain. That is what I’m looking for some comfort for: that you wouldn’t expect the research consent to be finding that at the shop to buy; it may be that the person who’s applying for the application will have to have a number of different people using the product to do the research, and to get people to use the product they might have to give them the product to use, and under the definition of “sale”, that counts, but what I’m worried about and what I’m seeking some reassurance on is that these research consents made under this clause 40 won’t be used to sell things for commercial gain, because that would seem to be the process that you’d use for the bigger section 21 of the Act process—the full application, the full robust process. That is one question.

Then, if I move on—also, just on that selling, noting, also, at new section 35AAD of the Act, inserted by clause 40 of the bill, “Decision on application”, it again uses that word “sold”. “The Director-General must grant the application … by imposing conditions on the consent that ensure that—(a) neither of the following is sold, released, or used in any way … other than those for which the consent is granted:”. I don’t understand why it would be sold for commercial gain under this type of application. I understand, obviously, it would be sold for commercial gain under an application made under section 20 of the Act. I thank the member earlier in the chair, who said that the director-general does not have to grant the consent if those conditions are not met; that was useful.

I go over the page, and look at risks. Risks include “(a) risks to public health: (b) risks to trade … : (c) risks to agricultural security: (d) risks to the welfare of animals … [and] (e) risks to domestic food residue standards.” Now, the risks there—this is at new subsection (5)—at (b), (c), (d), and (e) match the purpose of the Act, although they don’t mention consumer information, but paragraph (a) does not; (a) is not found in that purpose of the Act, and that is “risks to public health:”. I believe it’s to do with antimicrobial resistance and there being some gaps in the legislation, so I’m not complaining about “risks to public health:” being in that list, but the issue is around whether or not we could include “environment”, but environment that is not already considered under the hazardous substances and new organisms (HSNO) legislation. I know, and I accept that, if a permission is required under HSNO, then that process will take care of the environment. But what if there is some environmental effect that could relate to trade and primary production, that could relate to animal welfare, could relate to agricultural security? Surely that is a risk that should also be determined. It might be that the Minister wants to say, on the Hansard, “Well, they’re already covered by the risk to trade at (b).”, because, obviously, any risk to the environment is therefore a risk to trade. So is that something that this process looks at, and, if not, how far does it go?

Those are two questions: one on when you would—Madam Chair?

The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Yep, I’ll just be very quick for these two questions. The question is: is something that gets a consent ever likely to be sold for commercial gain? Can you give us some comfort that that is not what the research is for? The second question is: in these risks, can we include a risk to the environment that’s not assessed by HSNO; or can he give us some comfort that where trade or agricultural security relates to the environment, that that risk will already be considered under (b), (c), and (d)? Thank you.

14:06

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a reasonably quick question for the Minister with regard to clause 33, “Section 30A amended (Suspension of registration)”.

Now, it says, “The Director-General may suspend the registration of a registered trade name product, for a period of up to”—up to—“3 months, if the Director-General has reasonable grounds to believe that—(a) a condition imposed on the registered trade name product is not being complied with; or (b) the registered trade name product poses a risk to public health, trade in primary produce, animal welfare, or agricultural security.” A period of up to three months doesn’t seem like an awful lot if this product poses a risk to public health, trade, animal welfare, or agricultural security. It then goes on to say, “The effect of a suspension [etc., etc.] … or use the relevant trade name product during the period of suspension, except as authorised by the Director-General … If satisfied that it is necessary in the circumstances, the Director-General may extend the period of suspension once”—once—“for a further period not exceeding 3 months that the Director-General notifies to the registrant in writing before the original suspension expires.”

I’m really interested in that three-month specific time frame, because if something poses a risk to public health, why would there be a period time frame put on something? If something poses a risk and there needs to be something more looked into it, it could well be that it’s going to take a heck of a lot longer than three months to sort out. And then if it is decided that it needs to continue, it can only be for another three months. I’m interested in understanding what the purpose is of the three-month specific time frame is.

14:08

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in regards to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking—“Does the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act consider environmental risk?”—the Act has a specific set of purposes that does not include considering or managing environmental risk; environmental risks from hazardous substances and new organisms are managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act.

Further question: “Does the ACVM Act consider public health risk and not environment?” The risk to public health was not in the original Act; it was added later based on a gap between the Health and HSNO Acts on managing certain public health risk associated with agricultural compounds. The main concern was antimicrobial resistance from use of ag compounds, mainly veterinary medicines, and crossover resistance to humans impacting on human medicines. There has never been a similar issue identified for environment—i.e., the HSNO Act manages this appropriately.

In reply to the question about new section 35AAD, inserted by clause 40, “Why wouldn’t it be sold?” Noting we’ve already answered this question: the director-general can specify non-sale as a condition. Further answer to the question around will the consents be sold for commercial gain, noting, again—repeating an answer given previously—I’m comfortable the research consents won’t be used inappropriately.

Won’t be?

Won’t be.

And, a further answer to a question previously answered on new section 35AAB: could we include environmental effect not covered by HSNO? We wouldn’t want to introduce confusion around what ACVM Act manages; it’s not about environmental risk.

Steve Abel. Just noting that we’ve just received some further amendments from you.

14:10

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate that, Madam Chair.

The Minister now has those.

Yeah, thank you. I wasn’t yet going to speak to those, but—

That’s alright. I just wanted to note that, just to say they’ve arrived on the desk.

Bam! I have a very excellent executive support person assisting me.

It’s on this very subject, Minister, and I appreciate you expanding that. So my interpretation of the reason in clause 33, section 30A amended, that in (1)(b) it lists “public health, trade in primary produce, animal welfare, or agricultural security.” but does not list the environment. What I think you’ve just outlined to us is because if there are environmental issues, and for example, an agricultural compound that could turn out to be eco-toxic, for example, i.e. it’s not a human health risk, but it’s an environmental risk; are you clarifying for us that that would be managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) even though that same compound, say a pesticide, is covered by the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act as well? I think that’s what you’ve just told us. But if you could just triple clarify, that would be good. Because my question was why isn’t environmental in there? If you’re assuring us that it’s captured by the HSNO, then I feel that question is allayed.

My other question, which is an extension—a different question, but an expansion on a question my colleague Jo Luxton just asked. A registered trade name product can be suspended for three months if the director-general has reasonable grounds that conditions have not been complied with, and then in clause 33(3) it says that suspension will mean that “no person may import, manufacture, sell, or use the relevant trade name product...”. That seems like a very blunt tool, and I’m trying to understand what are the probable contexts in which no person would be allowed to use something that had not been complied with by some person, if you understand what I mean. I’m imagining an instance where one user of that product is misusing it, and then the director-general only has the ability to stop everybody from using it. Because if you read the condition in subclause (3) it then says once the suspension is put in place, no person can use it.

I just want to understand if there’s any nuance and the ability of the director-general to prohibit use by certain persons or entities, but not prohibit use by everybody. Because it seems to me that that’s a very broad and blunt tool, and I can’t quite imagine the circumstance in which misuse of the product means that the most appropriate response would be that no one can use it. I can understand if there’s new information that indicates that particular product is a risk to public health broadly, in which case you do want to suspend it for everybody.

14:13

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are just a few questions before clause 40 that I want to just tidy up with the Minister based on Minister’s previous response. So I’ll be quick and then I’ll move on to clause 40.

The first one is—thank you to the Minister for your previous response regarding clause 10, section 8AA. My last question over here is whether any exemptions will require an active review by the director-general? Or is it only if someone complains about the particular exemption of a compound or any class of compound that there would be a trigger of whether that exemption is necessary?

I’m going to move now on to clause 18(4). I want to check when we’re looking at the waiver for the notification here, if it’s something that is urgent, would a notification soon need to be given retrospectively?

I now move on to clause 31 and this is regarding trade name products. So clause 31(4). When we’re looking at trade name product, can I just double check that a trade name needs to be a trade name that is registered here in New Zealand or is it any trade name, and what jurisdiction would count in terms of trade name or via international—like a trade name register or through other trade-related intellectual property scheme or trips?

Thank you to the Minister for your response on clause 33(1) on suspension. I understand that if a director-general suspends for three months because something hasn’t been complied with that the suspension may lift when it is complied with. But I want to check how would the director-general, within three months, assess the risk to public health and be able to lift that suspension within three months, or even with the extension of another three months. Does it mean that if the director-general found that there is a risk to public health within that three months or one of the three-month extensions, then that registration is cancelled altogether?

Now I am going to move on to clause 40, but I’m only just going to ask one question right now for clause 40, but signalling to you, Madam Chair, that I will be going from clause 40 onwards from here. The question I have is on section 35AAD(5) inserted by clause 40. So this is starting at line 14 on page 22. Over here it does list some of the risks in relation to agricultural compounds. I want to double check that in subclause (5)(b) the “risks to trade and market access…” would also apply to, for example, our New Zealand-European free-trade agreement or other multilateral trade agreements with Europe. They have requirements around organic certification that that potential—either cross contamination, or, etc.—would not affect our ability to continue on with that organic certification, and that is built in as part of the risk to trade and market access as well. Thank you.

14:17

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question from Steve Abel, would environmental risk be managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act? Yes, both Acts apply to the compounds.

In regards to the Hon Jo Luxton’s question around suspension of registration and why only a three-month suspension. This matches the existing time frame in the Act and the clause expands the reasons for suspensions.

14:18

Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the sale point, the Minister said it’s been answered several times; it has not. My question was: can he explain why there would be, ever, any commercial sale of something that is being used for research? And he said, “Oh, well it’s been answered a lot of times.” It hasn’t. And then he said he’s sure it won’t be used inappropriately. So by saying “inappropriate”, does he mean that there won’t be a commercial use of it? Can he just explain to us why there needs to be provision for commercial use in a consent that we’ve heard is to be restrained and only used for research? So that’s one question.

Then my second question is in answer to his question about risks. He went back to the purpose of the Act, and I’m well aware of the purpose of the Act, and says it doesn’t provide for the environment, but that wasn’t my question. Well, one of my questions was would you like to include it? But the other question was those risks that are already in the bill and in the purpose of the Act, can they consider the environment when looking at them with a wider lens? So one of the risks is risks to trade and market access for primary produce. I would see a risk for trade would be if there was some environmental harm considered, caused by something that was having one of these research consents. Can that be considered or is he saying that risk to trades needs to be narrowly interpreted? That is my question about environment and risks.

I’ll move on to another amendment that I had, and that relates, still on clause 40, to new section 35AAE, “Duration of consent”. The issue here is that the director-general must be satisfied that the period is “sufficient only to achieve the purpose of the consent”—that is a useful clause. The next one is about extending that time frame, but there is not a maximum for the duration of the consent. And my understanding of these types of consents are that they are, normally, for about one or two years and that they would very, very rarely, or it would be exceptional for them to, go past five years.

I have a tabled amendment that a inserts a maximum of five years or no more than five years. So would the Minister consider that amendment about including a maximum? That is the amendment that was tabled on 17 September, at 6.50.02, and the wording is “to insert after (b), ‘(c) must be less than five years.’ ” The point there is just to put on a maximum. As I’ve been saying throughout my contributions, we’re just trying to give some comfort to people that these consents won’t be misused; they’re not a back door.

My final amendment that I have not yet talked to relates to the reassessment of consent. So if we go to clause 40, new section 35AAH, it is “Reassessment of consent”, and it’s that if there is significant new information, then the director-general may, after consultation, decide to reassess. So that is at the discretion of the director-general and it’s based on significant new information. And so I have an amendment—I think it would be useful to discuss this as well—that if there was a significant risk that appears after the consent is granted, whilst during the duration of the consent, then I think it should be incumbent on the director-general to review or reassess that consent.

I have an amendment that does that as well. That is tabled amendment 17 September, again, at 6.50.01. It is to insert at new section 35AAH a new (1)(a)—so that’s after the clause that I’ve just been talking about—that says “the Director-General must reassess the agricultural compound to which consent applies if, in the opinion of the Director-General, the risk can no longer be adequately managed by the conditions on the consent.” So I’ve used some language that’s used elsewhere in the bill, but the key thing there is that it’s a “must”—the director-general “must” reassess if these risks are not being adequately managed. I would be very happy for that to be some different tests: stronger than “adequately managed”; it could be “if the risk is significant”, or some wording like that. But it’s just to make sure that that reassessment happens.

If the Government is not of a mind to accept my amendment, as seems to have been the way, then it would be useful for the Minister to comment on how he considers that discretion, in paragraph (1) of new section 35AAH, to be used, and what he expects would happen if the research suddenly identifies some large risk, but the consent is continuing—what should happen to their consent. I’m hoping that the Minister will say that it would be his expectation that it would be reassessed and that there is an ability to do that reassessment and that that’s the expectation. At the moment, it’s a discretion, and if it’s a significant risk, noting that, you know, this type of consent isn’t going through the robust process that a registered compound is going through; it’s just going through a lesser test, which is appropriate because it’s for research. But if he could comment on that as well.

So just to remind the Minister, four things: the first one was on sale: when could it possibly be used for commercial gain? The second one was on risk: with those existing risks to trade, can we incorporate the environment into that or is it a narrow reading of risk to trade? That was my second one. My third one was: would he consider putting a maximum on the duration of the consent. And then, my fourth one: is this a requirement for a mandatory reassessment of consent.

14:25

Thank you, Madam Chair. An answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions: do any exemptions require active review or is it just after complaints? The director-general (DG) can reassess the consent if new information becomes available; new information can be from any source.

Another answer to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: if a suspension is three months, how can the director-general assist risk within three months? Yes, the DG can assess the risk within three months. There is also the potential to extend the suspension for another period of up to three months if the assessment is not finished.

In regards to Rachel Brooking’s question, if research identifies large risk, would the consent be reassessed? Yes. Reconsideration of a consent: should the DG reassess this if there is new information? Yes, this provision mirrors that in the existing Act.

And then there’s another lot of questions to be answered from the Hon Rachel Brooking: would you consider environmental harm a risk to trade? I believe this might have been previously answered. Environmental harm is managed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

A further answer to the Hon Rachel Brooking: is commercial gain an appropriate use? If someone sells a product subject to consent, they breach the conditions, which would have implications for enforcement. A further answer to the question of whether a maximum of five years for research purposes is agreeable: noting this has been answered previously, I considered this amendment and I don’t think it substantially improves the bill.

In response to Steve Abel’s question: why is no person able to use a product that has been suspended? No person can use it except as authorised by the director-general. A single misuse by a user would not be considered grounds for suspension. However, if the product was causing significant issues, for example animal welfare, where the product has been used appropriately, then this would be a reason for suspending.

In answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan questions around risk to trade and market access and whether it is considered around organic certification: organic certification is managed under the organics Act. And to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question: does trade name product mean any product overseas, too? Trade name product means something within New Zealand.

14:28

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, I’m very acutely aware that we’ve moved on to the 30s and 40s in this part, but I appreciate you mentioning that I’ve tabled some amendments. I believe I can cover them off pretty quickly in a single call and I won’t speak to all of them, but I’ll speak to some of the key ones. They are in earlier clauses in this part. For clause 22, my proposal is that we insert a requirement that the director-general “must consider the cumulative, synergistic, and long-term effects of the agricultural compound in the application, including its interaction with other agricultural compounds and contaminants.” Now, this is really bringing to light, I guess, our greater contemporary awareness of the extent to which agrichemicals interact with each other to create cocktail toxins that may be much worse than those chemicals alone, and that that should be part of the consideration under clause 22.

In clause 21, furthermore, not unrelated, I’m proposing to insert, in new section 20A(3)(d), “the person will consider in their assessment any New Zealand - specific conditions, including differences in climate, soil, waterways, native species, agricultural practices, animal husbandry, food consumption patterns, exposure pathways, residue standards, antimicrobial resistance, biodiversity impacts, and Māori interests and mātauranga Māori.”

That serves the purpose of being very clear of what I think the public should have as an expectation they are sure has been considered in making evaluations that can use determinations made in other jurisdictions. I think laying out these issues makes it very clear that there’s an expectation that those unique factors to our environment and our native biodiversity—for example, and mātauranga Māori—are part of that consideration, hence that proposed amendment.

Further, in clause 21, I’m proposing, in new section 20A(2), that after “class of agricultural compounds” we insert “excluding genetically modified agricultural compounds”. Now, this cuts to the challenge of us having two Acts that manage both the pesticides, the herbicides, the toxic components and the environmental components through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act), and the genetically modified components through the HSNO Act, but they interact with the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM Act), and the environmental component of a chemical or a substance or a compound is supposedly managed through HSNO, but, actually, those very chemicals and compounds and substances are in the ACVM Act.

So for absolute clarity, for the public and for the regulator, the genetically modified agricultural compounds should only be managed through the HSNO Act. That would be the effect of this clause. The reason for it is that we have a specific example of this in a field trial of an agricultural compound that is a double-stranded RNA that was approved through HSNO and the Environmental Protection Authority but has potentially interacted with other components—it’s classified as a compound in the ACVM Act. So for clarity—

We’ve had this explained.

Pardon me?

Sorry.

For clarity, I think it would be beneficial if there’s an explicit exclusion in this Act so that there’s no doubt that it if there is a genetically modified compound, it’s managed by the HSNO Act.

In fact, I won’t speak to my other clauses, because I’m aware we’re moving on, but those are the main ones that I’d appreciate a response from the Minister on in terms of those tabled amendments. Thank you very much.

Just noting that when the Minister did answer that last group of questions, some of them had been answered before, so I think we want to—and I know there was some clarifications. But in general—I’m not just pointing to your questions; I’m talking about the questions in general—we really have got to the point where we need to be specific in terms of the uncertainties just because it’s had a select committee. So I think we want to move quite succinctly through the rest of this.

14:33

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do agree with your point that it has had a select committee, and we were interested that one Government party then put up some amendments to it that have since been removed, so that shows that there is a bit of tension—

I get that, and I hear the depth of the questions. I just think that we need to start moving to the specific things that haven’t been covered in select committee.

Yes. It would be useful if the Minister didn’t just repeat what the bill says. But I will go forward. Because I’ve been asking for—

The bill says what the bill says.

That’s right—that’s right. The Minister is doing a great job. I’ve got nothing against the Hon Mike Butterick there. But he did say—again, the selling and the commercial gain. Can he give me any examples of where a consent for research would have conditions enabling commercial gain? Do we need to be setting up a system which enables commercial gain for research consents? Or is that something that is farfetched and is not anticipated or is not common, or it would be very heavy regulated or something, because I’m just still worried—he said it won’t be used inappropriately, but I still haven’t heard him say that it’s not his expectation that these compounds that only had the research consent would be being sold, rather than the other permission. So that’s the first question.

And then he did answer: he said the five-year expectation doesn’t help—the five-year maximum to the duration doesn’t help the bill; some words to that effect. Can he give the committee—again, just looking for comfort—any examples or can he give his expectation, really, of whether the norm of these consents which are currently called provisional registrations, being for one or two years—does he expect them to go beyond the five years that I proposed or is there the expectation that they will still mainly be for one or two years and are unlikely to go beyond five years? So if you can just give a little bit more on those two points, that would be very helpful, I think, for the Hansard. They are my points.

14:36

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question from Steve Abel about new section 20A(2), in relation to the class of products inserting genetically modified, the bill does not change the regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms. I can reassure the member of that.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question regarding waiver of notification and whether a notification will be given retrospectively: if the waiver was given urgently, no.

And to Steve Abel’s question around cumulative impact of the compound when assessing, noting this has been previously answered, environmental impacts are not regulated under this legislation; negative environmental impacts are regulated by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

In regards to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question regarding consents post five years, no, it is not my expectation that any consent would go for that long. In answer to another one of Rachel Brooking’s questions, the example of a consent allowing sale for commercial gain, officials assure me they are not aware of any examples where consents—provisional registration, in the old money—have resulted in sale for commercial gain.

14:37

In that case, why does commercial gain need to be provided for in clause 40 for these new consents, these research consents, which are the swap out for the provisional registration? So he’s just told us provisional registration has never been for commercial gain. That gives me a lot of comfort, and I thank him for the answer. But then the question is, well, why do we have these provisions about sale in front of us, and if it’s only for non-commercial sale, then why can’t we say it’s only for non-commercial sale—that is, the gifting of products or the distribution of products? So that’s just the tidy-off that I’d appreciate. Thank you.

I’m going to take a very quick question from Rachel Boyack, only because I believe that the Minister is just waiting for an answer for that question. But we are coming to the end.

14:38

Just on that very point, just further—it’s actually a really important clarification. Just to add to what my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has asked, we understand that a lot of these provisions are literally a copy-paste from the existing Act, and changing from that provisional registration to a consent. My specific question about it is: is that commercial gain reference in the existing law or is that a new terminology that’s been added in the updated legislation? If it is, then it would be wise if there is no suggestion from officials that this could actually occur, for it to not be in there. If it is currently there, and that’s never actually happened, then, again, it would be wise to remove it.

So I just wanted to bring together the conversation about the fact that this is essentially a copy-paste from existing legislation. But we think it’s something that has actually been missed through that select committee process and needs addressing.

14:39

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A bonus question!

A bonus question! Well, I’ve just picked these up off the Table and now given them to my whip—Mr Abel has introduced a lot of tabled amendments—

Which I mentioned about 20 minutes ago.

Yes, yes. I thank the Chair for mentioning all of his tabled amendments. We did think, when you, Madam Chair, mentioned the tabled amendments, that it might mean that the Minister for Food Safety had put up a tabled amendment—

No, when Steve Abel stood up to take a call, I specifically told Mr Abel that his amendments were now on our desk.

Oh, see, I missed that bit.

You did miss that bit!

I ran to the Table to see if there was a new amendment—

I’m noting also that the Minister looks like he might be ready. If this is only a quick clarification about Mr Abel’s tabled amendments—

That’s exactly what it is.

Right. Thank you. The honourable Minister.

14:40

Thank you, Madam Chair. In answer to the Hon Rachel Brooking, why do we have provisions for sale if there’s never been an example. This clause is a safety net in case the situation ever arises.

If you must, Miles Anderson.

14:41

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 793 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 10 be agreed to.

Just to let the member know: you may not have been in the position of doing all of the voting before, but you’re welcome to stand on your feet in between those extra votes that you are giving for other people.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 10 inserting new subsection (6) into new section 8AA be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 19 be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 20 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to delete clause 21 be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 relating to New Zealand - specific conditions is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 amending new subsection (2) in new section 20A be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 amending new subsection (3A) in new section 20A to replace “10” with “5” be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 21 inserting new paragraph (d) into new section 20A(5) be agreed to.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to subclause 22 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40, cross-heading before new section 35AA, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40 new section 35AA(1)(a) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40 new section 35AAD(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 40 new section 35AAD(5)(a) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40 new section 35AAD(5) inserting new paragraph (f) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40 new section 35AAE(2) inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 40 new section 35AAH inserting new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 52 be agreed to.

14:59

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually only have one question on this part.

Nice.

I know! I might think of others. It depends on the responses. It is just a drafting question as well, and it’s to do with what I consider a fairly new drafting technique where you talk about “new” provisions and “old” provisions, referring to the insertions by the amendment Act—those are new, and the old is the one provision that was immediately in force. This works for amendment legislation—I understand that—and at clause 4(2) of Part 2 inserted in Schedule 1, that is described.

But my question is if you go a bit further through Schedule 1, you will see at clause 19, it’s “Requests under Official Information Act”—this is page 45. It says “an application for an exemption under section 8C;”. There’s no “new” or “old” in front of 8C, but then if you look down further to clause 19(2)(c) it says “an application for registration of a trade name product under old section 27;”. I’m wondering why some sections don’t have the prefix of “old” or “new”, and is it because they are unchanged? That is the question there.

Then, related to this, I’ve got a question. If you go over the page again to 46, clause 21(4) of Schedule 1 says, “In this clause, innovative application and non-innovative application”—that’s a bit mean, isn’t it; to call something “non-innovative”? But that’s not my question.

It takes all sorts.

It says “have the same meanings as in section 72(1) (as amended by the amendment Act)”. But why doesn’t that just say “as in new section 72(1)”?

Why have we got these defined terms of “new” and “old”, but then sometimes they’re not used and it’s “refers as amended by the amendment Act”, which would seem to be “new”; and then other clauses don’t say if they’re “new” or “old”? Are those clauses with no prefix—do they just remain unchanged and they’re just, like, staying the same? Are they non-innovative? Is that the answer?

15:02

Thank you, Madam Chair. In answer to the member’s question: because they are not changing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I noticed also in Part 2, clause 8 on page 40—I appreciate Rachel Brooking with her skill asking questions about drafting decisions, so I’m going to do similar.

This specific change is preconditions and crossed out of the words “to granting exemption”, and apparently added are the words “and requirements to publish reasons switched off”. I don’t understand what that means, and I wonder if the Minister in the chair could explain to us this term “the reasons switched off”? It follows on with “The Director-General may grant an exemption under new section 8AA that applies to any agricultural compound”—I won’t read that all out, for the benefit of the committee, but I would love to have a greater understanding of what the necessity of that change is and what it means, and specifically understanding this term “switched off”. Thank you.

15:03

Thank you, Madam Chair. With this one, I want to check with the Minister in the chair—this is clause 77, “Schedule 1 amended” in line 5 of page 40. Can I just check with the Minister on the interpretation of the expiry of this clause? Does the expiry of this clause refer to the commencement date of this bill, or does it refer to another particular expiry? Can I just check: the expiry of this clause refers to—I’m assuming the entire section, clause 6, which is “Exemptions in regulations continued”, so everything in that clause, if that’s the correct interpretation.

Moving on to amended clause 9, so this is page 41 regarding “Existing applications for registration”. In the new subclause (3), it says “The application is to be notified”. Can I just check if that is to interpreted as every existing application for registration would be notified in accordance with the new requirements under this bill, if any? I’ll start with those two questions, and I do have follow-on questions for the other sections.

15:05

Just a tiny question. Thank you, Minister, for answering my question that indeed those sections without a prefix are non-changing—“non-innovative”, we might even call them—but what about that one that I was referring to in the example in clause 21(4), where it says “section 72(1) (as amended by the amendment Act)”. Why doesn’t it just say “as in new section 72(1)”? Why does it need that “as amended by the amendment Act”? Wouldn’t it be more consistent to have “new”? That’s my big question for this part, Madam Chair.

15:06

In that case, I do have a few more questions for this part and I’ll go through at least the ones for Schedule 1 anyway.

In terms of clause 9, one of the things I want to check with the Minister in the chair—and this is in reference to new clause 14, “Applications for registration that are called in by Minister”. I would also assume that this is the Minister responsible for this bill? But also I want to check with the Minister: what is an application for registration that is called in by the Minister for Food Safety? Does it mean that the Minister is able to intervene in terms of granting a particular application that overrides the decision of a director-general? Or does it mean that the Minister themselves is able to make an application for registration for a particular compound that we’re referring to here? I do want to check with the minister on clause 14.

Moving along to clauses 16 to 18, this is the area where we’re looking at provisional registration. Again, we are looking at this transitional measure, which is a big part of this particular section. When we are looking at provisional registration but not decided—this is what new clause 16 is referring to—what then would be the notification for the applicants in this case to have clarity of a provisional registration to a final decision? Also, if the Minister wouldn’t mind just clarifying how, then—so we can have it on record—would this new system and this new process affect a provisional decision to a final decision, if at all? I’m assuming, based on my reading of this section, that any provisional decisions that are made, the final decision will be based on the previous or the old requirement, as opposed to the new requirement? Is that a correct interpretation?

My last question for this particular section is around clause 19, requests under the Official Information Act (OIA) involving trade secrets. I understand why this particular section—and I remember the Minister in the chair at the time mentioned confidentiality when it comes to trade secrets. But I do want to check how this would potentially interact with any Government funding that is given to something that potentially pertains to trade secrets. I guess the balance between what we’re seeing in terms of the OIA versus what we often see in terms of the Cabinet Manual for procurement and also in terms of what we’re seeing in terms of trade secrets.

The reason I ask this is often in select committees, as the legislators, when we are scrutinising a particular expenditure in a select committee, a lot of the times we are being told, well, we can’t disclose a particular aspect because of commercial sensitivity, etc., I do just want to check if this is something that is of a higher, even more stringent requirement than what we see normally through an Official Information Act process; or is it something that, essentially, currently exists around commercial sensitivity as well?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Sorry, Madam Chair. That was my last question.

15:10

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan—what happens to existing provisional registrations?—they continue under the provisions that are applied for before the new consent regime begins. They remain valid until they expire or otherwise are dealt with under the existing framework.

With regards to the member’s question around clause 14—is this the ministry responsible for the bill?—yes.

Another question from Lawrence Xu-Nan: what does “call in” an application mean? The Minister for Food Safety has the ability to call in an application to make the decision, instead of the Director-General.

In response to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question around non-innovative applications: because section 72(1) of the principal Act is not entirely new, it is just being amended

To Steve Abel’s question around what does “switched off” mean, I refer him to new Part 2 in Schedule 1, section 8(2), inserted by clause 77 of the bill: “The Director-General is not required to comply with the preconditions set out in new Section 8AA(4) and (5) before granting an exemption under subclause (1).”

I’m just not sure whether Mr Abel wanted a clarification for that—

Madam Chair, I—

I know you didn’t stand up, but I’m allowing you the grace.

15:12

Thank you. I really appreciate that. It is really just to understand in very simple terms the use of the phrasing “switched off” and why it’s used in that context. If it’s to simply articulate what the Minister in the chair said, which is that the director-general—I think he said—doesn’t have to apply certain clauses, I wonder—

Perhaps the Minister wants to repeat that answer.

I did hear the answer, but I’m just not sure that that explained the use of the term “switched off”—

Oh, OK.

—because it seems peculiar and unnecessary, unless it’s got a particular function.

15:13

I’m advised that it’s a drafting decision by the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 77 is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

We come now to Schedule 1.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 1, set out on Amendment Paper 793, be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 793 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

15:16

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to start with—actually, I’m only going to be talking about commencement.

Thank you.

Ha, ha! But there are quite a few questions around the commencement, and I guess I’m going to ask the first sort of obvious question, which is, in 2(3): “Any part of this Act that has not come into force 2 years after Royal assent”—can I just check the rationale around the two-year mark and whether those that are not in clause 2(2), which is the day after Royal assent, that two years is sufficient time to make any sort of changes or to have the ability to implement it fully?

My next question is—and I’m sure that others may have a few questions around this part. There are a lot of different sections—currently clauses—in clause 2(2). What I’m not unclear on is why some of them have been included to come into force after Royal assent and some of them haven’t. So to give the Minister in the chair an example: new sections 8AA and 8AAB, inserted by clause 10, around “Exemptions from registration”, that is something that is coming into effect on the day after Royal assent. But, for example, in clause 12, which talks about the director-general listing the exempt substances generally considered safe, that, again, doesn’t come into effect until potentially two years later or earlier by Order in Council.

But I would assume that over the next two years—now this has come into effect—let’s say you’ve the received Royal assent, and the director-general then went and exempted a particular agricultural compound or a class of agricultural compounds in two weeks’ time, surely there would then be a requirement for that to be listed somewhere as opposed to waiting potentially up to two years for clause 12 to come into effect before that takes place, unless, when we’re looking at clause 12, that’s an exemption of a different nature.

So I’m just trying to figure out why some of them is the day after Royal assent and why some of them are up to a two years’ period.

15:19

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a couple of proposals around titles. I think one of the challenges with this term “compound” is that most people don’t know what you’re talking about. It even caused us some confusion at the select committee because there was an assumption, I think, that compound somehow didn’t include agrichemicals, by which we mean the conventional idea of agrichemicals, the likes of pesticides and herbicides.

It’s been fortunate, today, in this process, that the previous Minister of Agriculture has explicitly articulated that, yes, this legislation covers both pesticides and herbicides. I wonder if, for the clarity of the public, the name of this bill wouldn’t more correctly or more comprehensibly be named the “Agricultural Chemicals and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.” Obviously, I would propose that we change the name of the actual bill to “Agricultural Chemicals”, just to be very clear to everybody what we’re talking about.

Now, not all chemicals are compounds, but all compounds are chemicals, so by giving it a broader, more familiar name to most people—chemicals—we capture compounds, but we also make it clear what the bill is. That’s one of my amendments which is being rushed down presently; it hasn’t quite reached the table. An earlier proposal for a title—an alternative title, which serves the same purpose but is a little more wordy and I don’t think quite as elegant as the one I’ve just expounded—is to change the name to the “Agricultural Compounds, Pesticides, Herbicides and Veterinary Medicines Bill”.

That just makes it super clear that everyone knows we’re talking about pesticides and herbicides, not just veterinary medicines or this term “compounds” that I think, to most people, is not familiar. So those are my two proposals and they’re very much in the tradition of, you know, Grant Robertson, as he said in his valedictory speech: say what’s on the tin, or put on the tin what’s in the tin. I think it would very much simplify the public understanding—and even, I believe, this House’s understanding and the members in it—on what this bill is actually about, because it is to do with agricultural chemicals; it is to do with pesticides and herbicides, as well as veterinary medicines.

15:22

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do think it would be useful for the Associate Minister of Agriculture to take us through the commencement clause—clause 2(1), (2), (3), (4)—because as we’ve heard, Order in Council can set the date, but there’s a “however”: a whole lot of sections come into force the day after Royal assent. Why is it that the sections listed in subclause (2) are going to come into force immediately? Why is it that all the other sections won’t come into force until the earlier of either the Order in Council or the two-year backstop that the first question was about? I think it would be very useful for us all to hear the Minister speak on that.

On the title, it is interesting; it’s unusual for me to be doing a title contribution when there’s no brackets. This is simply the “Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill”; there’s no brackets—

Disconcerting.

Disconcerting. I think there is an opportunity for there to be brackets with some words in them.

I was hoping that would be the clarification; there’d be some words in the brackets.

That’s right—some words in the brackets. I note that the Minister of Internal Affairs who was in the chair earlier was determined that the whole purpose of this amendment is to enable provision of safer products. That is what she said, and I asked her if she would consider something in the bill that said that or if she could—you know, maybe there could be a purpose of the amendment, to do that, but we didn’t get there. So now is the time to include “safer products” in some brackets in the title, if that is really what the Government’s intention is here. I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, but I believe a number of submitters heard, and we’ve had Ministers tell us, that there’s a problem at the moment whereby some “old, nasty chemicals”—these are my words and I’m paraphrasing somewhat: “There are old, nasty chemicals, but they’ve been through the process, so they are legal. There are new, fancy chemicals that are better; there’s better chemicals—”

Maybe.

We got a “maybe”, but this is the story. The story, the logic, is: “We’ve got old, committed—they’re registered—nasty chemicals. There’s these new ones over here that aren’t as nasty, that are hopefully better, but for them to go through the registration process is very time-consuming and overcomplicated and doesn’t take the evidence that has been applied in other jurisdictions, so that is why we need to fix it.” That is a compelling argument: that if we don’t want something that is old and nasty and that can be replaced with something new and nice, we want to enable that, but there’s no hook in this legislation that does that, that really spells out, “We’re trying to do better here.” That’s the whole point of this legislation: it’s to do better; to get those newer, not-so-nasty products into the system so we can get rid of those older ones and not use them anymore.

We’ve got an opportunity here for a hook, and that is to use some brackets, so that this bill would be the “Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (Safer Products) Amendment Bill.” That is the title that I would like the Minister to consider.

15:27

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan about why there are different commencements for exemptions, some provisions require delay to give time to make regulations or administrative changes. Regarding clause 10, only the heading comes into force the day after Royal assent. In regards to the question about rationale for two-year commencement: two years will be sufficient for implementation.

The questions from Steve Abel regarding his suggested new title: we’re happy with the title as it is, thank you. Chemicals would cover wider products than the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill covers; for example, pet food and surfactants.

What is it? Tell us again. What was that word?

Surfactants.

Surfactants.

How do you spell it?

Yes—come and see me later. The question from Steve Abel around “compound” as confusing: all compounds are chemical. The question from the Hon Rachel Brooking around why do some clauses come into force has already been answered; refer to my answer to Steve Abel’s question. Rachel Brooking’s question: why aren’t there brackets around the title? The Parliamentary Counsel Office drafts the title.

15:28

I appreciate that and I do have only a quick question; you did give me a follow-up on that. I did, too, myself, state that all compounds are chemicals; yes, we all agree on that. I wonder, is there another piece of legislation which uses that term, “chemicals”—

Quiet please—not Steve Abel; everyone else.

Thank you. Is there another piece of legislation that uses that term “chemicals” in the same context as this one does—as regards to agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, and my proposal that it would be chemicals—that would cause a trouble for that? And where are surfactants currently managed? Is it in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, I presume? Therefore, I didn’t get the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s answer on my second proposal—which, if he was concerned about the use of “chemicals” because it was too broad—whether adding in “pesticides” and “herbicides” would give sufficient specificity, without removal of the word “compounds”. It would make it a wordy title, but the “Agricultural Compounds, Pesticides, Herbicides, and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill”, I think, would make it more easily understandable. I think there was even confusion in the second reading of the bill today from some parts of the House as to whether this bill did include agrichemicals in the conventional sense, as they are known by those who work in the agricultural sector. Thank you.

Just waiting for a bit of advice on the surfactants in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

15:30

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to Steve Abel’s question around chemicals in the title, no, salt is also covered by the bill, so “pesticides” would be misleading.

A point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to clarify a previous vote, if I may, and seek leave on Part 1 standing part. Labour voted 32 votes—

We’ll just seek leave. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Are you seeking to correct a vote?

Correct a vote, yep.

Yes. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Thank you. To confirm, Labour votes 32 votes in favour for Part 1 standing part.

OK, thank you.

15:32

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the question around what regulations cover surfactants, surfactants are subject to both the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

Steve Abel’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that clause 1 stand part.

The question is that clause 2 stand part.

The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The bill is set down for third reading next sitting day.

15:36

I present a legislative statement on the Public Works Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Public Works Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Public Works Act 1981 is an essential tool for addressing this country’s infrastructure deficit and delivering public works which our communities depend on, including roads, schools, and hospitals. The Public Works Amendment Bill introduces targeted amendments to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and clarity of the Public Works Act’s standard acquisition and compensation functions, while ensuring appropriate protections and processes exist for affected landowners. The bill also includes a new process to support restoration of public works damaged by severe weather and other emergency events.

As a reminder to the House, I will briefly summarise what this bill does. The Public Works Act 1981 allows land to be acquired for the Crown, local authorities, and network utility operators that are requiring authorities under the Resource Management Act 1991 and its replacement Planning Bill. The bill does not change the fundamental requirement that these entities must first attempt to acquire land by agreement through good-faith negotiations before compulsory acquisition may occur.

The bill includes a package of updates to acquisition processes in line with modern technology and practices, including surveying, public notices, use of electronic communication, and requirements to provide certain information to landowners. It promotes more flexible project delivery by enabling central and local government to coordinate and combine land acquisition.

The bill doubles the minimum negotiation time frame before compulsory acquisition may occur from three months to six months for Māori freehold land with more than four beneficial owners. The Minister for Land Information will also require the consent of the Minister for Māori Crown Relations or the Minister for Māori Development for any compulsory acquisition of protected Māori land.

The bill introduces an emergency recovery process to support the timely restoration of public works that are damaged in severe weather and emergencies. Rather than developing bespoke legislation, as was needed after Cyclone Gabrielle and the Kaikōura earthquakes, the bill contains a new process that can be activated by Order in Council when needed.

The bill updates and improves compensation settings for landowners, introducing an incentive payment of 10 percent of land value to a maximum of $100,000 where agreement is reached before a compulsory acquisition process begins.

I’d like to thank the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their consideration of the bill. To all the organisations and individuals who took the time to make submissions, thank you for your contribution to help shape this essential piece of legislation. As a result of the select committee process, several changes have been made to the bill. These changes were largely technical in nature or offered additional clarity and do not alter the overall policy intent of the bill. In closing, I want to again acknowledge the valuable suggestions made by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in their report to bring the bill to this stage.

I consider that the bill honours this Government’s commitment to deliver public works fairly and effectively. For that reason, I commend the Public Works Amendment Bill to the House.

The question is the motion to be agreed to.

15:40

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m at a slight disadvantage of having not been on the committee, but none the less have kept abreast and tended to, as Opposition spokesperson for land. Labour will support the bill. Labour does support the modernisation of what has been a reasonably fair and effective regime. Of course, as the Minister laid out, it is a long-standing principle of the compulsory acquisition of land, usually for infrastructural purposes. It has kind of worked—and I’ve worked with individuals who have been going through the process for roading projects. There have been more recently, of course, some more controversial ones where roads have gone right through farms—divided farms—and do create a real dilemma for landowners, going to the point of emotional stress and anxiety and concern. I’d like to acknowledge that, for many people involved in the process, this hasn’t always been ideal.

The compensation process has been, on balance, I’d say pretty fair, but, of course, if you don’t want to sell, then there’s no price that the Crown can pay for land that will satisfy your expectations. That, in particular, is true for Māori who have held land, who have been often allocated land or been given land back, of course, through a Treaty settlement process. Then along comes the Crown and says, “Well, we want it back again.” That, again, has created, I guess, some fear that this bill, in terms of the modernisation process, might be once again overriding Māori land rights. That is one of the things that I think the committee looked at. There’s been general agreement that that would move forward, but there are still some issues, I think, that colleagues of mine might raise through the process.

There is, of course, right at the front-end here an incentive for landowners to cooperate and to trade off. That might not always deliver the fair outcome; paying them a bonus, effectively, does have unintended consequences, possibly, through land valuation. As I say, I wasn’t on the committee to hear the submissions that went through that process. None the less, I guess it is fair enough that someone who is facing a compulsory acquisition order can move forward cooperatively; that they get paid a bonus for that land.

Can I say that the provisions that align the Public Service Act and line things up—I think that general modernisation process is sensible, as we go forward. One of the areas that the wider public might be concerned about is the allocation of rights, of course, to Transpower. That, when originally constructed and built as a network, was for the purposes of all New Zealanders. It still is, to some extent. But the way that the pricing for the electricity system—it’s now simply that Transpower value their assets, and then charge us accordingly. So the automatic right of access to land, the automatic right of expansion of the network and the increasing value of that Transpower network—it means that we’re going to pay for that. I would caution our Government, any Government into the future, that it doesn’t just give Transpower the right to kind of go out and invest, particularly if this Government of the day now, the coalition Government, opens the door to part-privatisation of Transpower—which I suspect might be on their agenda. If they were to do that and get money in from invest—I don’t hear any denial from over there. It’s a very, very valuable asset, and so I wouldn’t even actually trust a denial.

None the less, if Transpower was indeed to be part-privatised—because the National Government, in spite of their denials, did it last time. If they were to do that, then what, effectively, we would do is once again privatise the automatic right of return on poor infrastructural assets. I hope that members who were on the committee, who will have—I hope—considered this issue, can explain, and through the passage of the bill through this House, may try and hopefully convince us and reassure us that that won’t happen. Because we have acknowledged that Transpower sometimes does have some challenges getting access to land and constructing some of their new pylons. It should be something that landowners have a right to say no in, up to a point, because they are ugly and they certainly do have impacts on land value. Yeah, they are ugly, Mr Speaker; they are shocking. I don’t see you living in Christchurch underneath those pylons that go through the city. Indeed, it’s an unfortunate passage. I don’t want to get into a debate with you, Mr Speaker, but none the less—

Wise man.

—the right for Transpower to acquire land for new pylons is a significant onus on landowners. Indeed, this piece of legislation needs to ensure that there’s a balance between the right of the Crown to come in and take land, and the right of private landowners to negotiate fairly. I’m not sure where ACT—and they may in fact be opposing this piece of legislation; they’re very pro-private property rights, and so I guess they probably assume that private property owners should have the right to say no. That’s not the way that it’s worked in the past under a more collaborative arrangement through Government, but none the less we have a coalition Government that thinks that private property rights surpass anything else that is important across this country.

This bill is about the compromise that we need. It is about enabling local government or central government to move forward with infrastructural development. It brings up to date the necessary legislation, and it has, as I say, provided some processes in there that ensure that private landowners get rightful compensation. The Labour Opposition doesn’t want to slow down the passage of good legislation. This, on balance, is a good piece of legislation. It’s a little late in the piece from the coalition Government, but none the less Labour is here to facilitate the process of this bill. It will support the bill, and I look forward to, as I say, some of the questions being answered by the Minister and by other members—particularly ACT—to assure us that we’ve found the right balance between private property rights and public acquisition. I support the bill, Labour supports the bill, and we look forward to the explanation from the Government.

15:48

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Green Party, I stand to oppose this legislation. The Public Works Amendment Bill is one that turns its back on the ability for whānau and community to enjoy, without disturbance, their whenua, their homes, their forever homes—because they will not have a choice, ultimately. The legislation says that it’s there to improve land acquisition; to provide new ways of giving compensation, and some payments to speed up the process; relocation of infrastructure; empowering Transpower; and in spaces like emergency recovery. For myself, being someone from the coast who was impacted both in January and March, in Northland, I know that emergency recovery is really important. But when people commit to their forever home and lose the ability to go to the Environment Court to contest a Public Works Act taking of their private property—that they have had for generations and committed to as a whānau—then on behalf of those impacted whānau, we as the Green Party say no.

The legislation says that it’s there to modernise the Public Works amendment legislation. It is there to provide these—I’d say—“inducements” to support whānau to get on board and agree to their land being taken. That the compensation payments are there to help whānau to agree that their land should be given over—and, in fact, the power of decision making is now removed from an independent party, being the Environment Court, to now Ministers. So where is the fairness in the process? These are concerns of the Green Party as we’ve sat through submissions.

Also, myself, I had a public works amendment member’s bill looking to protect whenua Māori from this legislation that’s been used as a patu on Māori landowners for far too long. But all for nothing, because the House didn’t support my proposed member’s bill to protect, at least, whenua Māori in this space.

We talk about advancement and progress and that sometimes, you just can’t help it; that State highway has to go through your whenua, apparently. But when I think about the 26 kilometres of the four-lane highway to come through Tai Tokerau, from Te Hana to Warkworth, and then the proposed expansion all the way up to Raumanga, Whangārei—Raumanga, Whangarei—

Yep, great news. Great idea—great idea.

—and when I hear someone from the other side yelling at me, I think about the landowners of Raumanga; I think about the landowners in Waipū; and even our own Whangārei district councillor Matt Yovich, whose 160-hectare family farm, which has been in their family for 100 years—they’re losing parts of their farm too.

Maybe they want to be able to drive somewhere when they’re not on their land.

Do you enjoy the motorway?

That’s enough, thank you.

So when you say that the 26 kilometres of whenua to establish this four-lane highway is so essential that we’re going to spend $3.6 billion, the most expensive road in the country, you fail to address the Brynderwyns. You can have 26 kilometres of $3.6 billion of road from Warkworth to Te Hana, but if you can’t get past the Brynderwyns, where are you going?

When I think about Auntie Lynda and their whānau farm, their land, where their ashes are buried, where this is their forever home, who have been in the newspapers, who have said, “We farmed. We established orchards. We have planted natives. We are committed to this whenua.”, they are losing their land for the purposes of a four-lane highway to Whangārei.

Then I want to talk about Raumanga. This is coming into town, into Whangārei. While we’re committing $3.6 billion to 26 kilometres from Warkworth to Te Hana, it’s not even near Whangārei, but the landowners of Raumanga, in Whangārei, are now hamstrung. When I read their letters that the New Zealand Transport Agency have sent them, they are years off losing their homes, but they can’t do anything because now they’re stuck. Who wants to buy a house in Raumanga that could have a four-lane highway coming through?

The Raumanga Medical Centre will be gone. The Raumanga Medical Centre has full books. They are deeply committed to community, and yet that road is going to take out the Raumanga Medical Centre. So don’t act like this is some public good where you’re going to actually come in—why do we need extra lanes in Raumanga and Ōtaika? But they are being mapped right now and being told, “Taihoa, wait a minute. We’re going to take your whenua and we’re going to enter into some conversations and it could be years—it could be a decade, eh?—before this comes through.” But the whānau in Raumanga and Ōtaika are now stuck; they are stuck in limbo of public works hanging over their heads.

Let’s talk about whenua Māori. Whenua Māori is not protected. It can still be compulsorily acquired through the public works amendment legislation—the fast track of public works across general title and whenua Māori. Of Māori submitters, 97 percent said, no, they don’t agree. In fact, when you look at it, we’ve suffered enough as Māori; we’ve given enough for towns, for rail, for cities to be established—schools, quarries. We’ve given to the infrastructure of this community in Aotearoa, and yet still we’re expected, through this legislation, to give more. Why? That’s the question right here. Not only are you going after general title, you still maintain the focus on taking whenua Māori. Despite the protestations and those objections from Māori who came before the select committee and offered submissions saying, “No. No more. Not one more acre.”, they’re going to do it anyhow. That’s what’s so demeaning about the veil of, “This is an improvement. This public works amendment legislation is there to speed up land acquisition and to help with infrastructure and for Transpower or for emergency recovery purposes.” Māori have given plenty. Give us a break.

We have general-title landowners with this heaviness hanging over their whenua just here in Kaipara, in Waipū, all the way into Whangārei—this noose hanging over landowners, saying, “Tāria te wā—te wā [the time will come]; when we come for you, you have no way to object.”, because, ultimately, the Environment Court has no say. And then for whenua Māori, no, you’re not clear either, because this is about the public good for everybody and, despite all you’ve given, you still must give more.

So, as the Green Party, we do oppose this. We do worry about private property rights. We do worry about those—

Ha, ha!

When you lose whenua, then you’ll know. When I’m sitting with landowners right now who have this noose over their heads, and they are shedding tears of frustration because they have no avenue to fight this, it is all based on the Government’s side. That’s where the power sits. The landowner is disabled in the new system. I hope we really consider this, as members of the House, in terms of where the private landowner sits, let alone the tangata whenua who have already lost enough—and yet this is, on balance, OK? Come to Tai Tokerau, and talk to our landowners. Come to Tai Tokerau and talk to hapū and iwi. Talk to Tūwharetoa, they’ve already told us in the select committee.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

15:58

ACT supports the Public Works Amendment Bill. I just want to reassure the member who’s just sat down, Hūhana Lyndon, that the Brynderwyn section of State Highway 1 is far more resilient as a result of work that has been carried out under this Government since the 2023 cyclones that hit the North Island. Around 55,000 cubic metres of potential slip material has been removed from above the road, which removes a significant risk and means that the road’s unlikely to be closed in the way that it has previously. Three sections of road have been widened to three lanes of 12.5 metres wide, so that, in the event that material does come down two lanes can remain open. So I want to reassure the member that the Brynderwyns are much safer than they were, and many of her concerns have been addressed.

Now, New Zealand cannot build the roads, the rail, the water networks, and the electricity networks, if acquiring the land to do so takes years. Compulsory acquisition, we must acknowledge, is one of the strongest powers that the State can exercise, so landowners must be treated fairly.

This bill strikes a better balance. Authorities must make clear offers backed by registered valuations, and negotiate in good faith before compulsion is considered. Landowners who reach an early agreement can receive an incentive payment, recognising the disruption and the cost that they carry.

The bill also gives Transpower a more practical acquisition pathway and clarifies that disputes over compensation belong in the Land Valuation Tribunal. It creates a faster process for rebuilding after emergencies, and with proper safeguards. Property rights matter; so does getting essential infrastructure built. This bill makes the process faster, clearer, and fairer. That’s how we unlock New Zealand’s potential. I commend the bill to the House.

16:00

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and also as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee which considered this bill some time ago. First of all, I just thank the select committee for the work that they did, and the officials and the submitters. I also wanted to thank both the current Minister but also the Minister before who we spent a lot of time with, the Hon Chris Penk, working through quite a number of pieces of legislation, and this was one of those. I wanted to commend him for the work that he did over a long period of time.

I just want to respond to something that the ACT Party over here—or was it the Green Party? I can’t remember which it was because it sounded a bit like the ACT Party talking as the Green Party. They were talking about the individual as opposed to the collective. I got very confused by what they were saying because they were standing up for individual property rights, which was magnificent, but it was the Green Party who was doing it.

This legislation is walking its way through the difficult thing, because land is precious. Land is precious to many people. Land is a place where people—it is hopes—[Hūhana Lyndon holds up a visual aid]

Excuse me. Sorry. Don’t wave the visual aid around like that again. It’s fine when you have the floor, but not at other times.

It is hopes; it’s dreams; it’s aspirations; it’s blood, sweat, and tears that people put into that. Some of them will be Māori; some of them will not be Māori, but land matters to a lot of people—a lot—and so taking land is a really significant step. But sometimes—and here is where I was a bit confused by the Green Party member Hūhana Lyndon’s speech—the collective good overrides that individual good, and needs to override that individual good. That is why we have a Public Works Act. We’ve had a Public Works Act for many, many decades. This piece of legislation is trying to make sure that that process is done as efficiently as possible and as fairly as possible. Part of that fairness is making sure that the person or the people whose land is proposed to be acquired are well aware of why that piece of land has been chosen to be acquired—the options which were considered—and saying, “Sorry, guys. It’s got to be your piece of land that we need for this piece of infrastructure.”

This legislation is about trying to make sure that we as a country become more productive, more efficient, and it is making this important part of our system more efficient. Here are just a few quick examples of that. Improving efficiency: the Environment Court cannot revisit designation decisions so we don’t do the thing twice. It can’t make valuation decisions. It makes it easier to re-site third-party infrastructure which might have been displaced by the original public work. It makes emergency recovery works easier. Just think about some of the storms we’ve had. If a road slips, it slips into the neighbouring land, and you need to fix that road and sometimes you need a little bit of that neighbouring land. What is the problem? You have to be able to do that and you have to be able to acquire that land quickly and efficiently.

It allows for efficiency, too, through combining projects so we don’t have two separate authorities needing to both go through the Public Works Act process for the same piece of infrastructure. It also allows for incentive payments to make it easier for someone to sell, to incentivise them to sell earlier on by giving them actually more money than they would otherwise get.

This retains the overall architecture of the original Public Works Act. That’s the attempt to acquire by agreement then the compulsory acquisition. It does, from a Māori point of view, for that whenua Māori, mean that there is a longer process and they do have that objection process which other landowners don’t. It respects that link to land.

The final thing just to say was that we examined, significantly, at the select committee process, the role of Land Information New Zealand as the gatekeeper. They told us very, very clearly that if a Government agency or acquiring agency hasn’t done their job properly, they would be the gatekeeper and say, “No, no, you’ve got to do it again better than you’ve done it before—the identification of options and so on.”

Also that issue which has been raised in terms of the ability to be able to exit land that the Green member raised—I agree completely with that. It is something that if your land has a designation sitting over it, and somebody wants to acquire that land at some point in time and you can’t move on. That’s a real challenge and it is one that we do need to sort out because you put people’s lives in limbo.

With that—oh, and the other thing just to say is that including Transpower makes complete sense because they are clearly an essential public utility—possibly the most essential public utility in the land—and it makes sense that they should be able to exercise powers directly through the Public Works Act. I thank everybody involved in this and commend the bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call on Mike Davidson.

16:04

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this bill, the Public Works Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which this bill went through. While the Green Party does support the modernisation of bills, there are obviously aspects of this bill that we definitely do not support. Therefore, we will be opposing this bill.

I think it’s really important to start with the fact that when you have 0 percent of iwi Māori supporting this bill, and 90 percent outright opposing it, there are significant issues with a bill. This is part of the problem we have, and it’s really important that, actually, we stand up for iwi Māori when they are obviously having their rights squashed. Therefore, one of the things that I want to mention in this call is a couple of comments that we need to be assured about.

We need to understand the impact that we’re having, because this is something that has faced iwi Māori for a long, long time—generations, in fact. I even looked down in our area in Waimakariri and the impact of State Highway 1 through Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the displacement that type of roading actually has on the hapū, and even now when they’re rebuilding a bypass and the potential that could have had to displace, impact the whānau as well. It’s such a shame that it continues to happen right until today when we know the impacts that it’s had in the past and how it’s driven Māori out of their communities into urban areas and has actually made it a lot worse for hapū and iwi as Māori were forced to be urbanised. It’s a shame that we don’t seem to learn lessons from the past and we continue to make it worse.

It’s funny, when you look at Waimakariri, I say again, this seems to be the biggest issue they had—the potential loss of a golf course in Pegasus for housing. I think they should remember, actually, who was there first and how they were removed from their land, which is a lot more significant than losing a golf course that was failing. I think, as a country, we must remember the damages that we have done to iwi Māori, especially when we look at how we acquire land. The Green Party does not support this bill because it flies in the face of what iwi Māori would like and it totally ignores the fact that 90 percent of iwi Māori opposed it and not one supported this bill.

I’d just like to mention a couple of things in the time I have. A submission from the Law Association of New Zealand is concerned that the bill goes well beyond procedural streamlining and it introduces substantive changes that significantly affect the exercise, oversight, and accountability of compulsory acquisition powers. I think when we read that we should be very concerned about how far we are stretching and what we’re actually doing and the impact this is going to have.

Also, aside from iwi Māori, I want to just quickly mention a submission from Dunedin City Council. They say the amendments to compensation provisions may create additional costs for local authorities—another unfunded mandate. I think this is really important to note and so I’ll quickly use my last 45 seconds to talk about this unfunded mandate. I think this is what we’ve seen a lot of this term of Government—and not just this Government but previous Governments. It is pushing more and more responsibility to local government, making them have to do more and more and actually without the funding to do it properly. They do it and they have to then spend ratepayers’ money. And what happens? Government then blames local government. That is a significant issue we have, and, actually, if we want to be better, we have to work in partnership. We need to work in partnership between local government and central government and we need to work in partnership with iwi Māori.

16:09

People have been complaining that it takes too long to build infrastructure in New Zealand. There is too much red tape and there is a lengthy opposition process which can delay important infrastructure projects.

This bill is the second part of the process to modernise the Public Works Act. This bill will make sure the land acquisition process is faster but also fair. This will see better outcomes for landowners and help to reduce the cost of building infrastructure. I commend the bill to this House.

16:10

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the call. The Labour Party is going to support this law, but I want to acknowledge the deep feelings that are being expressed in the House today, particularly by the Green Party, and I want to talk about that need for a balance between public good and private rights.

It is an irony that we have the ACT Party supporting this bill when its members are constantly talking about markets and constantly thinking they should be unfettered and will balance themselves. Arguably, that says that all price gouging is absolutely fine and that the market price is what it will bear. And in fact in this case that would mean that owners of that property could reach for the sun, the moon, and the stars, and sometimes get it at the behest of taxpayers because that public good was necessary.

I want to talk about some of the mechanisms that are in this bill that I think are good. This bill will make acquisition fairer in the sense that more will be paid for those acquisitions, and there is an incentive process which will allow a maximum of $100,000 to be given for a settlement that’s reached in good-faith bargaining. I am a huge fan of good-faith bargaining. I think it is very much a recognition of power imbalance, and it puts people into the space where they try and do the right thing. I’m not going into that process with rose-coloured spectacles at all. I’ve spent most of my life in employment law where good-faith bargaining is part of the mechanisms used. It doesn’t solve all problems, but it does put people into a position where they strive to meet the needs of each other and strive to do the right thing. So I’m thrilled to see that mechanism.

I do want to talk, not lightly, about that issue of balance between private and public good and the need to recognise private ownership, particularly in the case of Māori, and I do that with a lens to the reality of the history of brutal compulsory acquisition and, in fact, the stealing of land in this country, and the trauma that was involved in that. So I just want to record, in a really simple way, why we would take that into account.

In 1840, Māori basically owned all the land in New Zealand. By the 1860s and 1870s they had lost huge amounts of land, including the whole of the South Island, to Crown acquisition and European acquisition, and then in the 1890s to the 1920s there was such a massive wave of acquisitions that Māori land went down to 8 percent. By the mid-20th century, the Public Works Act was part of that story, and there was also compulsory acquisition of what was called uneconomic interests. So the amount of Māori land in Māori hands fell to 4 or 5 percent—that’s what was left.

There have been massive amounts of thought about this since, but Māori land at this time is only at 5 percent—the estimate is 5.5 percent. That is how much land is left. That is a story of deep trauma, and it’s an absolutely terrible story. When people equate it with other issues of private ownership, I think they do an injustice—it’s not the same. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to consider private rights, but it’s really important that we tell that story and we remember that story.

Having said that, the Labour Party is supporting this legislation because it’s better than it was and because some of the mechanisms are an attempt to balance those rights, and the Labour Party has always had a strong hold on the need for public good. That is something that is a valid part of this discussion, and we do need to always think about the people in our communities and what’s good for them in a public sense, rather than private interest.

I want to strongly contrast the deep irony of the ACT Party standing up in support of this bill when it is also creating bills in this House, in this term of Parliament, that are talking about private rights that don’t even exist and then are attributing them to people and compensating them.

They do exist. They do exist.

I will explain. I’m being asked by the member for ACT what I’m talking about so I’m going to tell him. We have a situation where we had a bill that came into this House called the Regulatory Standards Bill, which said that when there is any consideration—

They’re property rights.

They are not property rights.

They are property rights.

They are not property rights, and I will explain why. They are not property rights because they never existed. The community owned those rights. The only rights that property owner owned were the ones that were already recognised. That is what the nature of law is—

Sorry, Helen—wrong.

—and I will argue over a coffee later with my colleague, because that is true. That is absolutely true. They didn’t exist before this Government had given them away for nothing, and now it has strung us all up so that we cannot use rights that we had before as a community because we will have to compensate others. So it is deeply ironic that the ACT Party washes over everyone’s rights here but is not doing so when it desires an outcome that deeply privatises the very rich. It is giving rights to the very rich, and it is not considering cultural context.

So this is a situation where we have to be brighter than that. We have to be brighter and we have to be more considerate of that balance between what is public good and private good, and we have to consider the subtlety of who—it’s not that subtle—it is that we are attributing those rights to. I would ask the people who are voting this year to consider that. Is the party they’re voting for actually considering their good, or is it considering the good of a lot of very, very rich people who are probably taking their money overseas, because that is actually what I think is happening. I think we have a party and a Government that is absolutely captured by a love affair with the very wealthy and has turned that into a group that it looks up to, admires, and sucks up to. What we have is a discount of our own history, which we were putting right, and we have a discount of the humanity of the connection between us all.

It is so important that the parties that are voted for at the next election turn that around. We have a much better future before us than that. That is a morally barren but also a materialistically barren way of looking at things. It will get us nowhere. I would love to see that get turned around in this country.

The Labour Party will always be a party that thinks harder than that and is prepared to consider the grey, is prepared to consider the public good, and isn’t actually too worried about what giant international companies think. It cannot afford to do that because otherwise we end up where we are going, which is that we will own nothing and be beholden to a whole lot of corporate interests. We must be brave. We must have a future that belongs to us, and the kind of hypocrisy we saw today when the ACT member stood up is the sort of thing we need to consider. If the voters consider that as an issue, I invite them to go down a whole different course and look at which parties are providing adult leadership here and are committed to their interests. Most of us are not in the class of people who are looked after by the ACT Party, the National Party, and the New Zealand First Party currently. It is very, very important that you can see that the Labour Party supports this. They can understand why. They can understand that it’s not because we are refusing to look at the complexity of the issues; it’s because we’re balancing interests and we’re prepared to do things that make sure that we respect private rights and public rights and we balance those things.

I’d just like to say to members if you’re selling tickets for that coffee, I’d be interested in knowing when it is.

16:20

It’s a pleasure to come back to the Public Works Amendment Bill. This is the second tranche of reforms, the first being the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, to make the process faster and fairer, and I commend it to the House.

A split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very interested in the member who’s just sat down, his contribution there.

You can have a coffee with him too.

I’m not offering coffees. That was my colleague. Although—[Interruption]

I think we might just calm ourselves right down—be quite a good thing.

Although we are here to midnight, so perhaps a coffee at 4.20 is a good idea.

Now, as I was saying, I’m very interested in the member who just sat down, his brief contribution where he was talking about those critical projects and that critical infrastructure, because that seems to be a key issue in this legislation before us, the Public Works Amendment Bill. It would be good to hear a bit more about that and how it works as a trigger.

I say that because I have not been on the select committee. We are here in urgency and we’re going to go through with the committee stage of this bill very shortly. You, Mr Speaker, have stolen one of our members of the committee by making him an Assistant Speaker, so instead you get me.

Oh!

I know everyone will be very excited about it.

Barely able to contain myself, but anyway.

She had to have a chance to speak.

Yeah. This legislation is really important, and I am excited to be here and talking about it, because in my previous life as a resource management and local government lawyer, I did a lot of work with the Public Works Act and had cases relating to where designations were put over somebody’s land or a notice of requirement was on their land and it stayed there for a long, long time and it restricted what they could do with their property—or, in this case, it was a leasehold property, but it restricted what they could do. Trying to pull the trigger on that—the mechanism to then get their land, or their lease, in this case, actually taken—was a big palaver for them. We commonly have referred to designations on someone’s land as a blight, and that is because the blight is that you have hanging over you that one day your land might be taken, and that is a big deal. We’ve heard particularly from the Greens about why that is a big deal and just now as well from my colleague Helen White.

Of course, when I was in legal practice, we would make every one of our juniors watch that great Australian movie The Castle, which, of course, deals with this topic very well and very beautifully. Somebody, they can have lived in a place, their family can have lived there for hundreds of years, or a family might have lived there for 20 years, and it is their home, it is their castle, so it is a very serious issue when they are made to abandon that property, even if they are compensated.

The vibe!

That’s right. That is a great movie. I’m pleased that people opposite have seen the movie as well, and I won’t be too distracted by the vibe, though I could. Now—

The Green Party’s dug a hole. It’s filling up with water.

That’s enough. Just leave it alone. Thank you.

Anyway, the point is—and I couldn’t hear what that was, but I presume it was a reference. You know, go to the pool room and all that.

Now, we’ve been told that what this regime does is two things: it makes it quicker for land to be taken, on the one hand, but on the other hand, it’s fairer with its compensation. That is very important that that balance is right. Like my colleague Helen White just said, it is very interesting that ACT, the party of private property rights, is so emboldened and enthusiastic about infrastructure being able to trump those private property rights. This is very different from the other legislation that we’ve had in this House, particularly the Resource Management Act replacement legislation, which I will talk about in the committee stage, because that goes to designations and who can designate.

16:25

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this is a good piece of legislation that will make the process easier and fairer, with more clarity. I commend it to the House.

16:26

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for allowing me to take a call on this bill.

Oh, no problem. That’s all right. That’s fine.

Thank you. Very generous of you, Mr Speaker, as always. I expected no less. The Public Works Amendment Bill went through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and it’s an interesting piece of legislation. It’s one of those bills that is both not, well, straightforward but also incredibly complex because of the nature of the unit of analysis, I suppose. It’s not just about land. It’s not just about the cold, hard, sort of, geography of terrain and facts and infrastructure and utility. It is actually, as we’ve heard in this House, also incredibly emotive, because it’s about people’s castle or whenua Māori or their forever home and all of the other aspects of life that ground us in this place. It’s difficult, and achieving balance is also difficult.

But Labour does acknowledge that the Public Works Act that currently exists, that’s been around for a while, is, by definition, in need of some modernisation. There’s an aspect to this amendment that allows notifications via email, for instance. It does require some modernisation, which is not to say that it’s not fraught and that it’s not without a huge amount of consideration. When we have these conversations about improvements and improving efficiency and making systems more efficient, we should never lose sight of the fact that it’s not just about efficiency. There are also many other, much more tangible and much more important considerations to be made.

But it is nevertheless an important piece of legislation that enables infrastructure. It gives the Crown and local authorities significant powers, and with that come some significant responsibilities. But it does grant significant powers to acquire private land so public works and those infrastructure projects can proceed. Those powers, as I said, are significant, and the system therefore not only needs to be efficient but it also has to be fair, it has to be transparent, and, really, really importantly, it has to be in such a state that the public can have requisite trust about the system. That balance is therefore incredibly important.

For an agency who are acquiring a property, for them, you can imagine a situation where this one particular piece of property may be just the last piece in a puzzle, or it may be just a very small part of the acquisition process to allow a much bigger project to be delivered. But for the people who are losing that property, obviously, it’s incredibly important. For the person that owns that property, it could be their home, it could be their business, it could be whenua Māori or land that’s been in their ownership for generations, so it’s not something to be taken lightly.

Hence the fact, as several contributions have made today, that there is a perspective that we need to bring to this to make sure that we do get it right. When we talk about making public works faster and we talk about making the Act works better and more efficient, as I said, that can’t be the only test. We do think that there has been some improvements made through this process, and I want just go through a couple of aspects of that now.

When I said about modernisation, the bill allows—as I said—notices to be sent electronically, updates aspects of the land acquisition process to modernise that and make that a little bit better and clearer, and it provides some greater clarity around the different interests in land, because it’s not always a straightforward process, in terms of ownership. It allows for better coordination where projects may involve multiple different types of public works. So you can imagine situations where that gets quite complicated quite quickly.

That matters because many of those big infrastructure projects these days, they’re not simple and they’re not straightforward. So a road project, for instance, it may require utilities to be relocated or work done by several different agencies, sometimes in parallel, sometimes in sequence. Therefore, we do see a need for some better coordination so that, at the very least, we can limit some of the duplication that already exists and some of the unnecessary delay, which can also be hugely upsetting to people, as we’ve heard today. Having something hanging over them, the impending acquisition of land, and that can be particularly frustrating when there’s delays and the timeline just unnecessarily makes that even more disruptive.

So landowners do need clear information and they need to know why things are happening. This bill does, I think, require that some further information about the nature and the purpose of the work be provided. It provides an opportunity for there to be the acquisition process and the compensation available, alongside an attempt to negotiate, in good faith, earlier in the process. Those are all important. Again, we acknowledge the fact that compensation for something that you dearly, dearly don’t want to have to lose in the first place is not really compensation at all—but there has to be some way of negotiating some sort of conclusion, I suppose.

So imagine, I suppose, somebody receives a letter—they get a letter, they say that their property is going to be part of something that’s needed for a transport project, and they may never have had to deal with Land Information New Zealand before, they may never have had to have dealt with the Public Works Act before. It’s not overly common that everyday people get to be in this position. They might not really know whether the whole property is going to need to be acquired. There’s lots of things that need to be sorted, and some professional advice needs to happen and people need to know, right from the outset, what sort of services they should be engaging to make sure they are supported through this project and don’t end up on the rough end of this deal. Ultimately, people just want to know that they’ve been treated fairly.

When we think about the connected public works, another practical change allows agencies, as I said, to coordinate some of that land acquisition better. It allows land to be acquired, in some circumstances, to reallocate third-party infrastructure that could be affected by public works. I don’t think we need much imagination to see how some of those could really benefit not just the project itself, but some of those landowners as well.

Looking back on the submission process, we heard from Infrastructure New Zealand who, unsurprisingly, were broadly supportive of the bill and emphasised that the Public Works Act, whilst being an important enabler of nationally significant and regionally significant projects—it argued that delays in land acquisition can actually be responsible for a fair proportion of those increases in prices that we have seen and some of the uncertainty that holds up over infrastructure delivery.

So the Public Works Act amendment is an essential—well, the Public Works Act, full stop, the existing piece of legislation, is an essential piece of legislation in New Zealand. We do have to balance those rights, as we’ve heard today, between private land ownership and public good. It’s not easy. It’s always going to be a little bit fraught. The best that we can do is put our mind to the things that we can do as a Parliament to make the process better, to make the information more clearer, to make the compensation more fit for purpose and understanding of the different ways where private land can be owned today and to make sure that there’s requisite opportunities for people to be well ahead of this and not feel like they’ve been dragging through something that’s, essentially, traumatic and really unfair.

So whilst we are supporting this bill, we absolutely acknowledge the fact that it’s difficult. The committee of the whole House stage is coming up next. It’s unfortunate that we haven’t had a little bit of a gap in between those stages, because there’s several things that we want to ask the Minister, but we will support this bill.

16:35

Well, the importance of this bill has never been demonstrated than by the most important new road that will be built in New Zealand in the not-too-distant future, and that is the one that will go over the Brynderwyns. The reason that the road over the Brynderwyns is so important is it will allow people to travel to the region that is miles above the rest, namely, Northland, and it is the home of the Ranfurly Shield, and I commend this bill to the House.

16:36

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this House and reflect on the Public Works Amendment Bill.

Now, 1981 is the year that we’re going back to. I was reflecting on what I was doing in 1981. I know that I was protesting. I was out on the streets as a six-year-old, looking cute, making sure that I protected our people. But it was the Springbok tour of 1981, of course, was going on. There are some stories that probably can’t tell because they’re not my stories to tell. It is, it seems, like a generation ago. Kiri Te Kanawa—I do remember this, strangely.

This is all good, but we’re on the bill.

Well, 1981, Mr Speaker—I’m just trying to create context around things must change, because times they are a-changing. I can sing it through if you want, but I don’t have to.

Well, I thought you were heading down the line of my adventures in my HQ Holden the way you were carrying on there.

I did own an HQ Holden, Mr Speaker—1972. Two-tone, three-speed. Anyway, back to the bill. I will focus.

Times do change, and obviously, in this House, legislation does need to change or catch up, but also we’ve got to be cautious and have checks and balances to make sure we get it right and it is fit for purpose in the 21st century. In 1981, Mr Speaker—I don’t want to prolong this, but Smash Palace, you’ll remember—and you’ll remember the story of Smash Palace, which I think is quite relevant to this piece of legislation and Bruno Lawrence and all of those things that happened.

As has been said from colleagues from my team, we do support this bill, but there are questions. It is about fairness. It is about transparency, and a big one that I’ve noted is around trust—trust in the Government and trust in the officials and the bureaucrats that have to administer any legislation that comes through this House.

As I was thinking about what relevant stories, other than the 1981 stories that I have about the Public Works Amendment Bill, I consider Mount Messenger, which crosses from Taranaki into the South Waikato, or it takes us on the journey north, and there is a huge piece of work that is being done, the Mount Messenger bypass.

That is a contentious piece of work. Not only is it expensive, it is about resiliency, but there is a real challenge for one family that is majorly affected, and they are affected because of the Public Works Act. And it is still going through the court system, it is still struggling through the process. From memory, it is maybe six years on. I have met with the family involved, and the word “trust” comes to mind. The breakdown of trust that they have had with NZ Transport Agency—the lack of trust they’ve had with those that have visited them. I think for them it was, “Have we got a deal for you”, but then, in many ways, this piece of land, which they have farmed for two generations, is now having, I guess, the carpet or the wool pulled out from under them. We need to make sure, as my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan mentioned, that it’s around private land and private property rights, and it is also about the public good, and how do we actually figure that out and make it work properly.

We support the improving of the process so that landowners know what is happening and why. Again, I think more information and more understanding, I would say generally creates a better outcome, because people understand. It might be hard, it might challenging, but we need to actually move forward on this. We need an effective system, we need a fair system, and we need a transparent system. It would be good to spend more time, as was said, to consider it before we move into the committee of the whole House stage, but we’re in urgency, so we have to deal with the cards that are handed to us.

In closing, we hope that we can find a 21st century solution in moving forward, and we will—not like MTV, that opened in 1981 and is struggling to survive, but that in 2026 we can move this forward.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by majority be agreed to.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Public Works Amendment Bill.

16:45

Thank you, Mr Chair, and members of the committee. I’m pleased to be able to present the Public Works Amendment Bill for the committee of the whole House stage. I’d again like to thank everyone for their input in getting the bill to where it is now.

There is an Amendment Paper 792 that I’ve put on the Table, and I’d like to highlight one change that it would make to the bill. It includes a provision that allows consequential amendments to be made by Order in Council to the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill once enacted. Any Order in Council would follow the usual Cabinet and legislative processes. The provision could only be used for technical changes to update references and use consistent terminology between the Public Works Act and Resource Management Act replacement legislation. The provision will be automatically repealed six months after the bill is enacted. I look forward to the committee’s consideration of the bill.

16:46

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of quite high level questions that I’d like to start with, before moving through the legislation. I’m sure colleagues have many specific questions. But my high level questions—well, one that’s just been stumping me as I’ve been looking through the legislation, is this relationship with critical infrastructure. We just heard in one of the second reading speeches from a National Party member that there’s been another piece of work on critical infrastructure. Then there is a definition somewhere in here that refers to a clause that I can’t find regarding the definition of critical infrastructure. So if the Minister, Hon Mike Butterick, could point me to where that is, if it is in there somewhere. I think it was a section 39AAB, and I can’t find 39AAB. Maybe it is already in some legislation, but if the Minister could tell us about critical infrastructure and how it relates to this Public Works Amendment Bill, that would be good. That’s one high level question.

Another high level question is about this legislation applying to public works. Obviously, I have the 1981 very, very amended copy—I don’t know when it was last updated—in front of me. But obviously public works and local works have been defined in the Public Works Act for a long time, and they have to be public. What I’m interested in is there seems to be some provisions in this bill for things that might not be public works, if they’re associated with a public work but they’re not—they’re a combined work. So I’m wondering if that is a fundamental shift or not.

Where this question is coming from is the bills that the Minister just referred to in his Amendment Paper, the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, they shift—and I think the language and the terminology changes somewhat—who has the ability to make a notice of requirement. Where, in the olden days, the only people who could do designations or undertake notices of requirements were clearly public authorities—so State, central government, or local authorities—then in the Resource Management Act (RMA), there’s been this ability for notices of requirement and you can become a requiring authority if there’s a regulation that says that you’re a requiring authority. Some of those bodies can potentially be non-publicly owned bodies. Then in this next round of RMA reform, it takes it even further in terms of bodies that are not public entities but are providing infrastructure that is very widely defined, can then go on to do notices of requirement and designations.

So my question is—and it’s the high level question—all of those changes that widen up who can do designations, how does that flow through to this bill? And I’ve got specific questions as we go through, but at a high level, how does it relate? Regardless of changes in the RMA legislation, do the projects still have to be public? That is, owned by central government or local government, or is there a way in for these other projects to also be considered in this legislation? And why that is important is because, as we were just discussing in the second reading, this is a big deal when your land can be taken, and people can understand that if it is for a public good, a community good—of course you’ve got to balance it with appropriate compensation and fairness and everything else—that’s one argument. But for private companies who come in and make money out of something, that’s a totally different logic that we’d get to. So that’s why I’m interested in this designations.

And then my third high level question for the Minister is that there’s a special process in here for Transpower and he might want to talk to us about why that is. Thank you.

16:51

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 4, section 2 amended, around the interpretation. I’m particularly interested in the definition that we have given here for Māori freehold land. The reason I pick up on this is that according to the background material and policy information document, Land Information New Zealand considered the Public Works Act policy proposal to be consistent with upholding Treaty of Waitangi settlement obligations. I think that might be a key word in terms of that this would only apply—does it mean, first question, that this will only apply if land has been settled? Because we do know, for example, that a number of Māori land have not been settled.

Now, then, this brings me to the definition for Māori freehold land and to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act because in that Act, specifically section 129(2)(b) of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, it says that “land, the beneficial ownership of which has been determined by the Māori Land Court by freehold order, shall have the status of Māori freehold land”. So my first question, looking at the definition here, is how would Māori land that has yet to be settled—Māori land that still currently in dispute—be considered under this updated legislation? So if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying that.

16:52

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a few preliminary questions about the interpretation section in clause 4, to the definitions, because I’m aware that there were certain submitters who requested that there was deliberate working with the new resource management reform and the definitions that are in that. And particularly Water New Zealand noted this need, particularly when it comes to key water-related terms across the legislation. The only potential changes I could see were to network utility operator and network utility operation, and that was aligned with the Resource Management Act. Then there’s a definition of “regional council”.

But I couldn’t see, and I’m interested if the Minister is aware of whether there has been a response, I guess, and a deliberate eye put across this legislation and the resource management bills which we know are not yet final. They’re also coming back for third reading next week. But whether there has been a deliberate oversight across those definitions, and particularly when it comes to water-related definitions, whether those have been taken into account. Thank you.

16:54

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I guess to follow on from my colleague the Hon Rachel Booking, and to focus on questions around combined projects—because if I go back to my point around Transpower, and it might have seemed a little flippant, but the fact that we don’t know whether the Government is going to privatise any more State assets, and then the issue of what is a requiring authority, and then what is a combined project. Because the combined project, as defined here in Part 1, means the two or more public works authorised as a combined project under section 27(b)(2). The Minister can maybe just go through the process of authorisation and whether a requiring authority under the new Resource Management Act changes is an authorising agent and the possibility that that is in fact not the State or the Crown or a local authority; that is a designated private agency.

We have many fast track developments, and in fact the issues go back to infrastructure. So questions of the Minister is: does this facilitate or open the door for acquiring land for private or joint venture projects which are effectively offering private benefit, or is it, as was intended under the Public Works Act, solely for public benefit? Because it is a significant shift if, in streamlining, which is what we have assumed this bill is doing. But as you look in here and you put it alongside the possible changes not completed and not passed through Parliament yet through to the Resource Management Act two bills, then are we just allowing the acquisition under this new Public Works Amendment Bill of combined projects that are authorised possibly by our requiring authority that may in fact be a public entity?

Or not?

Is that? Yeah, and I’ll leave it to my lawyer colleague here who’s far more tenacious and detailed than I am. I’m just a little kind of cynical because I kind of joined the dots here. There’s a lot of money gone to political donations for fast track and other developments. There is a lot of money, and I’m concerned that the assurances sought through Parliament were to ensure that we have a streamlined, à la fast track process for the development of infrastructure.

So those are the questions to the Minister. Can you reassure me that firstly, we’re not setting this up for approval for combined projects that are authorised, and the authority that authorises may in fact be a private entity?

16:58

Thank you. So at clause 20 there’s a new combined projects cross heading inserted, and it says new 39AAJA “combined projects”. This is at page 31. It says this part applies “to a public work that is the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.” I guess this goes back to my first question about can the Minister enlighten us about critical infrastructure projects? But the question is, also: how big does the part have to be? What percentage of the part? And this goes to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s questions and my original questions: are we letting in a whole lot of private enterprise into what is the Public Works Act? That difference is important.

I do note at clause 15, this is about land required for combined projects, and at new section 27B is “Authorisation of combined project” and that talks about “A responsible Minister”—so a public person—“or local authority”—also public—“may agree with 1 or more other” of these public Ministers or local authorities “that 2 or more public works should be a combined project.” Is that the comfort we’re looking for when I read “whole or a part” over at new section 39AAJA? That is one of the concerns that I have. I can go back through as well, to some more specific questions, if that’s useful.

New question, unless the Minister wants to answer? He’s looking—yes? Then I’ll come back to my other—

17:00

Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the question from the Hon Rachel Brooking about the relationship with critical infrastructure, critical infrastructure is defined in section 39AAB of the Public Works Act (PWA), and it is “a project listed in Schedule 2A” of the Public Works Act.

In answer to the member’s other question—why is Transpower in? Transpower has an ongoing need to acquire land and interests in land to maintain, upgrade, and expand the national grid. Part 2B, inserted by clause 23, gives Transpower direct access to the front end of the PWA process while retaining ministerial responsibility for compulsory acquisition. It replaces the need for Transpower to obtain preliminary approval under section 186 of the Resource Management Act, but otherwise this uses much of the ordinary PWA machinery, with modifications, to ensure that land is acquired, vested, held, and disposed of for Transpower works appropriately.

Under the bill, Transpower will be able to acquire land by agreement without needing ministerial approval first. This will give Transpower similar access as New Zealand Railways Corporation—another State-owned enterprise. Compulsory acquisition decisions will remain with the Minister for Land Information, and extending access to other network utility operators would go beyond the bill’s targeted scope and would require further consideration of appropriate oversight arrangements and different ownership models.

17:02

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow-on from my previous question around clause 4—noting that we’re not quite there yet, to clause 20, but we are going to get there.

My first question for this call is on clause 8, with new section 4D. Now, considering that this is a new section, can I check that the standards and guidance that are issued by the chief executive, are they secondary legislation? Because I don’t see there being explicit statements saying that anything in the new subsection (1) and (2) would be considered secondary legislation. I do want to check that, because that then potentially has a different set of questions that I might have around standards.

I want to move on to clause 11. I want to start with section 18 replaced; I want to start with section 18(1) because it states over here that if land is required, whether it is the Minister or local authority. I want to check with the Minister for Land Information because we have heard, as a part of the select committee stage, concerns by local authorities around this particular bill and potential cost for local authorities. Can I just check with the Minister: what was the process for consultation? I know that my colleagues who are more well versed in local authorities may have other specific questions, but what was the consultation like? Because from what I see in the regulatory impact statement and the regulatory impact statement addendum, it seems like there was a panel that potentially has people with experience of local government, but I can’t see an explicit consultation with local authorities. I want to check with the Minister, now that I’m seeing this part in new section 18(1) around local authorities.

My last question for this this call is still clause 11, “Section 18 replaced”—section 18(4)(b)(i). I’m still waiting for the response around Māori freehold land. But over here it says the applicable period when it comes to the invitation to sell if the land is Māori freehold land that is “beneficially owned by more than 4 persons;”. That would assume to me both natural person but also a legal person. But I want to check: would that legal person be considered a particular person who is chief executive of a particular hapū or iwi corporation? Can that legal person or natural person be interpreted as a hapū or an iwi? I’m just trying to get some clarity around what that “4 persons” represents. Those are my three questions for the Minister.

17:05

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to Lan Pham’s question around definition of Māori freehold land, the definition in the Public Works Act is as defined in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and the definition of protected Māori land is already in the Public Works Act, which includes land retained through settlements. That is not changed by this bill.

To the Hon Damien O’Connor about what is a combined project. The Minister for Land Information will authorise a combined project that may only be used by parties that have access to Public Works Act power under existing provisions. It does not expand the scope of parties with powers. This can include network utility operators that are requiring authorities under the Resource Management Act and have the approval of the Minister for Land Information.

17:06

Thank you. And thank you, Minister, for your reference to the definition in critical infrastructure that has been in a previous amendment to the Public Works Act. That is helpful. I’ve now looked at that schedule, which defines it project by project. I don’t know how the schedule gets amended, but all of the projects on it at the moment look to be public roading projects. I understand that, but just that last part of your answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question and my question about the parts of those critical infrastructure projects. I accept that they’re all roads, but the Minister for Land Information just said that it could be a requiring authority or network utility operator under the Resource Management Act. That does go beyond necessarily being public, but is he saying there’s another hook here to get into the Public Works Act that it has to be for a public work? If he can just clarify that the hook is still there—that it needs to meet the definition of a public work or a local work under the Public Works Act. I’m sorry, I’m a bit out of date with the Public Works Act legislation. The book here that I’ve got from the lobby is quite—I don’t think it’s been updated for some time. I’m back on my phone looking at that.

Second question. I’m interested in going now to clause 12, and this amends or replaces section 23, which is the notice of intention to take land. I haven’t gone back and compared it with the existing section 23, so this may not be a change. Before subsection (3), it’s “Considerations for whether taking is required”. The Minister for Land Information must have regard to—and I’m looking at page 14—“the objectives of the Minister or [their] local authority; and the … consideration [of] alternative sites … and”—and this is the important one at (c)—“whether, in the Minister’s or local authority’s opinion, it would be fair, sound, and reasonably necessary for achieving those objectives for the land to be taken.” That is a fairness test.

But then it goes to (4) and says, “however, you don’t have to look at that”—oh no, I think I’m wrong. I think you do still have to look at (3)(c) but you don’t have to look at (3)(b), which is the adequacy of alternative sites if there is already a designation. If there is already a designation, then you don’t have to consider the alternative sites, and I presume that is because the alternative sites process has already been gone through when you’re having a designation. But you do still have to look at that fairness test, which is in (3)(c), which is importantly not part of the designation process.

So in the designation process, you don’t have to look at fairness, but you do have to look at alternative sites, and this is saying for—so if you’ve already looked at those alternative sites because you’ve done a designation process, then you don’t have to redo it. If the Minister could just confirm that I’ve outlined that correctly.

17:10

Thank you, Mr Chair. In regards to the question from the Hon Rachel Brooking around changes to requiring authorities and replacement Resource Management Act (RMA) legislation and expand who can use the Public Works Act powers, the ability to apply to have land acquired is limited as closely as possible to the same parties that can apply under the RMA.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around standards issued by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) secondary legislation, new section 4D, standards and guidance are not secondary legislation. This maintains flexibility and allows LINZ to update them as necessary. Another question from the member around consultation with local authorities: the expert advisory panel undertook targeted consultation with local government as part of their work in 2024.

17:11

Thank you, Mr Chair. Mine’s a really simple question, but it relates to clause 6. It’s the adoption of the wording “delivering, posting, or sending” instead of “delivering or posting”.

The “delivering or posting”—my guess is that what we were talking about there was the adoption of the postal rule, which means that when you post something, it’s deemed to have been delivered. But this difference, from “delivering, posting, or sending”, does seem to change the game a little bit, because “sending” is not deemed to be “delivering”, so it’s quite a different context. Was that the intention: that we move to a different standard where we just simply send something out and it doesn’t necessarily get delivered?

Because what I understand the overall purpose of this legislation is—and a good one—is that we are improving and modernising, and we are actually making sure that we are doubling down on the kinds of plain empowerment of people in this Act in terms of what they receive. But if, in fact, documents get sent and not received because they haven’t been picked up, for example, in an email, that undermines that principle. So it’s a genuine question. I never really understood why the postal rule was adopted in the first place, because delivery seemed to me the most important thing, and “posted”, even, has always gone astray and is not necessarily—it seemed to be a 19th century decision, rather than a sensible one. But modernisation would, for me, seem to be that we would focus on delivery, that we would ensure delivery, rather than adopting a much lower standard of sending and posting.

Posting, by the way, at the moment, is atrociously unreliable in a way it never was seen as being. A lot of post is returned now. For example, if you have a postal box, even if you go to the right address, it will be returned to sender and it will not be received at all. Would that count in the present circumstance if, in fact, good faith, you sent it to the address that you’re talking about, and the post service refused to deliver it and it came back? Is that enough? So it’s a very practical question, in some ways, about the nature of a modernising and where that fits with the purpose of the legislation. Thank you.

17:14

I’d like to follow on from my colleagues on clause 6 and explore this issue of “the last known electronic address”.

Now, I don’t know about other members in this Chamber, but some of us have several email addresses. Some of them are very old, and I hate to think how the mailboxes are. I’m just interested that sending it to the last known electronic address might not be enough. Will there be account taken if it bounces back? Will there be account taken—is it going to be sent with a “require delivery” receipt?

The overall aim of modernising and allowing email to be used as a mechanism, I think, is admirable. But I do think that the checks and balances about actually how that is managed and how we—think of who here might have had a Paradise account once upon a time. There’s a whole lot of complete email domain names that are not extant anymore.

I think there should be a slightly tougher requirement on the agencies that use electronic addresses to make sure that they’re valid. The question is, also, do they send it to the email address and post it, or is it binary, you do one or you do the other? So if you could address that area please, Minister, I would appreciate it.

17:16

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m actually rising to question about clause 7. Clause 7 is about replacing section 4C, which is “Delegation of Minister’s powers”.

The way that it is inserted here was not amended by the select committee. It states that this is about bringing it in alignment with Public Service Act 2020. My main question is, is this allowing for additional delegations or not from the Minister for Land Information to be able to delegate to chief executives of Crown entities? Or was section 7 simply catching up on the changes to the Public Service Act 2020 and only bringing it in line with that? That’s my question.

17:17

Just going back to this conversation I’ve been having with the Minister—and thank you for engaging, Minister—this is my concern: that non-public works will be able to take people’s private property. The Minister said in reply to my question, “Well, it’s not changing the Resource Management (RMA), who can be the network utility operators.” That doesn’t give me the comfort I’m looking for. I’m just asking if there’s a hook, that to be able to take land, you still have to be doing a public work, rather than something that has got a notice of requirement under the Resource Management Act or its replacements—that it still has to be a public work or not. If he could just explain that, that would be useful.

Maybe why I’m asking this is if we look at—I’m not actually sure what clause it is—clause 15, over a couple of pages on page 24 and new section 27F, “Acquisition or taking of land required to relocate infrastructure”, it says at (2), “If the public work is a Government work,—(a) the Minister may acquire … the land”. But then it says “if the infrastructure is owned by a local authority”—this is at (b). So new section 27F(2)(b), “if the infrastructure is owned by a local authority or a responsible network utility operator,”—which is defined above—“the land acquired or taken for that purpose vests in the local authority or responsible network utility operator instead of the Crown.”

I’m just interested in who that “responsible network utility operator” can be and if it has to be public or not; and what the assessment is of the changes in the resource management legislation; and if there’s a widening of who can be a responsible network utility operator; and, if that goes to them being private operators, how does that work with something that is called the Public Works Act? That’s what I really just want to make sure that we’re not going somehow much further outside of that public works sphere. That’s my concern.

Going to a similar question, then, at clause 17, and this is the replacement of section 39AAH, which is the notice of intention to take land. The notice of intention to take land is an important step. What I’m interested in is that at subsection (2), it says, “The Minister or local authority must also not do anything referred to … unless 1 or more of the following apply:”—and this “unless” is important—“the project is allowed under the Resource Management Act”, so it’s permitted; or “there is a designation for the project:”; or there’s “a notice of requirement” under the RMA. What I’m interested in here is paragraph (d): “a substantive application has been lodged under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 for a designation or an alteration to an … designation”—so the “unless” applies.

Now, noting that “a substantive application has been lodged” is different from there being a designation under the Fast-track Approvals Act—the substantive application has to be in that fast-track process, so it has to have been referred or be on Schedule 2 of that Act. But it’s still in the process. Is the rationale for (d) and the process still being ongoing because it’s in some way analogous to (c), “a notice of requirement for the project”—that that might be the reason? I presume that is why there’s also that reference in (e). So a notice of requirement not being the full designation, but the process starting.

17:21

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s earlier question about considerations when land has a designation, I confirm the member is correct. If land is subject to a designation, the court will no longer be required to inquire into the adequacy of consideration given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods of achieving the objective. This is because the statutory process to assess and determine the appropriate route has already been completed under resource management legislation.

In regards to Helen White’s question about delivering, posting, or sending and sending to a last known electronic address, “sending” refers to the electronic transfer to enable emails to be sent. It does not change the legal requirements around posting. Operationally, this is intended to apply where a landowner has already provided an email address.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around local authority costs, funding arrangements for infrastructure sit outside the scope of the Public Works Act. The panel appointed for this review consulted local government representative groups.

17:22

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. He pātai tāku.

[I have a question.]

I’m wanting to take the Minister to page 9. It’s clause 8, new section 4D; clause 39, amending section—there’s a whole heap to it, but it’s about the responsibility of the chief executive to issue standards and guidance.

What page was that again, sorry?

That was page 9, and it’s around the chief executive’s ability to issue new standards and guidance. I’m noting that many submitters did support the idea of new regulatory tools in the bill. There was still room for improvement. Considering what Te Matapihi, the Law Association of New Zealand, and others spoke to—the need for an independent oversight—while the chief executive may be empowered in this space, is there consideration around independent oversight and also the reporting, like inserting a mandatory reporting function? Ngāti Raukawa iwi, they spoke about the need for us to really consider the issue of standards and guidance in this part, in particular being explicit around Treaty obligations, Treaty settlements, iwi and hapū engagement, and whenua Māori. I’m wanting to understand what that looks like and in particular reflecting on the voice of Ngāti Raukawa and their concerns around being more explicit around Treaty compliance.

The other part that I’d like to ask questions on as well, while I’ve got the floor, is in relation to clause 12—I’ll flip over. Oh, no, it’s right there. It’s on the same page. Yeah, it’s being replaced. It’s clause 12 of the bill, inserting new section 23B; clause 11, replacing section 18. This one speaks about the Minister for Māori Development or the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, around the compulsory acquisition of whenua Māori. I want to thank colleagues who have asked further around the definition of what whenua Māori is but also those which are designated, so Treaty settlement versus Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

I’m wanting to understand the clear decision-making criteria. What is the Treaty compliance test in terms of what is the baseline whenua Māori landowner engagement requirement? What is that test? Is there a measure? Is there a model or a framework? And then, like, how do you know that you have landowner consent? Is it as my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan has talked about—is it via a CEO of a land trust or an iwi grouping? What if the land is not managed, doesn’t have a management structure, whether it’s an ahu whenua trust, a whenua tōpū trust, a kaitiaki trust, an incorporation, or anything? If it is unstructured and unmanaged, what is the baseline requirement for use of the public works amendment legislation on these landowners in order to get the whakaae [consent] to take the land, to compulsorily acquire?

But then, also, with the ahu whenua trust, the incorporation, the whenua tōpū, whatever management group that might be in place, how do you test that that group has shareholder agreement? It’s one thing for trustees to agree to something; it’s another to know that the landowners actually agree. Those of us who operate in whenua Māori might understand that, because you don’t want an occupational protest on you when you go to actually start the work because the whenua trust signed off but actually the shareholders were unaware of what was to come.

I think about whenua that could have been impacted by the Marsden Point rail spur and the way that that trust had a decade of public works hanging over their heads. Tribute to Mere Kepa as chair out on that whenua in Ruakākā and the way that they advocated for the voice, the concern, and how to utilise whenua Māori without that noose of public works on their heads.

17:28

Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions are specifically around clauses 11 and 12, noting that these are, like, extremely significant powers that the Ministers hold with these bills. My understanding of the Ministers who can make decisions under this is either the Minister for Māori Development or the Minister for Māori Crown Relations. The powers go from everything to attempt to acquire land, the notice of intention to take land, but it’s only, from what I can see, in new section 23B, which is actually the change in clause 12 on page 15, where the Minister for Māori Crown Relations is actually named, versus the other instances of “Minister”. What I’m interested in is: is the reference to “Minister” with these powers specifically related to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, and the Māori development aspect is only where the Māori development Minister is referenced here, or when “the Minister” is used, is that actually interchangeable?

The reason why I’m particularly interested in that is that in theory, in an ideal world, obviously, the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations would be on the same page, but it’s not a given, particularly when a lot of these projects, particularly when it comes to compulsory acquisition and serving notice and whatnot—there may be very different opinions. So is that simply resting with the Government about who that Minister is, or is there actually an ability for both Ministers to be involved in these decisions, or is it simply a delegation? I raise that because a lot of the submitters thought that these provisions absolutely did not go far enough when it comes to protecting Māori land, and we had a number of really strong voices on that. So I’m interested in what the delegations of the Ministers are and whether it is specific to where particularly the Māori-Crown relations or Māori development Minister are specifically referenced.

17:30

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the question from Julie Anne Genter around “Why does clause 7 replace the delegations provision in the Public Works Act?”, it aligns delegations with the standard process in the Public Service Act; it does not change who the Minister can delegate to.

In answer to the question from the Hon Rachel Brooking around the scope of the network utility access to Public Works Act powers, under section 186 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), a network utility operator that is a requiring authority may apply to the Minister for Land Information for any project or work as if it were a Government work. Changes to resource management legislation may mean a broader group of entities may be able to apply, but the Minister for Land Information must still agree.

And then to the member’s further question around clause 17, replacement section 39AAH(2)(d), “Why are substantive applications in the Fast-track Approvals Act included here?”, it is because it is analogous to a notice of requirement under the RMA.

17:32

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister for Land Information for the answers to question so far. I also had a question with an element on clause 12. Clause 12 is pretty substantive, and I know some of my colleagues have spoken to it, but my specific concern is around this replacement section 23(3) and (4), particularly (4), and how, when a Minister is going to serve notice to acquire land, and they’re making their opinion, the Minister or the local authority must have regard to “the adequacy of the consideration given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods of achieving those objectives;”. This is on page 14. Now there’s a new subsection (4) that a “Minister or local authority must not have regard to [that] matter … if, and to the extent that, “(a) there is a designation for the part of the public work for which the land is proposed to be taken; and (b) the land is subject to the designation.”

The reason I’m asking about this is that in the explanatory note of the bill as it was introduced, it mentioned that, in a way, it was making it easier to acquire land when there is a designation on the land. I’m aware of a case regarding Mt Messenger, where a landowner who was born on the land really objected to the land being taken and had significant concerns as to whether the transport agency had considered effective alternatives to taking the land and running a new highway through his land. He has challenged the transport agency over and over again over many years, and I think he’s incredibly brave and right to do so. In the case of the Mt Messenger project, the transport agency actually went ahead and started construction and formed an alliance and started doing work before they had fully gotten consent for the project.

I guess, I’m trying to understand how these changes in clause 12, inserting new section 23, are not going to allow someone to challenge their land being taken if there’s a designation, and whether the designation process, which is going to be entirely under this new resource management reform—or is it through the current Resource Management Act? I guess, my question is: the designation. It’s the designation process that therefore would have to take into account—so at the point that something was designated, a landowner wouldn’t necessarily be following that. Are they going to be required to be notified when the designation process is going through, and to what extent is there a requirement to consider alternatives before placing a designation?

17:35

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I do go back to the points that the Hon Rachel Brooking has raised, because it goes to the heart of, actually, Labour’s support for this legislation thus far. She has raised a couple of points that connect back to the changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), which, as was explained by the Minister, are quite relevant.

I then go to the other point that we have, of course, in the wings, proposals around local government amalgamation or changes. One of the points raised with me was around council-owned assets, council-controlled organisations (CCOs) having control over infrastructure assets. If they are forced to be sold or, for some reason, transferred through the amalgamation process, does the right to apply through this Public Works Amendment Bill apply to the private owners of that public infrastructure—or once was public infrastructure? I think the intent of the Public Works Act was clearly to facilitate infrastructure development through our country, and we have to acknowledge our ancestors and the people who gave up land, got compensation, but it was none the less, as Julie Anne Genter pointed out, a very difficult process for many.

In supporting this piece of legislation, at the same time we are facing local government amalgamation, so those structures may change; forcing, possibly, the sell-off of CCOs; and then we have changes to the RMA which, as has been identified, you have designated authorities—is that what the term is?—

Requiring authorities

—requiring authorities; can’t keep up with all these terms—then they can apply, then I don’t think that Labour could support this bill on the basis that this is supporting public infrastructure for public purposes, because it’s now coming into, as we see stated here in reference to the fast-track process. I’m just thinking through a scenario down in Otago where a public road that the councillors controlled and, as possibly part of a big mining project, there’s been an agreement to hand over the road at this point.

Now, the issue of consultation is one that council is obliged to go through, but then if you go to the next step around relinquishing that land for a so-called public purpose or for a fast-track process, we need to look more carefully. I haven’t had any assurances or any comfort from what the Minister for Land Information has said that says this bill is for public infrastructure for public purposes. I suspect that we’re handing over a fast-track process through this Public Works Amendment Bill to a whole lot of private development, because my reading of the reference to the fast track here doesn’t differentiate between fast-track projects for public purposes or those for housing development, let’s say. Maybe the Minister can give us reassurance, if he can, but it does go to the heart of, actually, in my view, whether Labour should support this bill any further.

17:39

Thank you, Mr Chair. In response to the question from Hūhana Lyndon about any consideration of independent oversight and “Could this look at Treaty compliance?” The bill does not change the basic structure of the Public Works Act (PWA). The policy intent of the bill is not to provide a new oversight body. The bill’s new annual reporting requirement is intended to support greater monitoring of the PWA so that more public information can be provided about its use.

In response to the question from Julie Anne Genter around considerations when land has a delegation: as I’ve previously answered, if land is subject to a designation, the court will no longer be required to inquire into the adequacy of consideration given to alternative sites, routes, or other methods of achieving the objective. This is because the statutory process to assess and determine the appropriate route has already been completed under resource management legislation.

To Lan Pham, regarding the question around the consent of the relevant Māori portfolio Minister, the Minister who must give consent for the compulsory acquisition of Māori land is determined by the portfolio that oversees that category of land. It is either the Minister for Māori Development or the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. For example, Māori freehold land is governed by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, which is administered by Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Development portfolio.

17:40

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a few questions for the Minister for Land Information regarding clause 11, new section 18C. This is on the top of page 13, “When compliance with section 18 is not required”. This is an important section because it is, essentially, stating when we don’t need to actually comply with section 18(1) to (3).

Just a couple of questions regarding some of the definitions here, so that way we can have on record, for law students and future lawyers as well. Subsection (1)(a) states that after reasonable inquiry, if they cannot find the owner, either as an existing process or a new process or a standard or guidelines—would the Minister be able to speak to what is considered “reasonable” when you’re trying to find the owner of a land and it cannot be found, and therefore you are overriding section 18?

With new section 18C(1)(b), inserted by clause 11—noting that new section 18C(1)(a) does specify areas around a period, etc.—I do want to get a little bit more detail from the Minister regarding “reasonable inquiry”. For new section 18C(1)(b), this is the part which talks about the application to the Māori Land Court, if an order has not been made within six months. I do want to check with the Minister, in those kinds of instances, how often has this happened before, where an application has been made to the Māori Land Court and no order has been made within six months? How common is it? I’m trying to figure out if this is something that happens quite frequently or infrequently, because I personally don’t have a point of reference regarding the prevalence of the complexities around Māori land disputes.

My final question is around new section 18C(1)(c) and (d), inserted by clause 11. I want to check with the Minister under what circumstances would the owner of the land have no power to sell the land. Also in paragraph (d) is a term that I cannot actually find a succinct definition to, which is what is considered “legal disability”. The closest thing I could find is if a legal person is not of sound mind or is under age, etc. Is that what is the definition for “legal disability”? It would be good, first, to know the definition, and then I potentially have more questions from there. But just to signal to you, Mr Chair, that those are my questions for clause 11. I’m going to move on to subsequent clauses.

17:44

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on clause 12 and clause 13, but particularly, firstly, clause 13 when it comes to the objection to be heard by the Environment Court. The reason why I’m particularly interested in this is that the role of the Environment Court is absolutely critical in these circumstances, particularly where there is an objection to land acquisition. There was a really strong view amongst submitters that were in opposition to these changes, because they made it really clear that this was a narrowing of the scope of the Environment Court and the extent to which they can actually consider objections, particularly where there’s a designation in place and there’s compensation disputes about the acquiring of the land.

What I’m interested in, when it comes to this Environment Court process, is there were submitters who talked about how critical it was that the earlier consideration of alternatives in the Resource Management Act that would have had to take place is not really at all a replacement for the landowner’s right to seek independent assurance that all reasonable alternatives have actually genuinely been explored. I think what’s really clear is in some of these instances they need this right—it is absolutely critical to natural justice principles in this space. I understand that the Law Association was really strong in this and recognised that designations can sometimes be quite broad and they held this view that this was a really important part to make sure the integrity of natural justice is upheld.

So I’m interested to hear from the Minister for Land Information, because I’m noting that there’s been a few changes when it comes to the redraft of the bill, but is he comfortable with where these provisions have landed in terms of natural justice, in terms of the Environment Court consideration being narrowed, because of the significance of these parts and how clear submitters were in expressing their concerns? Really keen to hear that response, thank you.

17:47

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to invite the Minister for Land Information to join me on pages 22 to 23, looking at new sections 27B, and—oh no, page 21 as well—27A, please, inserted by clause 15, looking at “Land required for combined projects”. Just reviewing this section, I’m wanting to ask the Minister around certainty—certainty in terms of who is the acquiring authority. So if we’ve got a project that’s combined through a variety of agencies for public works purposes—it might be a bit of local government; it might be Transpower, all sorts—sometimes it can be not clear. Submitters also voiced, both as individuals as well as groups such as Upper Hutt City Council, about how the combined project parts of the legislation could raise uncertainties as to who is the acquiring authority. So in not being clear on who the acquiring authority is, would this open up the Minister to challenge in terms of the acquisition itself from impacted landowners?

Land Information New Zealand provided feedback where they said, “Any uncertainty around this acquiring authority would be addressed through information requirements that would be provided to the landowner in accordance with replacement section 18(2), inserted by clause 11.” But I guess that’s the clarity.

And I’m just really mindful of optics, as well as putting the Minister at risk—that when you combine projects and you have multiple agencies coming at landowners, how are they going to be compelled to speak with one voice when engaging with the landowner? Or is there going to be one lead agency that will be the voice on behalf of the collective when there is a combined project coming at a landowner? I raise this from a whenua Māori perspective, I raise it also from an individual general title landowner perspective, because when you have a knowledge of a combined project coming on to your whenua with the prospect of taking your land, with the incentives to sell or to have the compulsory acquisition, how does the landowner know who is the acquiring body, and does the Minister have enough protections in place to protect the Minister and who the agency is who will ultimately seek to acquire this land?

17:50

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s questions earlier about powers of entities if local government assets are privatised, CCOs or council-controlled organisations or other asset owners would need to meet the definition of “local authority” in the Public Works Act. This bill does not expand who can use public works powers.

To the member’s other question, do the changes mean land can be acquired for a non-public purpose? No. The Public Works Act (PWA) continues to only apply to the Minister or the local authority. There is the ability for network utility operators to ask the Minister to use the PWA on their behalf on a case by case basis.

To Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question earlier around replacement section 18(1), inserted by clause 11, when compliance with section 18 is not required, these sections have not changed and are replicated from the existing Resource Management Act. Whether an owner be found is assessed on a case by case basis. Efforts to locate must be reasonable and the ordinary and standard meaning would apply: a fair and sensible effort to locate. In making changes to modernise the acquisition process, the opportunity has been taken to update sections 18 to 23 with modern drafting.

To the member Lan Pham’s question around whether the Environment Court considerations have been narrowed in a way that is appropriate, yes, the bill does not prevent the decision maker or the Environment Court from considering whether the design of the infrastructure could be amended to better meet the requirement that the taking of the land is fair, sound, or reasonably necessary.

17:52

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Thank you for those clarifications, but the question is around if you were to have a major fast-track application for a housing development and the council then has to expand the roading network, the question might be is the roading network development and the acquisition of land to service that new subdivision—is it for public or private purposes? So the council, I presume, under your explanation, has the right to apply and acquire under the special legislation, as laid out in the clauses here, land for the council’s infrastructure, because of the private sector development. Is that correct?

17:53

Thank you, Mr Chair. Further to that in the Minister for Land Information’s answer just before about network utility operators, he started by saying that you still have to be a public work to be able to use this. That is good. But then he said that there is this route for network utility operators to utilise the Public Works Act. I think this is what he said. He’s very welcome to correct me. However, for a network utility operator to use this legislation, it has to be signed off by the Minister for Land Information.

He also said, in an earlier answer to me, that the changes to the Resource Management Act legislation mean that network utility operators have expanded and there are more entities that could become network utility operators. In his answer to me, the Minister used “may” a lot. There are a whole lot of discretionary endpoints here, but it would be very useful for the Minister to clarify that network utility operators, if the Minister approves it, can get access to the Public Works Act, or can they only access the Public Works Act if they are also a public work? That’s the first question. I think he said they can still access it.

Then the second question is can he expand on what the expansion of network utility operators is under the RMA replacement bill? We know that he has some tabled amendments to link in to the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—the Planning Bill is the most relevant here—and that that Planning Bill widens who can use these types of provisions. It’s much wider than what has historically been allowed. If he could comment on that, because I know that’s in a different bill, but he’s made an amendment that now links to the other pieces of legislation. He has given this answer that it is expanded. Then we know what we’re talking about. How many different types of projects might be able to use the powers in the Public Works Act that enable them to take private property? I would think that the ACT Party would be much more interested in this. Maybe I’m overreaching and those network utility operators have to be doing a public work and so it’s not an expansion. But the earlier answer from the Minister sounded like it very much was an expansion. That’s the nub of the issue that I’m interested in. Thank you.

17:56

Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question around if you have a fast-track application and a roading development was required to make roads, can the council use the Public Works Act (PWA) to buy the land for roads? The answer is yes.

To Hūhana Lyndon’s question around how the bill applies to decision making for Māori land, “agreement” under PWA refers to a person with authority to enter into an agreement. The bill does not change this. How shareholder agreement is required or reached for types of Māori land under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is covered by that Act. The bill recognises that protected Māori land may have legal or practical constraints, so it allows the discretion to make incentive payments even if early agreement can’t be reached.

To the member’s other question, in combined projects, how does the landowner know who is acquiring the land? The information requirements in the bill will ensure landowners know who is acquiring their land in a combined project. This information must identify the project, the acquiring authority, and why the land is needed. When the Minister authorises a combined project, they must publicly notify that it is a combined project.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.

Members, the committee is resumed on the Public Works Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break, we were debating Part 1, which is clauses 4 to 45, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedules 1 to 4. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

19:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before the break, the Hon Rachel Brooking asked about network utility operator access to Public Works Act (PWA) powers. This is an existing mechanism under section 186 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). That’s been in place since 1991. This bill makes consequential amendments to that section to provide for combined projects. These consequential amendments do not change the scope of who can apply under the RMA. Who can apply under those provisions in the Planning Bill is for that bill, not the Public Works Act. As I’ve repeatedly said, this bill is not changing who can access the PWA.

OK, the Hon Rachel Brooking. Can you start off by just telling me where you think you’re at in the process?

Just at clause 1.

I know she’s not there, because it’s all marked off on here.

19:01

I am at Amendment Paper (AP) 792, in the Minister’s name, and at—who knows what it is, but it’s at page 4—

Page 4 is close enough.

It’s in a box, new clause 13, and it says, “Order in Council may make certain consequential amendments”.

OK—found it.

This says “This clause applies if the 54th Parliament”—that’s the one we’re in for another couple of days—“enacts 1 or more Acts to replace the RMA (an RMA replacement Act).” And then it goes on about how “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, amend one or more RMA replacement Acts”, and this includes “to provide for the definitions of network utility operator, network utility operation, and requiring authority in section 2 of this Act to be replaced with the definitions of the corresponding terms in an”—because there’s two of them—“RMA replacement Act:” [Phone rings]

That’s a fine!

Ha, ha! So this is relevant to the answer that the Minister just gave because it’s the link in to the change. So he’s just told us RMA section 186 already says that if you can get to be a requiring authority under the RMA, then you can get into the Public Works Act process. However, what we’re seeing here at this new clause 13 on the Order in Council is that the RMA replacements—it will be called the Planning Act—is going to be able to change definitions in this legislation to match that legislation. We haven’t yet passed it in its third reading, but if we get to do that by next Wednesday, then it will apply.

And we’ve heard from the Minister in an earlier contribution that the Planning Act, which is a mysterious RMA replacement Act, in fact enables many more different types of companies and entities to become network utility operators and get into what would be the section 186 process under the RMA. I think I see the officials talking there. That is our concern: that, whilst the Minister can say, “Oh, well this Act isn’t the RMA and this Act isn’t the RMA replacement so we’re not going to talk about the changes that will be coming through those RMA replacements, through that Planning Act”—as it is likely to become—“we’re not going to talk about it.”

That’s not useful, because I’m really worried—and my whole Labour caucus is really worried—about the changes that are being made in this bill that, on the face of it, look like a nice bill that’s trying to make the process easier and fairer for those who are having their land taken for public works. But what we’re finding out now, and with this AP, is that it’s going to be—or I think it’s going to be—a whole lot more entities that will be able to use the Public Works Act provisions, which means that they can be non-public entities taking private land for a project that might be there to benefit shareholders. And that is not the historic scheme of the Public Works Act. You could argue that maybe there’s been one or two instances where things that were Crown entities and turned into State-owned enterprises and might have part ownership became requiring authorities for some projects—and I’m thinking, in particular, Meridian Energy would have done this for Project Aqua—that didn’t go ahead—in Canterbury, where I know the Minister grew up.

So this is really fundamental. Like, please can the Minister tell us what are the other types of projects that will be able to get through because of this replacement resource management (RM) legislation that he’s mentioned in his Amendment Paper.

The difficulty we have here is that we have—

Madam Speaker—

I’m speaking. The difficulty that we have here is that this Minister is not the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act. While I can understand the questions that the member is asking, we probably have a limited opportunity for this Minister to satisfyingly answer the questions that you’re asking. Maybe after the committee stage. You’re probably one of the most well-versed people in the House in terms of some of the committee stage legislation on that Resource Management Act, but I don’t think it’s fair—for this Minister, he can only answer it to the extent that he can, because he’s not the Minister responsible.

Thank you. I do understand those points and that we have spent some time in our last urgency on the RM replacement bills where we didn’t actually touch hardly at all on these types of provisions. I’m happy to take responsibility for that, in part.

The point I was making is that the member was well-versed in that committee stage. We just can’t put that expectation on this Minister.

And I take that point. I wasn’t taking it in a bad way at all.

But the Minister did say earlier in this—and I’m not sure if you were in the Chair then or not, Madam Chair—

Not on this bill.

This Minister on this bill said earlier that the RMA replacement bills do widen the criteria and so it may be—and I’m paraphrasing; I don’t have the Hansard in front of me—that other things, not the word the Minister used, could come into the process if the Minister allows it. So maybe I’m just asking—

For clarification.

—for confirmation again of that statement—that I’m right—that what we’ve got coming through is we’ve had that RMA replacement, and those RMA replacements are now going to be put into this legislation through his AP, and that will widen the number of things that can then use the Public Works Act provisions, subject to the Minister approving it.

19:09

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the same vein, I guess, because there have been so many moving parts to this challenge—to what we understood to be a well-intentioned modernisation. And now we’ve got, as I say, changes to the RMA, we’ve got the fast-track process, and we’ve got local government amalgamation and what might come from that.

So if I come back to clause 20 and its relation to section 39AAJA, “Combined projects”, “Sections 27A to 27D apply to a public work that is the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.” Now, the point that we asked prior to dinner was the one of private benefit. A critical infrastructure project can be public and private, and a combined project is defined as one that has some public work in it, so it basically pretty much opens it up to anything, if you consider a public component. In which case, even private projects have a public benefit to them. We acknowledge that, but the intent of this is for public not for private.

The questions to the Minister for Land Information is just to go through that. So section 39AAJA(2), inserted by clause 20, says: “For the purposes of subsection (1), the public work, together with 1 or more other public works,”—right, so there might be a few involved—“may be authorised as a combined project in accordance with [subsection 27] regardless of whether the other public works—(a) are part of the same critical infrastructure project: [or whether] (b) … the whole or a part of a different critical infrastructure project:”

So it kind of opens it up to anything, and maybe the Minister can define the parameters that ensure or reassure us that what we’re passing here is fast track—that is, the right to impose over someone’s private property rights the acquisition of their land for a public purpose. What makes me even more wary is that the ACT Party is enthusiastic about this. It’s the first time I’ve seen the ACT Party enthusiastic about imposing on private property rights, so it makes me very, very wary. They may have concluded, as I’m starting to conclude, that the imposition or the acquisition of private property rights, which is what this does, for compensation—I’m not saying it’s without compensation, but something that if someone’s to say no, which they have done, this overrides that right. But ACT thinks that’s OK.

Well, I kind of struggle with their philosophy. It’s a consistent philosophy, I have to say, that private property rights are absolute. Unless they see that the private property rights and benefits accrue through this process, where a combined project, which is clause 20, where there’ll be a small component of a public project or public work, as it is defined—there’s a small component—but a large component of private, but this would be allowed under my reading of clause 20, Part 2. It even says where it may be authorised for the purposes of that public work—a combined project might be authorised if “(c): are not the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.”

Now, the Minister’s had some advice and I look forward to getting that because it is important.

I think the Minister for Land Information can answer in his role as a Minister on behalf of the Government, for this piece of legislation, but no expectation that he can answer on behalf of the ACT Party or anything.

No, I appreciate that.

19:13

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Hon Damien O’Connor,, to his question around whether critical infrastructure combined projects expand to private works: no. Critical infrastructure projects are a refined list of fast-track projects and roads in Schedule 2A of the Public Works Act. These are public works being undertaken by the Crown or a local authority.

I appreciate that, and that’s a nice bureaucratic answer, but if it’s combined—so you have a housing project that actually just happens to need some roads to go to it. So the roads are part of the combined project that will service the private project. My question is: if the council says, “Well, we have to widen the road and so we will acquire the land to widen the road because there will be another 1,000 people living somewhere and we need to have infrastructure.”, that is a public infrastructure. I accept that, but the combined project is one of the housing developments, serviced by a public infrastructure which is the roading or it might be the electricity. That’s the point I’m trying to make. I’m not sure that the Minister’s clarified that answer for me.

19:14

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister for Land Information, just noting that we are progressing through this bill. I want to touch on something the Minister said before regarding clause 13, section 24 amended, around the Environment Court. Now, I just want to get some clarification from the Minister. In the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 201 to 224, pages 58 to 65, it talks about possibilities or considerations around objection. The recommendation and the preferred option by the ministry here is around having refined ground for objection in the Public Works Act, but what the panel has suggested, which has a negative mark next to it, is option C3, which is “No right to object if RMA designation [is] approved”.

Can I just check, with clause 13, inserting section 24(8): “the Environment Court must not undertake the inquiry under subsection (7)(b) … —(a) there is a designation for the part of the public work for which the land is proposed to be taken;”—if that is option C3 or option C2 of the regulatory impact statement, because that is an important one to make. If it is indeed option C3, then how would the Minister rationalise the fact that in the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 223 on page 64, it says that the risk of adopting option C3, which is having no RMA designation process, “would inadvertently slow down the designation process by including the consideration of land acquisition matters”. So I want to check that clarification with the Minister.

Can I also just check, further on to what the Hon Damien O’Connor has said, and I’m looking at clause 15, inserting new section 27D(3)—I asked the Minister previously around local government consultation, and one of the things we heard in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is that local governments worry about the cost that this would incur. We just heard, previously, from the Hon Damien O’Connor that if there is a possibility that combined projects could be public and private, then here, in section 27D(3), local government then is the one that has to get accrued to them around “All costs and expenses incurred … in respect of actions taken” by combined projects.

Are we then asking for local authorities to compensate for what potentially could be public combined projects undertaken by private companies, which then would be—I think from a ratepayer’s perspective, maybe that’s not something they had in mind, or even for this Government what they had in mind, when talking about prioritising expenditure for local government. I want to check that clarity with the Minister—so this is section 27D(3). I’ll leave you with those two and I will move on to subsequent sections.

19:18

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister, in relation to representation of certain owners for the purposes of replacement section 18, inserted by clause 11. It’s a clause that I just spotted, which I’m a bit nervous about, in terms of representation. Representation of land owners, an individual or a group, has been used as a tool for alienation in the past. Now, submitters did raise the point that these agents who are appointed to represent land owners, a concern that, as an administrative process, having this agent appointed could actually accelerate the land loss and alienation of the group being represented.

In the clause we’re it talks about also the Māori Land Court being able to deal with it through their own processes, they’re the actual agents that I’m concerned about, and I want to invite the Minister to provide comfort that somehow, magically, the Māori Land Court has improved its processes and magically will see some form of tighter reins on agents being approached and appointed to represent land owners. Because for freehold Māori land owners, often these agents are appointed representing a small number of the land owners, not the actual collective interests of those who whakapapa to the block. While I know officials said, “Oh, it’s been a mechanism used for a long time in the Māori Land Court.”, e hoa, it’s a tool of alienation and we have to be really cautious with that.

So I’m just wanting to seek some surety from the Minister that maybe there have been some improvements in the Māori Land Court, that the Māori Land Court will have capacity and capability to appoint agents who have enough of a tight leash on them to be accountable to said land owners.

Further on this section here, talking about the Public Trust being authorised to represent an owner for this purpose too, there’s a range of compliances put in place for the Public Trust to represent a land owner, and, again, there’s nervousness in these agents being appointed because, for instance, the land owner hasn’t engaged in some of a six-month period [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office].

Can I just say that this particular Minister is not responsible for those appointments. So what is the question that relates to this piece of legislation that you’re wanting to ask this Minister?

The issue is that when we’re referring to different mechanisms to manage land interests and representation that this refers to, because it’s ture whenua Māori—so this is Māori freehold land being impacted—and then Crown officials are saying, “Oh, the Māori Land Court have got it sorted. They’ve been doing this for years.” This bill in particular has direct impact on Māori land owners, as Māori freehold land. So what improvements have we seen? Because this will require the Māori Land Court to act in a manner to appoint these people. Have there been improvements? Is there additional resource? Because this Act is coming through that the Māori Land Court will finally have some capacity and capability to appoint people who will have the relevant safeguards in place. I think it’s very relevant to the Minister.

It’s a relevant question to the wider picture, but I think in terms of this Minister’s responsibility, he can answer for himself, but the Māori Land Court is not his responsibility.

Then that’s one of the issues.

The Minister’s about to give an answer, but I think this is getting too broad.

19:22

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the member’s question, the appointment of an agent or Public Trust in new section 18B, inserted by clause 11 of the bill, is an existing provision in the Public Works Act. It’s reproduced in the bill as the structure of the provision has been updated for modern drafting. The operation of the Māori Land Court is outside my portfolio.

There was also a question earlier from Lawrence Xu-Nan around the regulatory impact statement, 201 to 224. It is not the panel’s option, in clause 13. An objection is still able to be made if there is an investigation. The bill refines the grounds for an objection.

Hon Rachel Brooking—I’m going to ask the member to see if there’s any outstanding areas that she hasn’t been to, to her mind. But what I’ve done is read through all of the questions that were asked prior to the dinner break, and I’m finding this whole debate either repetitive or out of the responsibility of the Minister. So I want the questions to be absolutely precisely to the Minister, excepting that some of the answers that the questioners are wanting answers to are probably not going to be what they’re wanting to hear. OK?

19:24

Madam Chair, thank you for that. I did ask for the Minister for Land Information just to clarify the answer that he had given earlier and in relation to his Amendment Paper 792.

So I’m still waiting for that, but I do have a precise question, and if you can just bear with me on the wording here. So, again, it’s new clause 13 in the Amendment Paper. It’s just at (2)—this is just a wording issue; it’s not a policy issue.

Where is she, sorry?

13.

At clause 13(2): “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, amend 1 or more RMA replacement Acts”—I understand that, and the Planning Act, as it will be, or the Natural Environment Act—“for all or any of the following purposes:”.

It might be my reading of it. This legislation is saying that that new legislation that’s not here yet can be amended to provide for the following references in this Act to be amended. I just don’t understand what’s being amended there, because it says—wouldn’t it be the following references, and it’s so that they refer to the corresponding provisions in an RMA replacement Act? I’m just confused or not certain about which piece of legislation is being amended to reflect which other piece of legislation. Is it that, say, the Planning Act is being amended to incorporate the wordings that we find in this Act, or is it the other way around, that this legislation is being amended to reflect the new terms that will be in the other Acts?

I mean, amend the Planning Act to provide for the following references in the Public Works amendment to be amended so that they refer to the corresponding provisions in the Planning Act. I’m finding that very circular and so I’m just asking the Minister if he can explain what is meant by that. Again, as I’m saying, it’s not a policy one. I understand that there are different terms in the different pieces of legislation and you want to reflect it, and my concern that I’ve already articulated is that the widening of what can be a network utility or what can be designated under the RMA replacement Acts is going to lead to significant consequences in the Public Works Act. But I have asked that question.

Then just going back to clause 20, which is this combined projects, and it is a question that’s been asked before, but it would be useful for the Minister to just focus on that word “part”, because new section 39AAJA, “Combined projects”, says that the sections “apply to a public work that is the whole or a part of a critical infrastructure project.” So the concern is about the part. So if you have a public work that could now be something that’s imported from section 186 of the RMA Planning Act extension into being a public work where this Act requires, and it’s related to a critical infrastructure project, how much does that part have to be? Is it that the combined project is substantively the critical infrastructure project—so those roads that are defined in Schedule 2A, I think, of the Public Works Act?

The message that I’m concerned about is that the critical infrastructure project—so the road—could be a very small part, and then it imports all these other things to become a public work. So if the Minister wants to comment on that word or “a part”, that would be a useful specific contribution. Thank you. [Interruption]

19:28

Just one moment. We’re just waiting for an answer.

Thank you. Madam Chair. As promised, I am going to move along from the previous sections. I am currently on clause 23. It is a big bit, so just bear with me. I’m looking at new Part 2C, new section 39L, inserted by clause 23. The question I have for this is, in the event of an emergency, if there can be a secondary legislation made on the recommendation of the Minister for Land Information that this part is applicable for the restoration of public works following an emergency, can I just check, is there any potential that this then becomes a “Henry VIII” clause, where it will make changes to the primary legislation as a result of that secondary legislation? I note that new sections 39M to 39Y, state some of the specificities around the taking of land in the event of emergency recovery. But I do want to just check if that’s going to be a “Henry VIII” clause.

I want to move on to clause 25, and I’ll leave it at clause 25 for this contribution. This is the part that says compensation in relation to Māori freehold land will be assessed as general land. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the regulatory impact statement, page 40, paragraphs 131 to 134. This has to do with Māori interests, because my understanding is that currently Māori freehold land is not compensated at the same rate as general land. I’m assuming that this part is taking up the recommendation where now they are being paid for by the same rate. But what I’m not seeing in this part, and the Minister may be able to point me to the correct section, is that in paragraph 133 it says “The PWA does not recognise that multiple dwellings on Māori land can be separately owned. This means that where there are several dwellings, such as for papakāinga, only one home-loss payment can be paid under the status quo.” And the recommendation is to be able to split some of that up under this bill. Would the Minister just be able to point to me on which clause in this bill allows the splitting of some of that payment, which can’t be done under the existing legislation? Those are my two questions for now.

We’ve just got some answers here from the Minister when he’s ready.

19:31

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s earlier question about local government worries about the costs that could be incurred and the possibility that Crown projects are public and private. Combined works can only be public works. A private project cannot combine with the public work using the combined works provisions.

Clarification for the Hon Rachel Brooking in regards to new clause 13 of Schedule 1AA, added in Amendment Paper 792. The Planning Bill already includes consequential amendments that it will make to the Public Works Act. New clause 13 allows those consequential amendments to be updated.

An earlier question from Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding Order in Council and emergency recovery. New section 39L: Order in Council does not change primary legislation. H switches on the provisions in the primary Act for emergency recovery for the specific works listed in the Order.

Again for the member, section 72B, amended by clause 29, is the new provision for home loss payments on Māori freehold land.

19:33

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 792 be agreed to.

Could you clarify your number that you voted in Labour?

Toru tekau—30.

Just a question as to whether you had voted 32 in the previous vote, and is 32 correct for the previous vote and 30 correct for—

If we could correct that at 30, please.

Thank you. You need to seek leave.