Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 2 July 2026

09:00

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. This is a very common-sense bill because it puts clinical need back at the heart of our health system, and this bill focuses on the health system delivering for patients. It’s the priority that will flow down through this amendment bill. It will introduce statutory health targets, and it will ensure patients receive timely access to quality services. There will be improved fiscal management of physical assets and the reinforcement of political neutrality across the health workforce.

Also, I’m pleased to see that the name has been changed to Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. We have a general coalition commitment with National to put English first. So, for that, I commend the bill to the House.

09:01

Thank you. Te Pāti Māori stands in complete opposition to the gutting of our Māori health equity and Māori Te Tiriti - focused achievements that had spent many years, decades, of credible research, starting from, obviously, Tā Mason Durie and the realisation that in order to address a holistic health need in Aotearoa, it required a system that didn’t just have a clinical focus, and that it had a holistic focus on taha wairua, taha w’ānau, taha hinengaro, taha tinana [spiritual health, social health, mental health, physical health].

It’s taken a lot of years to get the acceptance of what a proper health system in Aotearoa required. So, obviously, we’re gutted at the fact that we’ve gotten so close yet so far, because of the terminology I just heard a minute ago, and that is because of “political neutrality”. Political neutrality, political appetite, political agendas have gotten in the way, sadly, of what should have been a thorough journey to address the needs that we have as a nation.

It is well known, the inequities that Māori face through no fault of our own. We don’t face those inequities because of race. We face those inequities because of displacement. We face those inequities because of historical muru raupatu. We face those inequities because of a lack of trust and because of a lack of any connection to a health system that is designed for us, without us.

Imagine if we had the opportunity to establish the Māori Health Authority—Te Aka Whai Ora, Pae Ora legislation without the hang ups, politically, that we had seen in the last six to nine years. Imagine if we were able to establish a Māori health commission and we were able to holistically transfer funding and appropriation of funds that was able to address, at scale, the needs that we have. Imagine if we decided to invest $5 billion at least into addressing the inequities that Māori and Pasifika peoples are facing. Imagine if we were able to make sure Te Tiriti was entrenched and bound into legislation so that we didn’t continuously have this whiplash of debating that continuously goes on in this House about Māori.

Māui Pōmare said in 1919, in fact in this very House, that during the Spanish influenza, he witnessed the marginalisation, the suffering, and the death of many of his people through no fault of their own, but because of poverty, because of the social determinants, the poor housing, and because of the fact that we had, again, a system enforced on us that left Māori out. We saw some of that during COVID when Māori had to stand up for themselves because the one-stop shop approach of the public health system at the very beginning, left us behind.

It is with that that I ask our people to remind themselves that in November you have a choice. To all our hauora providers, to all our kaimahi who have been laid off, to all of our academics and our advisers who have been told not to use the word “M” for Māori or “E” for equities: in November you have a chance to invest in a proper health system by looking at the manifesto of the very parties who are asking you to vote for them; to look at manifestos that would entrench Te Tiriti, that would invest in free dental care, that would invest in free medication delivery, that would invest in Māori hauora at scale, that would invest in establishing a Māori health commissioning agency that can’t see any of these entities that use their political agenda to wipe out the progress and the future of ourselves; to protect data, Māori data, and ensure accountability; to build workforce and system capability and stop our health workforce from leaving the country; to invest in mental health and addiction services; to focus on prevention.

We had the opportunity. We lost it because the big parties wouldn’t invest in scale and be bold. That is what we need in this country, to stop using Māori as what you want when it comes to elections, but not what you will invest in at scale. We have the opportunity in November to repeal and bring back a health system and legislation that we can be proud of. Kia kaha to our whānau out there.

09:06

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Like many other contributors, I wanted to start by acknowledging that Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) isn’t just a name. It was a new vision for a health system that was gifted to us by Tā Mason Durie, where we had a holistic vision where people, whānau, and the environment were treated as components that all led to good health.

What I’m concerned about in this debate is, and I particularly wanted to pick up on the Minister of Health’s first contributions to outline why I find this particularly problematic, is that we’ve got a bill that, as the Minister spoke about, claims to be “fixing the basics and building the future”. And yet, part of this bill is simply undermining the place of te reo Māori in the language of legislation. How does that fix the basics? How does that actually improve patient outcomes? I heard so much sloganeering in the Minister’s contribution without actually outlining to us how people’s material realities will be improved as part of this bill.

That’s, I think, particularly concerning, because we’ve got a health system that is under humongous strain. We’ve got health workers that are calling out to us that they’re facing unsafe working conditions. And yet, when you look at the provisions of this bill, one of the particularly concerning components is the political neutrality element of it, which, as submitters and public health experts noted, actually has a massive chilling effect on our health workers being able to raise issues that the Government of the day may not be addressing or may be doing that maybe undermining their work. And this, I think, particularly raises the question: why is this Government treating health workers as the potential antagonists? What are they so concerned about of health workers actually using their voices to raise issues around health policy changes or whether the status quo is working that they need to put elements in this legislation that would effectively gag them from being able to raise these concerns?

It concerns me because it means that this Government may potentially be treating the very same health workers that are delivering the targets in this legislation as their enemies. I think this should not ever be the case for any Government. A Government should welcome clinicians and health practitioners being able to raise concerns, being able to speak the truth, being able to go out and talk about the concerns that they have with Government policy or what’s happening on the ground and the experience that they’re seeing. We should not be using the guise of political neutrality to prevent them from being able to actually address this.

In the Minister’s contributions, he thanked submitters, yet what I am seeing in the select committee report and the lack of adequate changes to this is that submitters were all in all, frankly, ignored, particularly public health experts that submitted on this bill, experts that noted that the downgrading of our Te Tiriti obligations, our downgrading of addressing the determinants of health—whether they’re social or environmental—and the downgrading of even just addressing inequities that, as the previous speaker noted, have been embedded into our health system through historical violence that will not be addressed simply by slapping a bunch of targets into primary legislation. Ultimately, like I said, the people who are in charge of meeting those targets are the very same workers that are currently being undermined in this legislation as well.

I also want to, frankly, talk about this Government’s issue with unions. The Minister noted in his contribution that unions were named in the legislation multiple times as if it was a bad thing. Well, those unions—particularly in the health sector—have been critical at shining a light on the issues that patients face. Patient safety, ultimately, is a staffing issue as well. If we’ve got healthcare workers in unions highlighting to us that the workers are facing unsafe staffing conditions and those very same workers are unable to meet the needs of their patients, you would want to, if anything, empower those workers’ voices as well as empowering patient voice within our health system. I do not see this happening under this legislation. I would invite members of the House from the Government side to talk about how this bill materially benefits everyday people, as opposed to just going back to their same old slogans and pretending like switching languages around in a title will do anything but continue undermining Māori-Crown relations.

09:11

Excellent. It’s a great honour to speak in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill in the third reading. We’ve just had the challenge about how this is going to affect the everyday lives of New Zealanders. We’re introducing health targets so we can get better healthcare for our patients. That is why we’re passing this bill. I commend it to the House.

09:12

I think it’s an appropriate time to talk about some of the Māori contribution in terms of health in this country. I was listening to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and she was spot on with all of her kōrero, and I’m happy to tautoko that. The challenge in terms of the big parties is about the investment, is about the devolution in terms of funding, and is about supporting kaupapa Māori initiatives. This bill clearly does not do that—it does not do that.

I was thinking about all the wonderful Māori health advocates through the years, and I was looking back—we’re in campaign time at the moment, so I’m not looking to promote anyone, but, well, I have a young man standing in Ngāi Tahu, Mananui Ramsden, whose auntie was one of our most foremost health advocates, Irihapeti Ramsden, and she did her thesis on cultural safety, which was quite ironic really. She’s seen as one of the greats in terms of Māori health advocacy, and so relevant with this kaupapa where we are stripping away a lot of the safeguards in terms of tikanga Māori and in terms of te reo Māori.

I felt sad last night but very proud when I was listening to our former Minister Ayesha Verrall, but I felt sad when I was listening to the Minister of Health waffle on like nothing’s happened in terms of kaupapa Māori, tikanga Māori, and all our advocates through the years who warned of the dangers ahead in terms of the health system. I go back to my uncle, Syd Jackson, who set up Turuki Health Care, which was followed on by Te Puea Winiata, who’s the CEO today, and my cousin Ramari Jackson. That Turuki work has just been tremendous in terms of South Auckland, and I want to salute her, salute my uncle and my cousin. I want to look at Sir Mason Durie, who’s mentioned all the time, and quite rightfully so, who set up the frameworks in terms of mana motuhake and tikanga Māori within the Māori health system. His work has, again, just been cast to the side with the introduction of this bill. His son-in-law John Tamihere must be mentioned also, although people might look at him in a different way. His work in terms of Māori health—as you know, Minister Potaka—is undoubted, particularly in West Auckland in terms of Wai Health and the work that the Waipareira Trust has done in that area, which has just been magnificent in terms of lifting up our people. I salute my old mate JT, who has been at the forefront of Māori health. Riana Manuel, who was leading the Māori Health Authority, did some terrific work. So many people have been let down by this—Professor Papaarangi Reid, a leading advocate in terms of kaupapa Māori initiatives and tikanga Māori initiatives; Dr Rawiri Jansen, who did a lot of work for us; Dr Mataroria Lyndon, Hūhana Lyndon’s brother. We have such a long list of Māori advocates in the health area. All of them could have walked into this place and did terrific jobs, and just in the last 48 hours, we’ve heard Dr Lance O’Sullivan warn us about the dangers of the health system in terms of Māori.

What we can’t get over, on this side of the House, is: what upsets the other side so much in terms of our kaupapa? Why does it come to a point where we actually even have to change the name of this organisation so that Winston Peters or his supporters feel more comfortable? We’ve got to the point, now, where we actually have to take the “Pae Ora” name out of the legislation and make it subservient to the English kōrero. It’s so sad and so disappointing for Māori, who have not been able to fairly access the health system, have not been able to achieve equity, and have not been able to get support, but have worked within the system, as they did with us in our term as we went about attempting to set up the Māori Health Authority to look after the needs of our people within the system. But, of course, that was quickly disbanded by this Government, who said, “No. We have the right answer for you.”, and that answer is about Māori disappearing, Māori words, Māori kaupapa, tikanga Māori—anything to do with Māori is chucked out.

We heard the Minister last night: “But you have an advisory board.” Well, it’s not good enough—it’s just not good enough. The Minister of Health calls it “Healthy Futures” while stripping away the very principles designed to make New Zealand healthier. This bill replaces equity with bureaucracy and compassion with key performance indicators. Patients don’t need another restructuring; they actually just need a doctor sometimes. They actually just need to get in to see the doctor. You can’t hit health targets by deleting the people who are working to reduce health inequity, and that’s what this Government has done here.

The problem with the legislation is that it confuses speed—it’s all about speed; it’s not that we’re not into targets; we’re talking about targeting Māori; “Oh, no, we won’t be targeting Māori.”—with success. Fast isn’t better if the sickest are left behind. We’re removing Māori voices from decision making while claiming everyone will somehow benefit. A health system without equity isn’t universal; it’s unequal by design. You can’t legislate away health disparities by pretending they don’t exist. The Government says this is all about patients, yet it weakens the mechanisms created to hear the communities with the poorest health outcomes. Health isn’t improved by rewriting legislation; it’s improved by funding nurses, GPs, ambulances, and hospitals, which that Government seems to be so allergic to.

Removing principles doesn’t remove problems; it simply removes accountability. When you reduce Māori participation in health governance, you reduce the health system’s ability to respond to Māori communities. This is what our people are saying. This is what they’re saying in terms of the partnership boards that I want Minister Potaka to take some notice of: “We do not just want to be the mihi people. We don’t just want to be the mihi men.”—like Minister Potaka over there—“We want to contribute. We want to be in the decision-making area.” That’s what iwi partnerships are about. It’s not about “Get up and do your mihi, now shut your mouth!” That’s what this other side wants. We want to be able to contribute. We want to be the leaders, not the mihi people on the side just doing nothing. This Government is less about improving healthcare and more about rewriting the Government’s ideological dislike of public health into law and pretending that it’s a solution.

It’s been a privilege on this side of the House to support our people, to support our communities—and not just Māori, because we always say that if you strengthen the Māori sector, then all New Zealanders will benefit. The other side don’t seem to get their heads around that. They seem to be scared. They seem to think that if we’re able to dilute, water down, get rid of Māori solutions—by Māori, for Māori strategies—then they, somehow, will appease and placate New Zealand. But they’re not doing that. I invite them just to have a look at their own polls to get some validity in regard to that.

If equity disappears from the statute book, it doesn’t disappear from the emergency department. We’ve all seen that tragic reality at the Waikato Hospital emergency department this week, and I’m sure the whole House sends their aroha to that whānau. An absolute tragedy and crisis that’s happened down there.

The Government keeps promising efficiency, but patients can’t be treated with smart alec press releases from a smart alec Minister who has no idea about what’s happening in our community, and has no idea in terms of what Māori want and what people want. His speech last night was an absolute disgrace. I’m happy to say that. He might get applause from his Government mates, but our communities are disgusted with the rubbish coming from this Government.

A healthier future requires investment, not simply changing the words in an Act of Parliament. History won’t judge this bill by how many clauses it amended, it will judge it by whether people’s health actually improved. We vote against this bill because it won’t improve public health, it just pretends to. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

09:22

Clarity is power. The more clear you are about exactly what you want, the more likely you are to achieve it. This Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill provides a clear direction for our health system, ensuring a laser focus on delivering the results New Zealanders expect. Its purpose is simple: to ensure patients receive timely access to quality healthcare. We are here, fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. This Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill introduced by the Minister of Health represents a fundamental dismantling of the equity architecture built into the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022. It does not improve health services. This bill does the opposite. It takes away Māori governance; it removes statutory equity obligations; it centralises ministerial control, silences health workers, and introduces perverse legislative targets, all while, at the same time, bypassing meaningful consultation with tangata whenua Māori.

This bill passed second reading earlier on in March of this year, despite the overwhelming public opposition to it: 1,787 submissions were received, the majority of whom objected to this bill. The critics included Māori advocates, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the Mental Health Foundation, disability advocates, Treaty specialists, who all uniformly condemned not only the bill but the direction that it takes.

The Minister of Health also did not accept the invitation from the Health Committee for him to provide oral evidence on this bill, which indicates to us in this House that the Government, whose legislation we have before us, does not want to be scrutinised about this bill. The Labour Party strongly objects to the passage of this bill because it undermines Māori voice. It weakens Treaty commitments. It takes decision making far, far away from the local communities that it affects. It erodes the partnership between the Crown and its Te Tiriti partner in favour of an advisory bureaucracy. It binds future Governments with inflexible targets, and it strips the legislation of Māori identity and wellbeing principles.

The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022, which this bill repeals, was enacted following the Health and Disability Systems Review and the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 2575 Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry. That inquiry found that Māori health inequities were the direct result of persistent Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Māori average life expectancy is seven to eight years less than non-Māori. The economic burden of existing health inequalities and inequities is estimated at over $863 million per year. The Government’s own regulatory impact statement concedes that the benefits of this bill are assessed as low, and any improvements are likely to be marginal. So why—and I asked the Minister this question last night—is the Minister of Health writing privatisation language into the objectives of the Health New Zealand Act at all, when the evidence from overseas shows that heavily privatised systems, especially in the United States of America, costs more, excludes more people, and produces worse equity outcomes than universal public health systems like we have here in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Clause 13 of the bill actually writes in that our Act should consider privatisation and private providers, and this is privatisation creep coming into our public health system. This matters because universal public health systems are designed with access to health services according to need, while heavily privatised systems ration access according to insurance status and according to people’s and families’ ability to pay. For Māori people, for Pacific people, for our ethnic communities, disabled people, low-income families, and our rural communities, that difference is not abstract. It shapes whether or not people receive preventive care early or present later to hospital sicker, and it will cost us, as taxpayers, more money.

We do not commend this bill to the House. Our mokopuna will live with the consequences of the decisions made in this Chamber. They deserve a health system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

09:27

Mōrena e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko te Pae Ora te kaupapa o tēnei pire. Ko te Pae Ora te rautaki o tēnei pire. Ko te Pae Ora tonu te ingoa o tēnei pire. Nō reira ka tuku atu i tēnei pire ki te Whare.

[Good morning, Madam Speaker. Pae Ora is the subject of this bill. Pae Ora is the strategy of this bill. Pae Ora remains the name of this bill. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.]

09:28

Kia ora. I want to talk about this bill in terms of its direction of travel because I think it consolidates the feelings on this side of the House rather well. I absolutely loved hearing the comments made by the Hon Jenny Salesa yesterday because they spoke to my values. I am particularly concerned about this bill because it breaks the trust of a lot of New Zealanders. They’re out there, working for the people who most need our help. It’s not about a moneyed class; it’s about everybody. This bill erodes so many good things, and so I want to talk about some of them, why people should worry about them, and why they should think about where they want to be in New Zealand in the next few years when they’re at the ballot box.

Now, one of the issues that I have with this bill—and I talked about it yesterday—was a discussion about the targets. The Minister of Health basically attacked me and suggested that I was belittling the targets that he’d set as not appropriate. I wasn’t belittling those targets. Those are all important targets to me, but the bill itself doesn’t show New Zealanders a future where targets will be set actually on the basis of what’s needed at the time. It embeds a few random targets.

There is no reason why you would put the target about cancer into the legislation but not put a similar target with regard to heart attacks in the legislation. That’s just illogical. What we needed to see if we were going to look at a bill that made sense was a less arrogant approach of a Minister setting what he considered to be his reckons on what was important at this moment. It needed to be structural. It needed to have in it an ability to consult with people about what was the target at the time and to flex as one problem was solved and another was put into the list of targets. That is a good approach to legislation. This is not a kingdom run by a Minister. This is a system that needs to have the resilience of flex in it so that we can solve problems and we can keep solving problems. There are myriads of problems in our health system at present.

Now, one of the problems we saw was, yesterday, a terrible tragedy of someone dying in one of our emergency departments. It’s a terrible thing. I just want to take a minute to say to the family that that was something that I will never forget happening. I will always remember it. I know that people on this side of the House will remember the failure that that was, in anyone’s count. I know there will be an investigation done, but there was no way that that was a good result or an acceptable result.

What will help people in this country who deeply need support from their health system is one that tackles those real problems in a systematic and intelligent way, and that means thinking about things like equity and how we actually get an approach which helps people properly and equally, given their circumstances. That means we do have to concern ourselves with things like the eight years of different life expectancy for Māori. That’s a complete failure. Each one of those people who die eight years earlier—that’s a tragedy that should be on the front page, that should be reported by Radio New Zealand. Those are things we need to take account of, because they’re real human beings. They’re real tragedies to their families when those people die early. Our health system, it must address those things.

That should have actually been one of the things that was considered possible to prioritise in those targets. But, in fact, we get a random selection—we get a completely random selection, which shows an unbelievable level of illogicality, arrogance, and, actually, just ideology. It shows an ideology that says, “I will always know best.” It shows an ideology that refuses to see the tragedy of all the deaths that aren’t reported. All those people—eight years of life taken away from a group of people because that has not been addressed properly. It’s not moral that that hasn’t been addressed. It’s a big deal that it hasn’t, and it needs to be a priority for New Zealand.

Now, I want to talk about the issue over the charter, because, again, this is something I did make quite a big deal about and I asked questions about of the Minister. I was given this glib response that the charter that was embedded and is now gone didn’t talk about patients. The charter is all about patients.

It doesn’t use the word once.

Many systems that we need in this situation—

It talks about unions 11 times.

Now, I’m going to answer the question, so rather than heckle, perhaps you could listen and I’ll explain why it is that the charter is important to patients.

Functional systems where the health workforce are engaged in a way, in their own value system, in bringing up issues and solving problems—those are all incredibly important to our outcomes in health. People on this side of the House understand that it’s got to come from the workforce. It’s incredibly important that the workforce participate. It is arrogant to think it can be top-down. It’s never worked—it’s never worked. It doesn’t work in our largest companies, and, therefore, they adopt different approaches. They involve workers if they want to make things change well. When it comes to care of people, who is better informed than the person holding their hand? Who is better informed than the workers committed to their care? Those are the people who understand how to make our system better. Those are the people who see the deaths in our workplaces.

This is important, and it is a major difference between the two parties—that one shuns the workforce, is contemptuous of their offering, and treats them like they are automatons; and one understands that every workforce has a quality of actual moral engagement. The people who are our nurses and our doctors, they are committed to the wellbeing of their patients, and they need to be involved in solving the failings in that system, so it’s incredibly important they commit to the values of that system.

One of the things that they committed to, which I suspect was what was actually the decider for the Minister, is that they committed to addressing the inequities—they committed to addressing them and actually committed to the Treaty of Waitangi, and that would have been a red rag to a bull, wouldn’t it? Imagine addressing the issues and the failings that have caused such systemic issues as the early death, by eight years, of a particular group. Wouldn’t that be just a terrible thing to do? That’s what people on the ground see and that’s what they want to solve. But now we take away their participation in that by removing the charter. It was a well-thought-out charter. I read it. There was nothing wrong with that charter. It was going in the right direction.

Now I want to talk about clause 13, the privatisation clause. This commits our health system to looking at contracting out. Now, this may be the Trojan Horse of this. While we all look over here at some stuff that’s really important, this is an objective that is put into the legislation that is highly ideological. As the Hon Jenny Salesa said, this hasn’t worked overseas. It’s causing great, great concern in places like America, which has such wealth; people don’t have decent healthcare. Is that the way we want to go? That’s the way that the Government is taking this country. It’s taking it towards poverty, despair, and death—that’s what it’s taking it towards. Thank you.

09:38

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill. National is taking the health system back to sensible measures of actual performance, because we do know that when those targets were taken away, wait times blew out massively. It was incredibly frustrating, as a GP, to see the inability to get patients into the system when the system was not focused on making sure that patients were being seen. It’s very obvious to me that this is a tool that works very well, as we see waiting times go down. As we are fixing the basics in the system, we’ll build the future. I commend the bill to the House.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

09:41

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in consideration of the three Amendment Papers that he has tabled for the committee of the whole House’s consideration, whether there are any new amendments since the last time the committee considered his bill, or whether he intends to prepare any other amendments that will be introduced in the period today?

09:42

The answer is no and no. It’s just what we’re debating now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question with regard to clause 93, section 100I, where it talks about the change that’s made with regard to a time limit of three months after a claimant has been notified of the final assessment of a claim to submit disputes to arbitration. Now, I would just like to question the thinking around changing it to a three-month time limit? Because if I think about, depending on what the situation may have been, whether it was quite a traumatic situation for somebody—if we think about, say, M. bovis as an example, where someone was denied, perhaps, compensation or something, and they were still quite traumatised by it—that three months to get themselves together to dispute that decision is not that much time. I’m just interested to know why the Minister says that they chose three months as opposed to any other; perhaps six months or further. If the Minister would be so kind as to answer that, that would be great. Thank you.

The next question that I have for the Minister is clause 99, section 111. Now, it talks about removing the requirement for an inspector exercising a warrant to be accompanied by a constable. I’m just thinking about certain situations whereby safety could be paramount for those exercising a warrant. I note that in the explanation and the rationale for this change, we have a situation where it says, “MPI inspectors are trained in the execution of search warrants.” The reason that, perhaps, they’ve removed the need for having to be accompanied by a constable is because it makes logistical and resourcing difficult for both the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the New Zealand Police. I’m interested to know that if there is no longer going to be the requirement for an inspector exercising a warrant to be accompanied by a constable, what is going to be put in place to ensure the safety of those people? Potentially, you could be dealing with situations where people are quite upset and a bit volatile, perhaps not thinking rationally, so it’s important for the committee and those watching to understand what safeguards will be in place to ensure the safety of those exercising the warrant.

09:45

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take the Minister of Agriculture to page 4—I’m at clause 94. I want to ask him about the removal from the original Act of section 100L(7)(b), which used to require levies made under the Biosecurity Act to be confirmed by an Act. This is a change to the way that levy-making powers will apply to the department and is a question about, really, what levies he intends this to apply to, given that the old power would have required Parliament to pass those levies, or at least confirm those levies, and that is an ordinary sort of levy-making power. Levies are more like a taxation power, and in this situation, we are guided by guidance from the legislative design committee. These kinds of levies that are being entirely decided by the department and not either by a Minister or by Order in Council are relatively unusual in our system.

I also want to ask him whether he intends them to be subject to disallowance in the normal way and how he intends for Parliament to assert its interest in levies which are charged in this way. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the committee an example of a levy which uses this power and will be changed in this way. I also want to ask him whether he intends for existing levies that were passed by the House in an Act to be able to be modified without an Act. Are there levies, which the House has considered in the past, which he is now extending the power to the department to change in future, without Parliament’s sort of secondary check under 100L(7)(b)?

I also want to ask him what the mechanism for presentation is now that secondary legislation is recorded in a different way to when it was in 1993 when the original Act was passed, whether the only presentation is publication on the legislation website, or whether these sorts of levies are, in a standard way, circulated with the industry. Really, the question is: do industry stakeholders who will be levied get the kind of notification that you would expect when a levy is much more like a tax than a fee? The levy-making power here is broad. He hasn’t narrowed it. How will people know that they are being subject to the levy if it’s not in a sort of primary legislation form, which is what he’s removing here.

09:48

Just to help members, I thought this can be quite interactive. I thank them for their questions, which are helpful.

In respect of the three-month period, which was asked by the Hon Jo Luxton, this is merely to set a time frame so that the system can work very, very well. Ultimately, where somebody has had a decision made and they want to appeal, they will be aware of this as they go on, and it won’t be a surprise to them. Often they will be quite prepared, but there have been examples where, over a very long period of time, they get to come and appeal and, actually, it makes it a bit more of a challenge for the smooth functioning of this part of the Biosecurity Act. Where somebody does want to appeal a decision, they’ll need to submit their appeal, but that’s not the end of the process, because part of it continues to be interactive as they go forward.

It was supported, broadly, by many of the representatives of the primary sector, who would think that this is fair and balanced, but it doesn’t mean that, actually, it is taking away the ability for people to appeal. It actually just focuses it, and it means that we get a better decision-making process.

As far as the warrants are concerned, where there is a necessity for a warrant to be served, or some form of litigation, the need for a constable often can delay or create cost. The Ministry for Primary Industries will have the ability to judge different circumstances. There’ll be many where they will judge that a constable is not actually necessary and it’s very straightforward, but they will take their responsibility for staff and safety and so on seriously. Where they believe that a constable is required, as they have made an assessment, of course that’s available to them, and so it doesn’t say that one shouldn’t be there; it just means that they don’t have to be there on every single occasion. In some cases, warrants will be very, very uniform and very, very standard, and in others, the level of risk or concern may rise, in which case a decision is made to ensure the safety of all concerned.

In as far as the last question is concerned—around levies—across the primary sector there are many levies available to us. There is a process of consultation and engagement that works very, very well, but it is the judgment of the Government that having to come back and set levies in primary legislation takes up the time of the House that often can be better used. That does not mean that the Government or Ministers are not involved in the decision-making process. It is not left to the department to do. They will do the work, and it’s a very similar process to any other regulations that would be set. In the consultation, there are many safeguards that the Minister has to be assured of before a levy is set or can be changed, and, ultimately, I’m advised that this is a regulation, and so the Regulations Review Committee has the involvement and should look at these, and so on. We’re just taking away the change to a levy, where it needs to be set, from the time of the House, but there is still scrutiny both by Government Ministers and, at the same time, by members of Parliament through the Regulations Review Committee.

09:51

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning to the Minister of Agriculture, and I’m happy to have a back and forth, if that makes things easier.

I’m on clause 100, “Section 114A amended (Application of articles or substances from aircraft)”, under Part 5. Now, being removed is the requirement that there be a notification in a newspaper circulated in the area, and that seems logical and somewhat archaic in terms of the other options that are available to us now to communicate with people. What it is being replaced with is, in new section 114A(5), that “A public notice must be published in 1 or more of the following ways, … (a) by … Gazette: (b) by publication in all major metropolitan daily newspapers”, and I won’t read them all out, but it goes through a number of options.

I wonder whether there is a risk, Minister, that if there’s not one certain place where the public can go to be notified of when there are applications of articles or substances from aircraft, the least onerous option might be chosen—it may not be the most effective one for communicating that occurrence to the public, and I ask what advice you may have got on that.

Then the other question is this: in terms of consideration of the risks of different substances in new section 114A(5B), it says, “(a) the nature and significance of the matter required to be notified;”, and it says that the chief technical officer must consider those, including “(b) the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in the matter.” Where is the guidance for technical officers making those determinations on which substances are of most concern or interest to the public, presumably because of their risk profile?

Finally, what are the sorts of substances and articles that are being talked about here? Is there any sort of list of articles and substances? That may relate to my proceeding question, which is: what are the risk profiles of those substances, which ones are more of a problem if there is public exposure or exposure to another landowner’s animals or plants, and how were those things delineated or advised on? Thank you.

09:54

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to that clause 100, this is a matter of public interest, and so it would be useful for the Minister of Agriculture to clarify some of the points that my colleague Steve Abel has raised.

I want to ask the Minister why he didn’t take the opportunity, really, to update this section more in line with the public engagement process which actually happens with the Government departments. This seems very bald on the face of it, compared to what, say, an organisation like the Department of Conservation does to engage with the public in an area where, say, poison drops are being done in bush. It is very useful for the department to do that—

They do.

—it is very important for our conservation projects, and it is good that I hear the Minister of Conservation advocating for his department when they do that.

It is a critical public service, and yet what’s here in the Minister of Agriculture’s updated amendment to this section doesn’t reflect any of the good work that the department does to let the public know about why this is important; why, say, the dropping of a seed mash in an area will lead to an explosion of a pest population and why they must respond to that. It doesn’t include any of the good engagement the department does with tangata whenua in relation to their land, of which they are kaitiaki. He could easily include, say, an exclusion from liability if those things did not happen, and that would be something that I imagine everyone in this House would be interested in supporting, but, instead, he has set a very old formulation, really, of this rule, which has then been updated just to allow for the gazetting and the way that you might advertise this in the paper.

This is something which is a good story, and we want the department and the kinds of organisations that do this to be able to tell it and to reflect the actual situation on the ground where they do tell these stories. This looks like hiding behind a rule which is far back from the start line of what is actually happening in practice from our primary industries, where they work really hard to make sure that they have public trust and confidence in the system around using aerial drops in this way. I want to understand what options the Minister considered when he was updating the public consultation and public notification requirements. The situation has changed in 2026, and New Zealanders, I think, want to see conservation powers used in this way—boldly and publicly.

09:56

In as far as what’s covered and what needs to be notified or published, that doesn’t change. That’s in another Act, and that’s not the reason for this very small amendment. But the last member’s point—about the public having an opportunity to be aware of what’s going on, as the Act requires—is the reason for making the change, because, ultimately, the current section 114A(5) inserted by clause 100 says, “in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the place is situated”. There are far fewer newspapers in New Zealand now, and so this is merely an update to say that there are a number of ways in which the department may inform people—one or more—and it’s a judgment on the part of the department to make sure that enough information is provided so that people could know. In many provincial parts of New Zealand, there are no longer newspapers, and, indeed, many New Zealanders no longer get their information—their truthful information—from newspapers. There is a range of ways that they will do that, and so this is merely updating that section to say that there are a number of ways now; that the communication with people who have an interest should take place.

Secondly, the House has done something like this on many occasions. There are many pieces of legislation that used to say that you had to post things to people, or you had to fax things to people. At the time that we updated those, we didn’t go into the depths of what information should be provided. In this case, there is no change to the things that trigger the need to provide information to New Zealanders; we are merely saying that there are many ways to do that, including through online means.

09:58

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question for the Minister of Agriculture in response to an answer he gave in response to a previous question of mine around the issuing of warrants. The Minister talked about the Ministry for Primary Industries, and, obviously, they will ask the police or a constable to support them, if they feel that they need that. I’m interested to know, in the event that they do need that, whether there is any criteria that they are going to use to judge whether or not they are going to need a constable, because people can be quite unpredictable in certain situations. Are they doing monitoring of those people—I mean, what assessment is going to be given and what criteria will they follow to know whether or not they’re likely to need a constable?

09:59

Well, I hope that the member is not suggesting that she’s bringing in an Amendment Paper saying that we should be monitoring people. The answer to that is no, of course we’re not, but, ultimately, the department has been doing these things for a very long period of time and they are skilled at it. They have obligations to their staff with regard to health and safety, and they take those seriously. This is merely saying that there will be situations where their experience and the knowledge that they have has shown that the use of a constable is not needed and, therefore, it would be an additional cost or delay, but they will also take their responsibilities seriously in situations where they believe there could be a need for them to have the ability to do that, and I expect that they would.

10:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up on that, your response to clause 100, “Section 114A amended”—I appreciate that response. Obviously, I agree with the problem of the diminishment of the number of local newspapers being a sad loss for us as a country, but it’s a fact of what’s happened.

The requirement, in new subsection (5A), that “A public notice must be published in 1 or more of the following ways”: one of those is “(c) by publication, either temporarily or permanently, on the Ministry’s public Internet site”. Shouldn’t that be, Minister, an absolute given—that, at the bare minimum, it will always be published on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ website? That seems the least onerous and least costly method of certain notification. Again, I think the problem is, given the multitude of methods by which this information can be communicated, there’s a risk that there’s not one certain place that is the total list of all the locations where there are going to be applications from aircraft. Why would you not have a requirement that, as a bare minimum, there has to be publication on the ministry’s internet site, and the other options can be additional to that?

10:01

I know the member will be surprised to know that probably he and I are the only two people in the whole country that spend all their time looking at the Ministry for Primary Industries’ website, but, ultimately, there will be a range of areas they would want to do it. You know, if you think about it, rather than being prescriptive, we are saying that the ministry has an obligation to make sure people can be informed. At the moment, it’s only through newspapers. We are giving them a range of tools to be able to do that. It would be my expectation, depending upon the activity, that they would choose more than one—but we are deciding that rather than being overly prescriptive, we’re saying that they should use their judgment for themselves.

Indeed, the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in this matter would mean that in some situations, it could just be a local newspaper, as is the case at the moment; in other situations, it could just be the ministry’s website; or a multitude of those. I think we are able to trust the judgment of the officials and the department to take their responsibilities seriously. It is their desire that people know about this, not that they don’t know, and, therefore, they will take their responsibility seriously.

10:02

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s the first time I’ve spoken on this piece of legislation and it is a non-contentious one, but there are lots of very important issues in here. Part 5, of course, is relating to biosecurity. It’s been consistently judged the most important area of, I guess, agribusiness concern. We do have to take the opportunity, in pieces of legislation like this, to tidy up the law.

Can I refer to clause 116; it’s around compensation. There are some provisions here that are laid out: a person must make a claim within one year—fair enough; it’s not payable beyond three years. I’d ask the Minister, was consideration given to other areas or other provisions that might eliminate the right to compensation, because from experience I know farmers who are forced to pay levies to tidy up areas of compensation, M. bovis being one of the obvious ones—how did this happen, who caused it, and what potential liability might lie around it for compensation or some other obligation to pay it back?

The question is whether anyone—and I think the current Biosecurity Act does refer in a general sense to someone having contributed to the outbreak or incursion—would possibly not be able to get access to compensation. The question here is, did the Minister or officials consider whether they should have used this piece of legislation to tidy up those provisions and make sure that anyone—any company or any individual, who may have contributed to a biosecurity incursion or cost or blow-out or whatever—is immediately exempt from or prevented from applying within the one- or three-year period for any compensation? Indeed, there is a real question there around: should there be litigation or court action? At what point in that one- to three-year period does someone remain able to claim compensation if they have a possible charge coming up and they’re deemed to be innocent, thereby, they’re able to claim for compensation?

These are the kinds of technical issues that you might say go beyond the remits of this bill, but, actually, this bill is for the tidy-up of these very types of provisions. The question to the Minister of Agriculture is: did he or officials consider the access to compensation for more than just a length of time, but, actually, whether it relates to any liability in the courts or the court action that may, in fact, give some guidance on that? It’s a question for the Minister, again, in clause 116—and I see that he’s getting some advice.

10:05

Just on that one, because it’s quite technical, I’m advised that the clause—some of the issues that the member raised, he is correct about: they are not as part of this bill, and whilst he’s correct it’s a tidy-up bill, some of those would go further than just tidying up and creating a clarification. So, they’re not part of this.

However, I’m advised that the clause merely gives directional clarity that says that compensation would be sought whether the powers that have been used have been used lawfully or not. It is suggesting, therefore, or saying, therefore, that if the department has used its powers, whether that be lawful or otherwise, somebody has a right to consider and seek compensation—firstly. Secondly, as far as time frames are concerned, it is set up so we are able to work through these things in an orderly fashion and, therefore, it works on both sides. People understand their rights and obligations and the department does, as well. I am informed that it does interact with a court deciding liability or whether or not something has happened there. A court would have the ability to consider their case before the statutory time frame or limitation for compensation would kick in.

10:07

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, my question is around clause 115, “Section 159A amended (Accelerated infringement notice procedure for border infringement offences)”. I know the Minister of Agriculture has talked about the challenge of receiving information via post. We know that, particularly in our rural areas, we don’t have a great postal service anymore, but we’ve got here: “In section 159A(3), replace ‘is deemed to have been served on the defendant when it was posted’ with ‘is treated, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as having been served on the defendant when it would have been delivered to the defendant in the ordinary course of the post’ ”. This seems to open up a whole lot of discretion. I wonder, has the Minister thought about how that is going to be actually applied? Because it looks as though this could be applied in any number of ways—it’s just opened it wide open.

It might be a small thing. It’s dealing with, I understand, a challenge, when we can’t rely on the post anymore, but surely there must be another way of giving some clarity about post, email, telephone call, or something that is there that gives us a bit more clarity, because this is wide open. I’d like the Minister to see if there’s something that can help us understand a little bit more about why that’s so extremely wide. Thank you.

10:08

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question with regards to compensation. In a follow-up report from the Ministry for Primary Industries that was tabled in November 2024, it was noted that since 2017, there are over 3,500 compensation claims where a decision has been issued. I know that three have gone to arbitration, and legal costs of these can be anything between $200,000 and $1.5 million.

Now, if the arbitration deadline in amended section 162A(6)(a) introduces a time limit for going to arbitration after a decision on compensation is made, could the arbitration time limit introduced effectively prevent claimants from accessing arbitration in situations where legal advice or funding is delayed? Could this disproportionately impact small-scale operators—you know, farmers and growers—because of this provision?

10:10

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just while the Minister of Agriculture considers that, I want to ask him about clause 101, amending section 116, which introduces some wider powers of removal for the officers undertaking search. The replacement subsection (1)(b) includes a container, so it’s relevant to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question when it comes to compensation.

Essentially, the Minister here is drawing the net wider for what can be seized and removed. Well, maybe not wider, but more explicitly to include, say, a whole shipping container in the situation where a small part of it might be contaminated with, say, pest species—then, at the other end of the net, effectively, as the Hon Damien O’Connor has said, hasn’t closed down an avenue for compensation on that. You then have a broader seizure power, which opens the State up to essentially getting it wrong and essentially taking away too much of any given goods. I want to ask the Minister first whether this is standard practice, and so perhaps there have been real issues in the past where seizure has included an entire container, and then people have raised issues around the Government seizing too much, and that’s why he’s included the specific power, and then how that impacted upon compensation.

I laughed when the Minister said, “Oh, that’s outside of a statutory bar, and this way would be outside of the ordinary tidy-ups in this bill”. These ordinary tidy-ups are pretty extraordinary impositions on civil liberties that we all are enthusiastic about: that we have a system that allows a lot of regulation in this area, and that is something which is broadly supported around this House. We need tough biosecurity laws, and we need a department that can respond very effectively and quickly and to have flexible powers. Something like introducing a statutory bar on compensation—when you are drawing the net a bit wider and intentionally giving the department the ability to seize a large amount of goods from, look, a business owner who has imported them, who has imported them, who has incurred costs— is something that is being agreed to here, but wouldn’t be an overextension of the powers if they worked together when you consider just how wide they are already in the primary legislation and in these powers that are being amended and extended.

I want to ask the Minister whether, first, is that common practice? I’ll just quickly get in another question about the levy-making power. The Minister was very helpful in confirming that he’s considered this. It’s appropriate for the House not to have to consider every levy change—I think that’s broadly agreed—but I heard him say that there would be limitations around the way that increase in levy-making power was used, I think. Is it his intention that that sort of increase in a levy by the department that wasn’t moved through an Act would be, say, in an emergency situation like M. bovis, when Government had to act quickly to increase its funding available for response? Or would it be the other end of that; would it be a minor increase or a minor change to the levy which sort of escaped public notice and wasn’t of much concern to anyone? I’m trying to understand the limitations; that is important when making a change to secondary legislation in this way, given that it’s a levy-making power which is broad—not a fee—and which is associated with actual costs.

10:14

I’ll deal with some of these now. In as far as the question from the Green member around post and so on: the change actually helps those who are to have the notice served upon them. At the moment it says that if it is put in the post, it is deemed to have been served. In this case, it’s treated as if it is, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In the case that a notice is posted to somebody and they are overseas at that period of time, the mere posting under the rules currently would say that they have received it, they’ve been served; in this case, there could be evidence shown to the contrary that shows they’re overseas, it wasn’t served, and therefore it actually hasn’t taken effect. This is, in a way, a clarification that provides protection to those who are receiving a notice, to make it fairer upon them. It won’t make a lot of significant alteration, but it is, we think, fairer in that respect.

In as far as the Hon Jo Luxton is concerned, the answer is no, it won’t have a detrimental effect or an unreasonable effect upon smaller farm operators. We have considered that.

For the containers, it is a fair and important point. I thank the member for her enthusiasm for this part of the bill. I’m glad we’re moving through it quickly; I would hate for her enthusiasm to wane as we continue through urgency. If you think of it from the point of view that everything we do in the Biosecurity Act is to protect New Zealand producers from pestilence or other things that could come across a border, there will have been situations where a whole container needed to be seized or detained. We are merely clarifying that under the law so there is no ambiguity. In the case that part of a container has a biosecurity hazard in it, it is not unreasonable to assume that other parts of that container may also therefore have been affected, or could be affected. The Ministry takes a precautionary approach, but not a heavy-handed one. The changes that we’re putting in place, I think, are fair and are well balanced.

Although the member is right that we take biosecurity very seriously, this type of bill is merely to make smaller changes, not necessarily overly consequential ones, so the Act can continue to work and be enforced appropriately, rather than having to wait for a time when the whole Biosecurity Act itself may be changed. Some of the ways we are serving notices—these other clarifications, and so on—are extremely important in the fair, smooth functioning of the Biosecurity Act, but in themselves would not necessitate an overall amendment or review of the Biosecurity Act, which would have an opportunity to consider many other things.

10:17

Thank you, Mr Chair. I refer to clause 106, “Section 131 amended (Declaration of controlled area)”. It is a very timely adjustment, but the question for the Minister of Agriculture is whether other things had been considered.

It is the public notification process here, in this clause. An example might be Madagascar ragwort, which is a growing issue up in Northland—and I know it’s been raised with the Ministry and the Minister himself—that is, when do you declare a controlled area? It states here when you do, and the decision making on whether it should or shouldn’t is something I’d hope the Minister is looking at. New subsection (3A)(a) says “by notice in the Gazette:”—a couple of people might read the Gazette—and paragraph (b) refers to “all major metropolitan … newspapers” They might read the New Zealand Herald up north, but not necessarily.

It does go on to say, in new subsection (3B)—this is in notifying the public of what is a critical component of the Biosecurity Act and its workings—how you notify the public: “In deciding which methods of notification are most appropriate in any particular case, the chief technical officer or management agency must consider … (b) the characteristics and geographical spread of members of the public with an interest in the matter.” That’s kind of fairly general. What we do have, unfortunately, from time to time in Wellington, is omission of local newspapers and rags and community engagement.

Oh, we’ve got one.

Yes, we have. The question for the Minister is whether there should have been stronger recommendations to officials in Wellington, with all due respect to them, to ensure that, actually, the people who are affected—and sometimes they go way beyond the local controlled area notice (CAN) geographical area, like people coming and going from Northland, for example, people in the forestry industry, or whatever, who may be contributing to the spread of Madagascar ragwort—need to be informed.

Now, it’s not a controlled area notice—I respect that, Minister. The question is if that occurs, are we sure that—and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation but it’s something that in reading through myself, I’m thinking. For a local newspaper on the West Coast—who are constantly telling me that they don’t get notification from Wellington for things that should have been passed through to the local community—it is critical that this area is tidied up; when a CAN is issued, every single conceivable area of communication is utilised.

So whether subsection (3B)(a) and (b)—and there should be a (c) there saying: “and ensuring that every local method of communication, local radio, whatever, does receive notice of this controlled area notice.” The question to the Minister is whether he considers that this goes far enough and whether, perhaps, it should have gone a little bit further.

10:20

Well, I think I’ve answered similar questions four or five times on this section, but I’m happy to reiterate for the member: this is merely recognising that currently, it has to be through a newspaper, and, although, on the West Coast, there may still be a newspaper in many parts of New Zealand—rural New Zealand or provincial New Zealand—there are no longer those or they’re not delivered. People get their—

In the great city of Dunedin, there is.

Pardon me?

The great city of Dunedin, there is.

That’s right, and there are a lot of sheep and cows in the middle of Dunedin that we need to control—you’re right.

The point here is, though, actually recognising that people get information in different ways, firstly. Secondly, we want to ensure that the tools available to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and biosecurity are there to inform people, but the members can be assured—given the seriousness with which we take biosecurity—that all means possible are used, particularly when there is a significant concern.

If we cast our mind back to the Psa—a disease that hit kiwifruit many years ago—it wasn’t merely a newspaper where information was put out; it was all of the things that the member’s talking about. This doesn’t say that the Ministry should just use one, actually, depending upon the security, it says that they will use tools available to them to ensure that people are aware of their concerns and what their responsibilities are.

I think it is well-balanced and will work, but it is merely giving them the flexibility to ensure that they can communicate adequately with the public, rather than, at the moment, it says you need to do it in a newspaper, and if there isn’t a newspaper there, it is impossible to do that. Of course, they would do other things as well, but the Act requires them to use a newspaper. Perhaps, putting it in the New Zealand Herald could be a good idea, but it won’t always find its way to Dunedin because it’s largely a North Island newspaper, and I know what people are like in Dunedin.

10:22

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question with regard to clause 107, section 134 amended. Now, the one after section 134(1) insert (1AA): “An inspector or authorised person may permit a movement under subsection (1)(b) subject to any conditions that they consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.” Now, when we’re dealing with biosecurity and enforcement areas of controls and things like that, this can be quite a pretty serious situation, and I just wondered if the Minister had given anymore consideration to, perhaps, tightening up that wording or making it a lot clearer because what someone considers to be reasonable, what someone can—

Covered in the select committee.

—take a call if you wish—but what someone considers to be reasonable in a circumstance could be quite different to what another person might consider reasonable. So I just wondered if there should be a little bit more stricter or tighter type of wording in there to give a bit more, I guess, beef to that clause.

10:23

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take the Minister of Agriculture to page 54. I’m at clause 121. I’ve just had a look through the Biosecurity (Form of Search Warrant) Regulations 2012 (SR 2012/277)—I don’t imagine this is something that the Primary Production Committee would have sought advice on and I just want to make sure that—

What clause is that again? Sorry.

—that is clause 121, we’re at line 26—and the question for the Minister is: I’m sure that the department is getting rid of these regulations because they weren’t using them, but I want to ask him why they weren’t using them? Because you have some things which, I think, would have been under a general police warrant and that would have been the appropriate sort of search, and then you have some things which the department is entitled to search without that sort of stipulated secondary legislation described form; why was there something in the middle, is the question. Why were there searches that were being done by the department that weren’t prescribed in secondary legislation as a power that the department had? Or why were there searches that were not authorised by police that, you know, fall within the category of more serious searches and more invasive searches.

There’s no doubt that the department is empowered to search, but was it the case previously that the department was using its generalised search power without using the specific powers in the secondary legislation? I have no doubt in my mind that the secondary legislation was out of date; it required any number of disclosure of documents which are no longer relevant, but the question is: were searches done which were outside of the mandate of the department?

10:25

As far as the Hon Jo Luxton’s questions or comments around an inspector and them being able to consider whether or not an activity can take place when there’s a closure order: the point here is that the inspector’s authorised people are trained and will have guidance and guidelines. It is not unreasonable for us to allow them to consider a situation where a movement of a person may be necessary, but at all times would be our expectation, and they would consider risk, in as far as biosecurity is concerned, the necessity of a person to do what they need to. So it is merely allowing that, so it is not unclear in law. There will be times when I’m sure that it happened, but we just want it to be clearer.

In as far as the issue of search warrants is concerned, the only place where primary legislation for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), to that effect, has a search warrant in primary legislation is this area, so we’re aligning it with other things that they would do. It doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a search warrant; it does mean that it would be there. These things will develop over time to provide information to make sure that they keep pace with the evolution of law. But it is the only part in all of the Acts that MPI is responsible for where a search warrant is under primary legislation as opposed to developed other ways, so we’re merely aligning with everything else that is done.

10:27

Thank you, Mr Chair. Referring to the amended wording in clause 116, in section 162A(1),where it says, “in good faith (whether or not they are exercised lawfully)”—I’m interested to know what checks and balances there are going to be in place there. How are decision makers going to distinguish between unlawful actions that are taken in good faith versus bad faith actions for the purposes of compensation?

10:28

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about the extension of levy orders from five to six years under section 13(2), as amended by clause 127 of the bill. I’m interested to know: what additional or strengthened oversight mechanisms are going to be introduced or are being introduced to ensure that levy organisations do remain accountable throughout this longer period? In section 13, as amended by clause 127, if levy bodies underperform or if industry conditions change significantly, what safeguards are there to ensure continued industry-wide consent and oversight?

Thank you Mr Chair. As the proud chair of the best committee in this Parliament, the Regulations Review Committee, I regularly review and, the Minister of Agriculture will be happy to hear, am very enthusiastic about commodity levies that come to the Regulations Review Committee for its approval.

I want to ask him about whether he has considered advice or amendments in this piece of legislation to the problem for the Regulations Review Committee when considering these levies, which is that, essentially, they recognise that there is a free-rider problem in the industry—where if the industry is doing really well, it is very difficult to share the costs of improvements, which benefit everyone, if some actors within an industry do not play along, so that they are empowered to use State power in this way, as set out by the Commodity Levies Act 1990 to share those costs.

That is a good thing. It is good for “Brand New Zealand”. It is something with immense public benefit, but there is no point in the system—other than the Regulations Review Committee—where anyone who has a problem with the way that the industry has designed those levies in a way that benefits larger players within the industry, to be able to raise a problem. We are the last cab off the rank, and you really have to know where the Regulations Review Committee is in its own little corner of Parliament to be able to raise those issues. People do. Often, they require pretty expensive legal advice to be able to do that, to be able to use that mechanism in Parliament, to be able to raise those complaints. It is not a good system but it is the system we have. I’m not proposing a new one, but did he consider any options to improve that mechanism?

There are many, many amendments in this Act which are about improving the function of secondary legislation now that we have a Secondary Legislation Act and a more universal system of publishing instruments under it. This is one where there are definitely improvements to be made in terms of who is a trusted person within the industry to be able to go to, to raise these concerns. A number of other industry bodies have that kind of process; whether raising complaints can be separated from the other sort of disciplinary mechanisms within these provisions, which allow industry bodies to sort of, in a soft way, punish people that bring complaints. All of that is something that at the beginning of this section, would be helpful if the Minister would consider and outline the advice he’s taken on improving the situation.

10:31

In as far as the extension of six years, a new levy order is already six years; an extension is five years, which is merely lining it up so that there is certainty and not ambiguity again. If a new levy order is set, it is for a six-year period. An extension is for five years. It actually will reduce cost and compliance and create certainty for those who are to pay the levy but also those who are responsible for the use of the levy.

For the last speaker’s questions, ultimately, the decision of the Minister and therefore Cabinet to set a levy has a number of things that need to be considered. At all times, there has to be a vote, and, largely, Ministers have the ability to consider the weighting of the vote and whether or not the levy is fair and reasonable in as far as all players are concerned. There will often be those who have to pay a levy that will have a view of how it might be used differently, but levy groups and bodies are directed to engage with those who pay and their stakeholders very widely. There have been occasions where Governments, over a standard a period of time, have given feedback and have not always accepted a proposal to change a levy, to increase it, or for the levy-paying body to go back and consult further. I think the checks and balances are there.

I would disagree; I would argue that the Regulations Review Committee is not the last cab off the rank. It’s a very important part of the process.

An important cab on the rank.

10:33

Thank you, and can I just agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of Agriculture and maybe not my colleague that her committee is very important and is not the last cab off the rank; a very, very important committee. I’m a proud ex-member of it, as are many people in this House.

Anyway, that’s not my question. My question is about the application of the commodity levies to a range of different levies, so a range of different types of producing—food. My questions relate to some of the terms used here. There’s a reference to “full season” and also a reference to “total area of land”. If the levy is applied to—

You got a clause there?

In clause 125A, at section 5(1), I think—is that where I saw it? Then we have “total area of land” at subclause (3). It’s actually a very simple question, and that is: is, anywhere else in the legislation, a “full season” defined? Is that just a term that’s running through? Is a full season—there’s a reference here to not beyond 12 months, but I presume a full season will be quite different in different categories that the levies apply to, and is any clarity needed on that? That’s one of the questions.

Then “the total area of land devoted to the production of the commodity”—not just food; other commodities. Is that also a phrase that is defined in the legislation already, and is that something that could cause questions or not? Are these commonly referred to phrases, so the “full season” makes sense in each of those different levy categories, as does the “total area of land”? Thank you.

10:35

This amendment allows some flexibility when measuring the weighted voting—i.e., volume or value of product—in support referendums. It allows industries to be able to more accurately measure support in the most effective and efficient way. For a levy order to be brought to a Minister to set a levy to increase it, the Minister has to be assured that it has support, and there will be different ways of considering this. This allows for a greater say. It actually refers—probably it helps with the question earlier—to those who are smaller producers, and for the Minister to be assured that, actually, an appropriate amount of support is there for him or her to decide to bring the request for a decrease in levy to Cabinet.

Actually, as far as the questions are concerned, it is not necessary to state what a season is or areas of land and so on. From sector to sector, each levy itself—separate levy, separate Act, and so on—it will vary, from peony flowers to fruit to all sorts of other things and so on. It is very well clear and it is understood that a Minister would have to be assured, when those measurements are being used, or that category, that it does line up, and that would be advice he or she would receive.

10:36

It’s interesting to see colleagues across the House clambering to articulate the value of their own committees when, of course, the Primary Production Committee is the best and most important committee.

So many cabs on that rank now.

But the kūmara doesn’t speak of its sweetness, Mr Chair.

In this clause, Minister, 125A, I wonder: can you give us an idea of what in the legislation to be amended was the problem or the absence that these amendments correct? i.e., what was the issue that needed to be solved, or is this simply an articulation of the same principles in clearer language, or is there an actual material change in the basis on which commodity levies are dealt with through these amendments in all of the parts of clause 125A, amending section 5(1) through to (4)? Thank you.

10:38

Mr Chair, thank you. Can I suggest that the Regulations Review Committee is to Uber as other committees are to a Lime scooter, so they do a very important job.

In effect, there is not a significant change. Levies and levy orders—it works very, very well. They are well supported. You can look in many areas of significant production in New Zealand where the levy is used for research and science and other things to help the levy payers be better at what they produce, to meet obligations, and to improve production. The system works well.

These changes should be viewed as minor but ongoing improvement to ensure that the system continues to work well. It’s not a change of direction. It is not a change of principle. It is merely, as an example, where, in one of the earlier questions, a new levy order is for six years and an amended and updated one is for five years—to line it up so there is certainty. Every time there is a difference without it being purposeful, there can be uncertainty, and therefore could lead to cost.

This is merely, where you have a car, occasionally you will change things on the car to ensure it continues to work as well as it could. New tyres—some of these are as important as new tyres on a car.

10:39

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This is a unique piece of legislation, and it provides huge opportunities for New Zealand exporters, and I fully support it. It has endured the test of time, but it’s not been fully utilised as it might be. Can I just come back to clause 125A, “Section 5 amended (Restrictions on making of orders)”. While not having the wording of the status quo in front of me, if you go down to subsection (3): “Replace section 5(2)(aj) with: (aj) where voting in the support referendum was conducted on the basis of the area of land” being “more than half”. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture can explain to me how that has come up because, actually, area of land is a very, very poor mandate for anything, given the huge variability in the productivity and the capability of farmers and growers to produce from that land. Can the Minister clarify that firstly, it’s not, say, a grower with X hectares and then additional hectares that might be fallow or not utilised—that is, it might be part of a so-called orchard operation but not in production? Is the clarification and the specifications around the land appropriate?

Then, secondly—I want to go back to my first question; the appropriateness of that, to say that if half the land area for a commodity—say, avocados or something else—agree with this, when there may be more productive, highly efficient growers who have less land but produce a hell of a lot more commodity or product, they get outvoted. This is a critical and, from a constitutional perspective, arguably one of the more critical areas of Government legislation. This is the right to tax. This is the right to tax, and I don’t think there are many other areas of legislation where a group of people, or half of them, or half of the landowners, get the right to tax others. That is usually a privilege reserved for the Crown, and there’s quite a process that we go through when we impose a tax on anyone. This is a tax; it’s a levy. I’m not saying it’s bad; I’m saying that the right to impose that should be highly scrutinised.

I’ll come back to the first question I have for the Minister: the utilisation of the land as a proxy for that—what was the wisdom of that, and can he see the points I’m raising?

10:42

Mr Chair, thank you. Yes, I can. These are already possible. This is more clarifying to make sure that it is used uniformly and there is, again, no uncertainty. Each of the things the member the Hon Damien O’Connor has suggested is already possible now, and it is for the sector, the levy body itself, to choose the means by which they want to go out and have a referendum. That is then presented to the Government. The Minister must be assured that the referendum has been run properly, that there is a majority of support, and that majority fairly represents the views of the stakeholders.

There will be examples, when this member was a Minister previously, when he may well have agreed a number of levies, or he would have delegated that responsibility to somebody else—to an Associate Minister—and a number of measures or ways to decide whether a levy has support or not will have been used in referendum, and that decision would have been made. This is merely clarifying so that actually, it is more certain—i.e., it has to be over a 12-month period. He does raise an important point though, but in the case that there are three producers and one of them has 95 percent of production and 95 percent of land—the other two 5 percent—in an up-and-down vote, it could be that the two smaller ones have a greater say than the person that would pay the most.

Actually, while it would be democratic—an up-and-down vote—as far as the amount that’s been paid for that levy and the use of it, that wouldn’t be the case. At the same time, that somebody merely has a larger proportion of production or land is not a reason to exclude the views of those who are smaller, where there could be very many of them. This allows a levy-setting body to consider what is most appropriate, to go out and consult on this, to have a referendum, to bring it to a Minister, and then finally it’s a Minister’s decision in Cabinet to be assured that what is being proposed and the Government is being asked to accept—as far as the levy being set is concerned—fairly represents the views and a majority of those who are involved.

10:44

Mr Chairman, sorry, I don’t want to let one pass by. It is the largest industry in our country. It is at, arguably, the most critical point of the industry, or debate, and it relates to, in my recollection—I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee—the appointment of the Milk Price Panel. This has been, arguably, one of the more contested areas of dairy industry politics over recent years. The price for raw milk is, arguably, at the critical point of viability for independent companies. They would claim that Fonterra sets the price of milk.

Now, we’ve set up an independent Milk Price Panel, and, unless I’m mistaken, these are the changes proposed in here. They relate to the number of independents, or the people present, when the panel is sitting. Correct me if I’m wrong—because, as I say, I’ve just got my notes here, but I didn’t want to pass it by. I thank you, Mr Chairman, for being able to leap up. The claim is that if there are not, as I understand, two independents present, the panel can’t make a judgment. And I can stand corrected, but it is important that the industry has confidence that the Milk Price Panel does truly act independently. Fonterra is less than 80 percent of the production at the moment, but it might be 75 or 78 percent. It is a big player. Governments, across the board, since 2001, I think, when we set up Fonterra, have all tried to encourage innovation across the dairy industry. We’ve got a lot more independent players now and a lot more innovative products.

What they pay for milk, or the calculation of that, which is set by the Milk Price Panel, is critical to allow people to buy milk and then turn it into high-value products. Now, without getting into the politics of ingredients or service or where that milk powder goes, the ability for innovative food producers in this country to get access to raw ingredients is important, and ensuring that they pay a fair price for it, not simply the price that can be paid by the clearly dominant player, which is Fonterra, is critical. The operation of the Milk Price Panel must be seen as independent. Indeed, as Minister, I appointed and made some changes to this to, hopefully, give more confidence, and I think there is more confidence in the panel at the moment, making sure that we haven’t—and I suspect we are slipping back from that a little bit by ensuring, as I understand, that the panel can meet without the presence of two independents. The Minister will clarify this for me.

I’m just wanting to get an assurance from him that says he understands the need to have this panel independent and understands the need for the perception of its independence to be upheld as well, because, if that does slip, we’re going to be another merry-go-round dairy industry debate.

10:48

Mr Chair, thank you. This is an important point, although it is a practical change that is being made as opposed to one that alters the function or importance or gravity of the milk panel. I won’t go over the importance of the job of the milk panel setting the price, but it is important there. What this is saying is that currently two people are appointed, nominated by the Minister. The co-op, the chair, and then either two, three, or four more members of the panel. Currently, if one member vacates a position or was to pass away, as an example, the panel cannot make decisions, and therefore that is a problem for them making sure that they are meeting their statutory obligation. In the case of the changes we’re making, if there is a vacancy or vacancies or somebody is not able to be there, the panel can continue in its work, but at all times, it would be upon the Minister who appoints to ensure a process is followed very, very quickly. For my part, and I’m sure for future Ministers, the Minister’s nominations are independent—we would always ensure they were—but, in the case that somebody can’t be at a meeting or in the case that there is a vacancy, the panel is not able to make decisions. There are very few groups or organisations that have panels, or boards and so on, where that would be the case. It’s not to alter anything significantly, but ultimately in as far as the member’s concerns, they are reasonable. But I would put the emphasis on the Minister making sure that the Government’s appointment is always there, which is a very good area of that independence.

10:50

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for that articulation, Minister. We actually deliberated quite a bit on this at the Primary Production Committee around concerns at the broadness of the wording that any vacancy in membership would not stop the panel from being able to execute its powers. The concern was the risk of a loss of an expectation of quorum based on a sufficient number of people being able to make those decisions. We did ask officials a number of questions around that to get confidence that that was not a risk that we should be concerned about.

I wonder, what advice did you get on the leeway that is potentially given in a negative sense from what is the inevitable likelihood that there will be vacancies, and how many vacancies would be tolerable? What are the risks in terms of the thoroughness of decision making if there are vacancies that last for a long period of time, for example?

10:51

Just to follow on there from Mr Abel’s question. Minister, if there is a vacancy that occurs, is there a time frame with when that vacancy must be filled by to ensure that decisions and stuff remain robust and representative?

10:52

Thank you so much, and as far as the last question, no there’s not but it’s in everybody’s interest for somebody to be appointed quickly. As far as the Minister’s appointees, the ministry seeks advice, gives it to the Minister, and it can go through fairly quickly. I don’t see a situation where, actually, a full component on the panel is not in everybody’s best interest, nor would stakeholders not want to have people there.

I direct members to the actual Act, the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001, section 150E, appointment of the panel, it is very detailed already. As far as other panel members, it’s either two, three, or four, so there is already the ability to have a differing number. In the case that it was three—so you would have two appointed by the Minister, a chair by the co-op, and three others—if one of them was not there, it would fall down to the equivalent of what is still possible under the Act, which says two plus one plus two. That would suggest a minimum number there because it says it has to be two, but in the case that there were only five and one was not able to be there, or that member vacated office for a range of reasons, the panel can continue its work rather than waiting for the formal process of appointment. All stakeholders, including the Government, take the role of this body extremely seriously. It is there for a reason. It needs to function well, it always has. It should not be held back from doing that important work merely because the Act says everybody has to be there. Whilst there is a degree of flexibility in the Act itself, this is merely making it certain.

If I may, Mr Chair, there is just one other change that’s been proposed in as far as section 118, clause 132. This is a very minor change. There are a number of offences under the Act. The way it is written, it could be interpreted that all three offences would have to be done at the same time for there to be a contravention. We’re merely clarifying it says only one of those would need to apply, not all three.

10:54

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I just go back to the Milk Price Panel, and I don’t want to dwell on it, but the Minister of Agriculture—and I’m sure in good faith; I’m not challenging the intent here—but it is one of the most political industries in the country, for good reason. I can go back to Dairy Board days, and actually beyond. The Minister’s delay in appointment could be critical. I’m not saying that that might be done intentionally, but it could be because there’s a lot of lobbying that goes on. These decisions are absolutely critical and they do affect the viability and the opportunities through the dairy sector.

I guess the question for the Minister is: does he think, perhaps, there should be a limit? Because I know there’s been procrastination and blocking because Fonterra don’t want someone on there. They’ll just block, block, block until the Minister comes up with someone different. Those are the kinds of things that have happened; they could happen in the future. The question for the Minister: did officials consider there should be a time limit, or an obligation on the Minister to reappoint, or for a reappointment to be made within a set timeline? Because it can upset the balance of a critical committee like that. I leave that with the Minister.

10:55

In as far as the examples given, Fonterra don’t have the ability to block. It is the Minister’s decision as to who he or she may appoint, and there can be dialogue and they could have a view, but it is for a Minister to make that appointment, firstly. Secondly, though, the example that the member’s just given is the reason that we are proposing this change. In the case that there was a challenge in having somebody appointed, or there was the necessity for a delay on either side, the milk panel can continue to do its work as opposed to not being able to under the way the Act sits at the moment.

Ultimately, the two situations are the reason that this is necessary. If a Minister takes too long to make an appointment, or is not able to make up their mind, they must be cognisant of the effect that could have upon the milk panel. In the same situation, if a Minister decided to take 12 months to make an appointment, the milk panel cannot function during that period of time. Therefore, there is an onus to be expediate in a decision-making appointment process.

10:56

Thank you very much, and I appreciate the Minister’s clarification on those. Can I ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, just for clarification: that is that the nominees to the Milk Price Panel are made on the recommendation of Fonterra—they are nominees from Fonterra—the Minister can block or approve, I understand, or that is for one or two of them? Is that correct, Minister?

10:57

Fonterra makes nominations for the ones that they would like to see there. The Minister is responsible also for appointing, and that is outside of engagement with others. Fonterra make a recommendation—this is similar to some other areas too that people are appointed; from memory, the Meat Board also. The Minister has a right, in this case with the milk panel, to appoint two. It is the Government and the Minister’s decision as to who to appoint. Fonterra also has nominations for their number.

10:58

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll start with a simple one. It’ll get more complex, but page 58, clause 134, “Section 2 amended”—amending the Latin names of a number of the species there. The dredge oyster—Tiostrea chilensis to Ostrea chilensis; it goes on that happens in terms of the Nelson-Marlborough; then in subclause (4), rock lobster, changing the name there; and whitebait, changing the name there. Oh no, that’s a spell correct, I think, on that one, isn’t it? Can you just clarify what’s going on there with those Latin names, Minister?

10:59

Also interested in that at clause 134(6), on the Latin names, the difference appears to be the addition of an “n” in both names for the whitebait there. If the Minister of Agriculture can confirm that that is in fact the change, just an extra “n” to make things -pinna with two “n’s”, rather than pina with one “n”.

Also interested in clause 139, “Section 14 amended (Alternative total allowable catch for stock specified in Schedule 3)”. It says here that “The Minister may exercise the power under subsection (1) without considering whether the purpose of this Act would be … achieved”.

Of course, the purpose of the Act is very important in terms of sustainable fisheries. I’m wondering if the Minister can explain why this change is made. That’s one question. Then also another big question—and it’s talked about in the select committee report—is the disposal methods for commercial fishers. In our Government, there were some changes. “Commercial fishers may not sell or otherwise dispose of landed fish or other aquatic life except to a licensed fish receiver, in limited wharf sales, or by an approved alternative method of disposal in accordance with regulations under section 297 of the Act.” That’s reading from the select committee report. However, the Minister has a—

Which clause? Sorry, I’ve just taken on the Chair.

I was just talking about clause 139, but, now, I have moved on to what is the change to section 297—which is over some pages on page 68 of the bill I’m looking at—by clause 177. Clause 177 amends section 297, and this is the change to the regulations that the Minister can make about disposal methods. They have been very tight, the disposal methods, and now this looks like quite a loosening of what can be a disposal method in the regulations that the Minister can make. One of those is the “specifying alternative methods of disposal that may be used by fishers”, and so I’m really looking for a general comment, from the Minister, about these regulations and what mischief he is trying to fix here and what sort of regulations the Minister would envisage that would allow more disposal methods to be used via regulation. That’s one quite large point that goes to a number of different clauses.

Then my other question was: why have the references to the purpose of the Fisheries Act been taken out when some of the quota decisions are being made? My first point was the “nn” point, which is the least important of my three questions.

11:02

Thank you so much. I’m going to start with that one. I think it’s very important for a number of reasons. The name changes largely reflect updates that have been made to the scientific names of several species over time, and this is just to ensure that it is clear. Of course, when courts need to go in and enforce, we’d prefer them not to have to interpret Parliament’s desire or intention. This way, it’s just merely enough data as concerned.

Secondly, in as far as clause 139, this is just a cross-cutting amendment and, in effect, allows the Minister on a case by case basis to ensure that the Act is being met in the best possible way. There is no intention other than to ensure that, actually, that can be met well and, firstly and secondly, that, in working with the sector, they are able to meet their obligations.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to—

Oh, Madam Chair!

I’m sorry, but no one took a call.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 8 set out on Amendment Papers 580 and 500 be agreed to.

Just before we move on to Part 9, I just do want to make a comment. Right across the committee, members are getting—and this is not a reference to any member currently—a bit slow at calling for calls. If we don’t hear a call, we move on to the next section, so that’s just a wake-up call for everyone in the Chamber.

11:05

Point of order, Madam Chair. You haven’t been here all morning, Madam Chair, with all due respect, and we’ve had a very—[Interruption] Can I make a point of order, please? We’ve had a very positive back and forth interaction. No one has been taking full calls. There’s been no closure motions because this side of the committee, when we’ve had our answers sufficiently addressed, have not sought to just ask spurious questions. You shut down that debate very quickly, Madam Chair. You changed the tenor of the character of the debate that’s been going on all morning on a substantial section of the legislation—

I’m going to respond to that, Mr Abel, in that if I don’t hear a call, I take a vote, right? I’ve got no intention of changing any tenor of how the debate was going, but, genuinely, I heard no call, and that is my role—to take a vote. I have been watching the committee, and I haven’t come in here to change the tenor of anything, but my ruling is that if I don’t hear a call, I will take a vote.

11:06

Speaking to the point of order.

Is this a separate—

No, speaking to the point of order. I was calling for a point of order before Steve Abel.

No, I don’t accept that. I can see you both from here.

I would like to speak to the point of order then.

Well, no, I’ve closed the point of order, sorry, the Hon Rachel Brooking.

Well, a new point of order—

The ruling is: if I don’t hear a call, I will take the vote.

A new point of order, Madam Chair.

A new point of order?

Yes, and it is related, but there is the issue of waiting for when the Minister sits down. When the Minister pauses and is going to sit down, should we be calling as soon as he finishes, or do we wait till he sits down?

Yes, when you’ve got another call to take, be vigorous in taking your calls, and I’ll be able to see that.

So we should not wait for the Minister to sit down? That is what you’re saying?

If you can see the Minister sitting down, there’s a balance—

That is what was happening.

No. I’m—

Madam Chair, I can assist here. I have a bad knee. I sit down very slowly.

OK, on those point of orders, I want you to vigorously take your calls. Otherwise, I will take the vote.

11:07

Thank you—

Where are the Beroccas? Beroccas in the morning.

Now, this is what happens. You tell us to be vigorous, and we get rude comments from the other side.

I’m not listening to the speakers who sit to my right, because I will be the sole judge of what happens in here, not those speakers who sit on my right. Carry on, the Hon Rachel Brooking.

I’m interested particularly in clause 234, and I notice that there are no amendments on this particular clause, but it is something that a different Minister spoke about in, I think, the second reading speech. It might have been the first reading speech. I’m not sure. Anyway, section 404 is amended, and, of course, 404 is very interesting. It often comes up as an error message. Here it is important because we are talking about domestic food standards and where there is a difference to what we do with our Australian friends.

Minister, my recollection is that Minister Hoggard was saying in one of his speeches—and I haven’t gone back to the Hansard—that this new ability to make—I’ll start again. Normally, our food standards are made with Australia, and there’s been an issue identified that, where there’s not a food standard, New Zealand doesn’t have an ability to make that food standard. What Minister Hoggard was seeming to be saying was that these provisions are just to fix that one particular problem. However, they also seem to apply for when New Zealand opts out of that agreement of our Australia - New Zealand standards, our joint food standards.

Can the Minister clarify that this new ability to make domestic food standards applies to both—because there is an “or” between (a) and (b)—when New Zealand has chosen to opt out of that, and also that there are just none that are being developed. This is important because there seems to have been more opting out, or more discussion of opting out, of those joint standards, the Australia - New Zealand Joint Food Standards. If the “or” is different from what Minister Hoggard was saying, will this lead to more opting out because we’ve got this ability now for these domestic food standards? I’m interested in that incentive and how it works with the Australians.

11:11

Madam Chair, thank you. Minister Hoggard is correct. It won’t lead to more, but there will be situations, or could be circumstances or situations, where what we do in New Zealand compared to Australia could be different, subtly or significantly. This merely allows and gives the opportunity to ensure that we have standards in place that are appropriate for New Zealand, and that those standards are met. I don’t expect that this is something that is used frequently or often, but it is important that the House has the ability, through the Minister, to make sure the standards that are set, as far as food safety and security is concerned, are appropriate, not only in the case of New Zealand or Australia, but in the case of our desire to meet conditions we may have, and as far as export markets are concerned.

Madam Chair! Madam Chair! Madam Chair!

The Hon Damien O’Connor.

11:12

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just trying to make sure you heard my call.

I heard you, loud and clear.

Great, thank you very much. Look, following on from the legitimate questions coming from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, when it comes to temporary food standards, new section 404A(1), inserted by clause 235, states “The Minister may, by notice, issue temporary food standards for food manufactured or prepared for sale or sold in New Zealand, or imported into, or exported from, New Zealand,”—the point is, “Before issuing temporary food standards”, as stated here in new section 404A(2), “the Minister must take into account the following matters: (a) the need to protect public health:”.

My question to the Minister: the issue of food security, affordability of food, is critical in our country at the moment. If we are to take into account public health, does access to food line up alongside food safety, and will it be a consideration alongside food safety? That’s one question for the Minister.

The second is: paragraph (b) says, “the desirability of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade:”. Now, many non-tariff barriers, non-tariff measures, requirements into export markets are considered by many food producers to be unnecessary. The question is: take, for example, the Minister who might be lobbied, for whatever reason, and considers that we should step aside from Australian requirements, and because it’s good to avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade—that is, to do our own thing—we’ll just set up our own food standards. The development of the trans-Tasman food standards has been very positive for New Zealand food producers—that is, open access on both sides of the Tasman, and I think Australia remains one of our number one consumer food markets.

The question to the Minister is: what does “the desirability of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on trade” mean? It’s a pretty kind of subjective word, and is it desirable to the exporter, to the food producer, to the Minister, to some lobby group, or to the importer in another country?

So, firstly, a couple of questions in there for the Minister: one is about the fact that the need to protect public health is a wide-ranging objective, and really opens the door to any establishment of our own food standards, and what that might mean, and the second one is: how can he define desirability?

11:15

Well, in as far as the member’s question about affordability of food is concerned, it doesn’t have a direct correlation, although it could, because it could be the desire of a Government to reduce food standards, with the hope that the cost upon a sector comes down to make food more affordable, and, of course, that would not be in the best interests of New Zealand, our consumers, and, of course, it wouldn’t be as possible in as far as meeting requirements of an export nature. I know that’s not the intention of his question, but just to give an example as to why this part of the legislation is not about affordability; there are already other parts of things that Governments must do, in that respect.

As far as his point around the joint food standards that we have with Australia, they are very important, New Zealanders rely upon them, and they work very, very well. There may well be situations and cases where New Zealand may want the ability, on a temporary basis or otherwise, to derogate from what could be or had been or might be agreed with Australia. An example of this could be where you have a sector or an item of food that Australia consumes themselves and does not export, but New Zealand predominantly does export and doesn’t consume, or we export to other markets, not Australia. In that case, the standard that might be set with Australia could have a greater bearing or interest upon consumption in Australia, which could restrict New Zealand exporters from other markets or place greater costs or prohibition upon them. This merely allows the Government to consider situations like that, and what is best for New Zealand. It’s not about lowering a standard. It’s not about, you know, altering or changing or sending a signal that the joint food standards that we have with Australia and the Closer Economic Relations are not important—they’re extremely important—but it is also giving the Government the ability to consider what is best for New Zealand in as far as, in the case of the member’s question, export markets outside of Australia.

11:17

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder, to that very point, Minister, about some specific articulation of the fact that that must be done without a lowering of standards, without a lowering of expectations, in regard to the calibre of those standards. That would be a useful articulation to put in the legislation itself, wouldn’t it, by way of clarifying that there is no means to avoiding the higher bar?

I understand the reason for the member’s question, but that would be subjective, because there’ll be cases where Australia, as an example, may set a standard—perhaps there was advertising, because they have something particularly they want to do in a state there that does not directly apply to New Zealand; it may well not be relevant but would be a cost to New Zealand without any additional benefit to New Zealand, New Zealanders, or another market, for instance, we want to go to overseas. Now, an argument or discussion could be had about the lowering of a standard. In some cases, it will be a standard that shouldn’t and can’t apply to New Zealand, but there is no intention to lower food standards. In fact, New Zealand has a greater reputation for the production of high-quality, safe food than Australia does, I would argue, every single day, and I think we see that best when our exporters compete with Australia. In markets overseas for food, we often do better and our products are chosen first.

The Government, as does industry, takes food safety extremely seriously, but it is really saying that, actually, whilst there are significant benefits to the joint food standards we have, there may well be times where we have to differ in the interests of New Zealand, not to lower standards but so that we are not restricted or so that additional costs or regulations are not put upon New Zealand for overseas markets that has no benefit to us.

It comes back, largely, to the fact that in many areas where we might want to trade, Australia, as a larger country, consumes more than they might export, whereas New Zealand exports more than they might consume. Putting aside Australia, it’s about other markets. Of course, if somebody does want to sell into Australia, it is to their conditions, just as every country in the world, in selling into New Zealand, should meet the conditions set by New Zealand, the New Zealand Government. In many cases, that would be a joint system or standard with Australia, but there may well be times when an exceptional change to that is in the best interests of New Zealand, but not in lowering standards.

11:19

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister responded to my question about clause 234, which amends section 404, by reference to Minister Hoggard and saying he’s right, but that seems to go against the words of the bill here. I just want to take the Minister through it more carefully. One of these domestic food standards can be issued under either clause 234, amended section 404(1)(a) or (b). There is an “or” between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) and an “if” before them. So (a) is the opting out provision and (b) is the standards have not been developed. I’ve got no issue with (b)—the question’s not about (b). It is about this paragraph (a) and the opting out. Was the Minister in his answer to me saying that while Minister Hoggard is right in that the intention is not to go opting out of lots of shared standards, but we have the ability to—is that simply the answer? It is not right to say that the standards won’t apply to things that apply currently to Australia and New Zealand that we can opt out of. If he could just clarify that, in fact, it does include totally opting out as well as where there is an absence of a standard.

11:21

I’m informed by my officials that clause 234, amended section 404(1)(a) is not changing and remains the same. Therefore, it is written there, but it is not a change.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question’s around clause 235 in relation to new section 404B: “Minister must not delegate power to issue domestic or temporary food standards”. My question really is thinking about our food future, and wondering—we could imagine a future where we have more local production. We might have home-kill, for example. We might have direct sale of home-kill. We might have direct sale of artisanal cheeses that have a different standard. As we’ve seen in other jurisdictions where there’s greater direct sale, we’ve also seen occasionally problems that can pop up.

I’m a big passionate eater of raw cheese, for example. In France, direct sale of raw cheese is under a different standard than the EU standard. But what does happen occasionally is that somebody contracts listeria and dies. That’s the risk you take when you eat good cheese. Good cheese is worth a lot.

My question to the Minister is: really, if we are faced with an emergency situation, wouldn’t it make more sense if there is the ability to delegate, if there is the ability to move a bit faster, rather than the Minister not being able to delegate to any other person under new section 404A or 404B to issue domestic or temporary food standards. We might find ourselves in more of an emergency situation. This is a scenario and a future where we are thinking about food security and greater diversification of food supply.

11:23

I just want to clarify, because I know that the member was trying to make a point by way of observation, but I want to be very clear to anybody listening in: the likelihood of dying from cheese is so, so minimal. Unless a big block falls on you, it is safe to eat. Please keep eating it—even French cheese, which I can almost smell from here!

The point here is that I take the member’s point, but it’s not about speed. Only the Minister’s empowered under the Food Act annex to make these decisions. What it is saying is where there needs to be a temporary measure or a restriction put in place, only the Minister can do that. He can’t delegate that responsibility to somebody else—for instance, as an official. In case there was a concern about human health, then the Minister would act quickly and appropriately or he or she would be judged for that.

Madam Chair? Madam Chair?

The Hon Damien O’Connor.

11:24

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m glad you didn’t miss that. Can I just go to a point which is just kind of occurred to me in reading this. I refer to once again the wisdom of my colleague Hon Rachel Brooking, and asking questions of clause 235, new section 404A. In subsection (1) there, where New Zealand has chosen under an annex of the agreement to opt out of the standards. I then go over the page here to the issue of temporary food standards. The temporary food standards are issued on the assumption—because, if you go down to subsection (6) “A temporary food standard issued under subsection (1)”—that’s with all the requirements I talked about later—“expires on the earlier of—(a) the date on which an applicable standard is developed under the Australia–New Zealand Joint Food Standards”. The point is that there’s an assumption that the temporary food standard is only there until a joint food standard is developed.

Quite frankly, if you read through this, go down to subsection (7) “the Minister may extend the period for which a temporary food standard is in force by a specified period of not more than 2 years if—(a) an applicable standard has not been developed”. The assumption is that it will be developed and it’s only temporary because it’s not there. But you come back to new section 404, inserted by clause 235, and you say that New Zealand can opt out. If we opt out, what do we develop? If it’s not a joint food standard, then it’s a temporary one, but a temporary one on the basis that one is being developed. But you go back to the point where we’ve opted out. What are we then left with? The Minister can maybe explain, but I think that the Government’s trying to have its cake and eat it too—that is provide an option for opt out but not explain what will be in its place. Because a temporary standard is only allowed under the provisions here on the basis that one is being developed. Maybe the Minister can explain that.

11:27

Madam Chair, thank you so much. The way it would work, for the honourable member, is that, actually, temporary food standards would be put in place until a joint standard is developed. If a joint standard is developed, then the Minister has the option to opt out of that to develop his own. In essence, we are not saying in this legislation that we’re going to have lots of our own food standards. It would be very infrequent and would be very rare, as I have explained under previous comments and questions. It is the intention of the Government—and the legislation backs this up—to continue to work closely with Australia to develop joint food standards; they work very well for us.

In the case that a food standard jointly with Australia is developed where there has been a temporary standard in place and it is the view of the Minister and the Government that, actually, that doesn’t work for New Zealand and we need our own one, then, in essence, our own one would be developed. That wouldn’t be done until after the point of there needing to be a joint food standard, because if there isn’t a joint food standard set up, then, effectively, we don’t have anything to opt out of.

11:28

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing to continue this. My understanding at the moment is there’s no provision for us to have an independent food standard. We can have a joint food standard or we can have a temporary one, as provided here, but there’s no legislative ability—and there hasn’t been since the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement—for us to have an independent standard. It’s a joint standard or temporary. If the Minister implies that we can opt out, which is what this says, and have our own independent one, where are the regulatory provisions for that? Because for a food producing nation, this is absolutely critical. The assumption that we have joint standards with Australia, which has served us well in international markets, and we may be able to have a temporary one because the joint standards haven’t been developed, which is what the implication is here—where’s the independent one and what international verification do we have for that at the moment?

11:29

The member is not incorrect. The joint standards are important. We’ve developed them very, very well. They have served us well, but there have been occasions where, actually, they don’t meet the requirements of New Zealand. We have the ability to opt out of a joint standard. In that place, New Zealand also has the ability to put in place our own standard. It would have to be to the standard set that people overseas would require us to have, but ultimately it’s a standard for New Zealand. At all times, as with what’s done jointly with Australia, it is an eye to our exports. The whole point of including the clause 234 change is to provide for an extra mechanism to do this, should we require it; not to replace anything or create something we’re not able to do, but to ensure that a certain—I state again, a joint standard is developed. The agreement and the treaty with Australia does allow either side to opt out of the standard, should they choose.

11:30

Look, thank you very much. Can I just, for clarification then, because I think food producers out there will be scratching their heads a little bit because it is a complex world: there are a lot more ingredients, a lot more components to food. Say you take something—even in, I guess, the positive area, if you like—around branding and regenerative, around standards or what you might call that; true-to-label nonetheless being the objective, then is it likely that New Zealand is going towards—does the Minister think that we’re going to have the development of more independent food standards? If so, what are the pressures for that?

A cynic might say that a couple of people have lobbied the Minister for Food Safety and decided that we opt out of the infant formula requirements. I’m concerned that, as we go forward, we will have independent food producers pressuring Governments of whatever colour, shape, or size to set up independent standards for their particular product into a particular market. In moving away from a trans-Tasman structure, framework, and security we’re opening ourselves up to a huge amount of confusion for a country that is so dependent upon food exports for its livelihood.

11:32

Well, no, I don’t share the member’s concerns. The Act and the changes we’re making do not speak to whether they’ll be more, fewer, or less of these, as it merely gives a functionality and option to Governments of the future. It comes back to what I said at the very beginning, seven or eight or nine questions ago: there will be times and situations where a Government may want to consider something different than the joint standard. The reason for this is a joint standard may well be adopted that is in the interests of Australia because they consume domestically rather than export. For New Zealand, as a country that largely exports more than we consume of most of the things we produce in the primary sector and food, it may be that there is a cost or burden or restriction based upon a New Zealand exporter as a result of a joint decision that could be made or proposed with Australia.

This amendment merely offers optionality or functionality for a future Government to make a decision as to what’s in the best interest of New Zealand. It would be my view that it would be used extremely, extremely rarely. The bar to its use would be very, very high for that reason. The reason for that is, actually, New Zealand has the highest food standards in the world. A standard is something that is set. New Zealand businesses and Government, with our agencies, honour the standards that are there. We think about food safety as one of the most important things we can do, not only for New Zealand consumers but for the countries we export to, but there may well be the occasion where what is being discussed and negotiated is the best interest of New Zealand and that that actually doesn’t go to the safety of food, but it does place a restriction or puts New Zealand exporters at a disadvantage. I reject the member’s suggestion or comment that Governments come under pressure. People from business raise issues with Governments and Opposition parties all the time. It is for a Government to make a decision of what’s in the best interest of New Zealand.

11:34

Thank you. Not so much on the opting-out point of the standards—although noting it’s been well publicised that there was a lot of pressure on different Government Ministers who turned out to have different opinions on it about formula, recently or in the past year or so—but my question is related to what the Hon Damien O’Connor has been asking about, and that is that new section 404A, inserted by clause 233, is “Minister may issue temporary food standards”. When I read this, I was thinking that a temporary food standard was quite different from a domestic food standard. So if the Minister can comment on that—is it a domestic food standard or either the opting-out situation, or there’s nothing that we’ve got with the Australians, so it’s a absence? How do they link up then with, when you turn over the page, a temporary food standard? I was under the impression from reading the select committee report that the temporary food standard that—it says here in the bill, in new section 404A, “in circumstances permitted by an annex to the Australia–New Zealand Joint Food Standards Agreement.” I was under the impression that a temporary food standard had some element of urgency to it. Can the Minister explain, is a temporary food standard, a domestic food standard? If not, how do they link up together?

11:36

Well, yes, it will mean domestic because the food standard applies in New Zealand for production here. But for some countries of the world when we go to export, they would say you can export to a country based upon as long as it meets the standard required in your own country. Therefore, the two are not dissimilar but they’re for different reasons. A temporary standard could well be there as a matter of urgency, or probably, more to the point, because there is demonstrated a necessity in the case of developing a joint standard with Australia, and that can take an extended period of time. The Government could decide something is required in the interim, as that happens, because it is about negotiation.

So, to answer the member’s questions, yes to almost all of what she has said, but, of course, a food standard that is set is to be used domestically. It also has an impact upon how things are produced for export.

I’m going to take another call, but I believe that the Minister’s kind of laboured this point. The clarity in which the questions have been asked may not be agreed upon, but, actually, there’s been a lot of questions on this point. I’m going to give the Hon Damien O’Connor one last chance. Is there something to clarify?

11:37

Madam Chair, thank you. These are really critical issues and I know you’ll appreciate that.

I get that, and we’re honing in, but the Minister’s been very forthcoming in answering those questions, so I’m just trying to hone down a wee bit.

I appreciate that—yes. It’s a healthy discussion; it’s not yet a debate. The one around domestic versus international food standards goes to the heart of our food standards system. One of the big issues blocking domestic producers of food, be it home-kill in meat or dairy in particular, is the paranoia by officials and by big exporters that locally produced food—safe food—will not meet the requirements of export standards because usually, for good reason, they are a lot higher. There are maximum residue levels for food sold in New Zealand that are lower than that for export markets. These are critical issues that we shouldn’t just skim over. So I’m not trying to be flippant, Madam Chair—

I know you’re not, and I’m just trying to get to the nub. I’ve just put something to the Minister, so you ask your question.

The question is, and the Minister raised a point around it—and I’m not saying inappropriate pressure on Governments; there will always be—but the pressure to ensure lower food costs and the pressure to ensure access to local food, which has always been upon a Government, has said that you should be able to go to your local farmer and kill meat and get it. That could be a temporary food standard for local domestic supply. There would be uproar from the export sector, who say that that meat could get into the supply chain. So off the back of that, the question to the Minister—and I’ll leave my colleague to pursue this further—is around one of domestic and international or trade standards, and does a temporary food standard meet either or both, or what is it for?

Right. Thank you.

11:39

Madam Chair, thank you very much. Ultimately, the proposal is not to weaken—in fact, it is to enhance and provide optionality. To answer a number of member’s questions, a temporary standard or a new standard could be about domestic or it could be merely about export. To take the last member’s point there, the Hon Damien O’Connor, in as far as home-kill is concerned, it would not alter requirements around the supply chain for manufacturing or export requirement for a recipient country. It doesn’t alter those obligations there; it is merely saying that there will be situations where one might envisage a difference to what it is in Australia.

I could turn it round the other way—that Australia is actually creating a joint standard that is merely for Australian domestic production, not their export, and therefore that could have an impact upon our desire to export. Under the treaty, we already have the ability to exempt ourselves, to remove ourselves from a standard, and to set our own. This is merely creating some clarity. But the concern that he is right to raise around will it have an impact upon food production export in New Zealand? Absolutely not, is the answer to that.

11:40

Madam Chair—

I just want to check with the Hon Rachel Brooking, does that clarify your question around—

No.

—whether it can be done—well, the answer is that it could be done domestically or—

No—no, no.

Is this a new question?

This is related. It’s simply—I’m just asking about the mechanics of the legislation here. There are domestic food standards in section 404 of the Food Act, and then there are temporary food standards. Are temporary food standards a subset of domestic food standards, or are they a different thing? At new section 404B, inserted by clause 235, the title is “Minister must not delegate power to issue domestic or temporary food standards”. I’m asking about that link between the domestic food standards in section 404 of the Food Act and the temporary food standards in new section 404A, inserted by clause 235. How do they link? Is one a subset of the other, or are they quite distinct entities?

11:42

A temporary food standard will end up being a joint or New Zealand one only, if that clarifies for the member. A temporary one is in place of something that’s not there. A temporary one either becomes a joint standard with Australia, or in the case that New Zealand would opt out, it would become our own standard.

Scott Willis—thank you for your patience.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have been patient, so I appreciate your recognition of that. For the Minister, clause 247 is “Section 443A amended (Certain secondary legislation or published instruments may be consolidated)”. What it says here is that in section—

Sorry, the Minister’s just asking which number.

Page 89, clause 247. What we’ve got here, in replacement section 443A(1) is “In section 443A(1)(a), replace ‘by satisfying’ with ‘and that is subject to’ ”. My question is not a flippant question; it is an important question because—when we’re thinking of Aotearoa New Zealand becoming a nation with a growing appreciation of food as more than simply fuel, but instead as a way to communicate, to love, to share things together—when we’re using words that are really utilitarian, like “that are subject to” over “satisfaction” or “satisfying”, I’m wondering why? Is there a need to change the terminology here? Because, personally, I quite like legislation to be a little bit more human in the way it relates and can tell us what its intention is. Just for the Minister, a really simple clarification, but I’d appreciate that. Thank you.

11:44

I’m informed that section 78A amended, inserted by clause 22, allows amendments to delegated instruments to be consolidated into a new instrument. The clause clarifies that the consolidated powers under that section apply to secondary legislation that is subject to the same publishing requirements. At a high level, you must publish this way. It doesn’t weaken the requirement to publish; it ensures that it follows through, and there is not a difference.

11:45

Thank you. I have a very short question for the Associate Minister of Agriculture, and that is: why? Why are we repealing the Food Safety Law Reform Act 2018?

My question follows on from the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question when she asked: why is it being repealed? I’m interested to know, by repealing it, what reforms or what protections may be lost as a result of repealing that?

I’ll give the Hon Damien O’Connor a call, because I know the Minister is just looking for some advice here.

11:46

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, my understanding, and I don’t have it in front of me here, is that that piece of legislation relates to dairy products and critical components of some of our exports. The question asked by my colleagues is a critical one, because just taking it away and repealing the Act without any clarity—and we’ve been asking a few questions here around other parts of food safety, and we do need clarity on what will replace that piece of legislation in an area of quite technical ingredients for our food safety system and dairy exports.

11:47

Thank you to the member for that question. The Food Safety Law Reform Act made one-time changes to the Food Act, Animal Products Act, and Wine Act, and all amendments have been incorporated into the principal Acts.

I know the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s received advice on that, but maybe he could provide a little more clarity on that? As I say, it is quite wide-ranging and quite technical. I’m seeking a guarantee—and I know this is a non-contentious piece of legislation, but I think there are a few questions still unanswered from the previous part of the bill. Maybe if the Minister could just go over a few of those key components and explain to, and reassure, the House, because just taking away a piece of legislation—not amending it, taking it away—does leave some potential gaps. Maybe the Minister’s just got the opportunity now, with a bit of information, to explain to the committee and to the country.

11:48

Yes, thank you. Look, I’ve been advised that the principal Acts will now do all the work.

The question—

Madam Chair.

You’ll need to be quicker and louder next time, OK—one supplementary from the Hon Damien O’Connor.

I appreciate that. I—

Because of your experience.

Yes, and I’m not trying to take advantage of the Associate Minister of Agriculture’s advice there, but I think officials would have a little bit more advice and information for the Minister to explain to the country just why a piece of legislation is being repealed, the core components that this piece of legislation incorporated, and how they’re incorporated into the new Act.

I’ll just give him a minute to take advice. He did say that it would be replaced.

11:49

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I’ve been advised that residual issues, if there are any, can be managed under section 32 of the Legislation Act, which provides that repeal of legislation does not affect existing rights, interests, titles, etc. Again, I refer back to my earlier point that all amendments have been incorporated into the principal Acts.

11:50

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Associate Minister of Agriculture a question with regard to new subsection 63ZZD(2A) being struck out—“Consultation need not be undertaken on rules made under regulations if the test in section 72AAB is met.”

Now, that has been removed. When I flick over to new section 72AAB, “Making instruments that make minor amendments or correct minor or technical errors”, it does say, “(1) The test in this section is met if the maker of an instrument is satisfied that—(a) the instrument that is to be made” is new—and that’s fine—but I want to go to new paragraph (b): “the amendment or replacement of the affected instrument is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error.”

I’m just interested to know why we’re not having to consult on things like that and what is going to determine whether something is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error. What would be considered minor in that situation?

11:51

Thank you, Madam Chair. What counts as minor will depend on the circumstances, and it will be determined on a case by case basis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 250: in the interpretation section, “section 2(1), “definition of salvaged timber, paragraph (b), delete ‘to waste’ ”.

Now, I’m just wanting to ask the Minister why that was deemed to be necessary. I see that the rationale says some timber was felled for milling but was lost and is going to waste at the bottom of waterways, and this amendment clarifies that this timber, if felled before 3 July 1989, can be milled. Why was this needed? What was the issue here in order for this definition to be changed and deleted?

Madam Chair.

Um, sorry. You’ve just popped up before—Cushla. Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. Apologies.

11:52

Ha, ha! Tēnā koe—kei te pai. Thank you, Madam Chair, and tēnā koe, Minister. Good to see you.

Minister, my question relates to clause 254, which is replacing section 67G. Unlike the original section, this section, which replaces section 67G, sets out some notification options. Can the Associate Minister of Agriculture tell us why specificity is needed. These specific notification options include notice by Gazette—the Gazette’shad a lot of air time today, whānau; we’re trying to push people to the Gazette—newspaper notice, and the ministry’s public internet site. Has the ministry included a particular preference for notification type?

Also, Minister, has there been consideration about more accessible or more popular notification options, given technology and the advances we have there?

More popular than the Gazette?

Yes, more popular than—well, you know, things that people may access. Not everyone may be across the Gazette.

Replacement section 67G(2)(d) sets out that notifications may be made “in any other manner that the Secretary is reasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.” What manners are envisaged by this section, and what elements does the secretary need to see in order to be “reasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.”?

11:54

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to the first question around clause 250, it is, in effect, just providing some clarification. To the second question, it is about providing more flexibility, and we trust our officials to use their better judgment.

And the second question that you asked?

What elements does the secretary need to see in order to be “reasonably satisfied will ensure that the matter is sufficiently notified to the public in the area concerned.”?

Again, it’s very similar to the previous answer. We trust our officials to use their discretion.

11:55

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is with regard to clause 256, around the new consolidation powers. Why are we allowing instruments to be consolidated and partially remade without the standard requirements—without them having to come back to the House and have that scrutiny?

To expand on that, while the Associate Minister of Agriculture considers some advice on that point—this is important, because the House has previously empowered officials to act in a certain way under this part. If there is merely a consolidation going on, that would already be within the remit of the officials undertaking these powers, and what’s being done is actually a change to the wording of what the explicit provision was that they were acting under.

The Minister won’t be able to tell the committee at this point what will be changed. He is asking everyone in this Chamber to accept that, at a future time, officials will drop off, or change, or add to, these specific parts which empower them to do things, and he can’t tell us today what will be dropped off or what will be added. The question is, really, asking him to elaborate on the kinds of circumstances that he would expect officials to, as he has said to my colleague, “use their discretion” in.

Are they minor amendments, which are sort of beneath the notice of the ordinary lawmaking power of the House, or by Order in Council—which is another mechanism that would usually deal with things which are not political—or is it the other end of the spectrum? Is it the use of an emergency power? Are they the kinds of things where officials would have to very quickly move to do something which was unanticipated by Parliament when it gave them these powers in the first place? Is it the kind of big extreme event that would require this kind of response? Give us some parameters, because we’re not asking you to give a full account of what officials are being tasked with here in future. That’s an ability that executive government has to act without the full knowledge of the House in these powers, but it is a reasonable request to ask in what circumstances they might extend their remit or limit it.

11:57

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the first question, typically those changes will not come to the House, and they will only need to consult on specific changes. To the following question, we don’t want them consulting on what’s not changing, so it’s about delivering efficiencies in terms of that decision-making process.

11:58

What efficiencies, Minister?

Sorry—what was the question?

What efficiencies?

I’ll take a question from—oh, it’s OK. The Minister’s ready.

Efficiency in terms of consultation—yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Looking at new section 154A—“Regulations may require public listing”—new section 154A(1)(a) notes that “Regulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know—(i) who is authorised to carry out particular activities under this Act and under secondary legislation;”—

Sorry, could you clarify the clause?

We are in new section 154A(1)(a).

On page—

Sorry, Madam Chair—these are my notes; on page 93.

That’s for the next part, so I’ll ask the member to hold—

OK, Madam Chair. Looking at clause 256, inserting new sections 72AAA, this relates largely to a maker of secondary legislation and their publishing requirements for that secondary legislation. “Maker” here is defined in new section 72AAA(7): “in relation to an instrument, means the person empowered to make it”.

Can the Associate Minister of Agriculture clarify this definition and whether a Minister, public sector agency, or some other person is meant by this?

12:00

It would depend on the relevant decision-making process, in terms of who would apply to make that decision.

Well, therefore, can the Minister give examples of how that may be defined, given the specific scenarios he’s outlined?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just while the Associate Minister of Agriculture considers that, I’ll just take the section, which my colleague is dealing with. This one is the top of page 92; it’s new section 72AAB. This is a specific provision for making the sorts of minor amendments, and I suggested to the Minister that it might be useful to clarify what these are all about. The making of minor, technical amendments is fine. There’s certainly no question coming from the Opposition that would suggest that making minor, technical amendments is outside of the remit that is expected in any of these instrument-making powers. The question is: are there emergency powers in here, given that that’s especially outlined?

There’s an avoidance-of-doubt provision back on page 91, in new section 72AAA(5), and it also hasn’t included a specific part about, say, emergency powers or major event powers. We’re really just trying to understand whether this is then all-empowering—that kind of situation where you would have something that was an apolitical decision. This is what the bill is intended to cover. You wouldn’t make major policy changes in this kind of provision, and the department is not empowered to that, so what is a decision that is neither minor nor a technical amendment that doesn’t change policy, which the department is empowered to do?

12:02

Thank you, Chair. In regard to the question from Cushla, it is very much about futureproofing. An example of decision making could be, for example, the chief executive of Ministry for Primary Industries.

Madam Chair.

Is this a new question?

I have just one final question on this point in relation to what the Minister has said there. Does the Minister envision a situation in futureproofing where a new policy decision would be taken by the department—that is, the establishment of a new policy in circumstances that are not envisioned at the moment in the primary Act?

In regards to the first question—the questions are coming thick and fast, actually; we’re trying to keep up here—the intent of this amendment is to enable decision makers to efficiently make the changes that include updating outdated terminology or cross references, removal of spent provisions, and the updating of outdated logos.

12:04

Thank you, Madam Chair—this is the relevant part now. New section 154A, page 93, states, “Regulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know—(i) who is authorised to carry out particular activities under this Act and under secondary legislation; and (ii) what things are authorised to be used in the carrying out of activities under this Act and under secondary legislation; and (iii) what premises are authorised as places for carrying out these activities”. I’d just like to ask the Minister of Agriculture—in previous sections he has specified where these notifications must be published. I’m just seeking clarification on why specificity is not required in this part.

Sorry. Could the member just repeat what she’s referring to.

Page 93, new section 154A, where it discusses that “Regulations may require any person, premises, or thing to be listed for the following purposes: (a) enabling members of the public to know”—and the question is, in previous sections, where notifications must be published has been specified, such as in the Gazette. The question here is: why is the Minister not specifying that in this part?

12:05

Again, this is a cost-cutting amendment to change overly specific consultation methods into a list of options that appropriate decision makers may choose from. It is to make it easier, rather than there being only one, and the intention and, I believe, the effect of this will be that it is easier for those that need to know about something that’s been gazetted or the information to be aware of it without there being an additional burdensome cost.

Part 11A agreed to.

12:06

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The West Coast Accord, passed on 6 November 1986, was, effectively, repealed in 2000 with the then change of Government to the first Green-Labour Government, out of interest.

And you chained yourself to a helicopter.

That Act, the repeal of the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act gazetted the forests that were to be logged under the West Coast Accord into conservation estate. From memory, 137,000 hectares of forest was gazetted into conservation estate. That was, as a result, as my colleague is rightly shouting out, of environmental campaigning action in the 1990s.

Tell us more, Stephen.

I shan’t tell you more. I’ll tell you more later, if you like.

That began in 1996, so it was 30 years ago. My question for the Minister is: why is this being repealed now, this many years after the Forest (West Coast Accord) Act was put in place in 2000? Is it simply because it is no longer relevant? Can you clarify and disabuse anyone in the conservation community of concerns that repeal of this Act might impact the ending of the logging of Crown native forests on the West Coast? Or is that no longer a relevant question because the West Coast Accord is no longer in force and those forests are all in conservation estate?

12:08

The answer is yes. I can give that assurance. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are spent and any residual issues can be resolved via the Legislation Act default settings for repealed Acts, so, in effect, the member is correct. The Act cancelled the accord in 2000 so that the forest in the public ownership would become reclassified for conservation purposes. That’s now happened. Therefore, the repeal is to get it off the statute book because it has no function any more.

12:09

Again, just the basic question for some of these ones is: can the Minister of Agriculture tell us why? Why is it being repealed?

Well, the Act converted the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board into a cooperative company and governed its transitional tax and employment issues. That process was completed in 2004. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are also spent, and, as with the last section of the Act, any residual issues can be resolved via the Legislation Act default settings for repeal Acts.

12:10

Just, again, it would be great if the Minister of Agriculture can explain why this part is there.

This legislation is out of step with other legislation, such as the South Island customary fisheries regulations, which provide for tāngata whenua to make appointments of kaitiaki correctly. Together with clause 263, this clause will ensure consistency with other legislation.

12:11

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just looking at this part, and I notice on clause 262, “Principal Act”, it amends the Kaikoura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014. I note on there that “Kaikoura” doesn’t have a macron above the “o”, which is obviously a misspelling of how Kaikōura is spelled, and I’m just wondering why that hasn’t been picked up.

12:12

My follow-up to that is that, in the body of the amendment, Kaikōura is spelled correctly with a macron. I wonder if it is an oversight that the actual name of the legislation doesn’t have the macron and whether that’s an amendment that needs to be made and whether the Minister, on such a simple matter, would be amenable to correcting the name of the actual Act so that it is consistent with the correct spelling of Kaikōura.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the spotting. That is very good work. I will check with the Clerk, but I think that is something that the Parliamentary Counsel Office can do under its editorial responsibility. It would not need an amendment of the House.

12:13

Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve been told we have to be rigorous in our jumping up and taking the call or we’ll lose it. I wanted to ask a question of the Associate Minister of Agriculture with regard to a clause that was in the legislation as it was introduced. It was clause 269, where it allowed the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) officer or NAIT authorised person to share core data held in the NAIT information system for the purposes specified in subsection (1). We had a lot of submitters that were concerned that allowing a wider sharing of the NAIT data—including with Police—could weaken privacy protections. Farmers do need confidence that their personal business information is protected, and so the committee did agree to remove that amendment.

Given submitters’ concerns about privacy and their information being shared or not being shared, what specific safeguards will exist to ensure that NAIT data-sharing with agencies will contribute to farmers’ strong confidence in the protection of their personal and commercial information? In light of the fact that the committee did decide to remove that proposed amendment on the wider information-sharing, I’d like to know, Minister, what other alternative mechanisms are going to be relied upon to balance effective enforcement with strong privacy protections in the NAIT system.

12:15

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m advised that the Ministry for Primary Industries is still continuing to work on improvements on this, but we didn’t want that to hold up this bill. That’s what’s happening in the background.

Could the Minister elaborate on what those improvements might look like or what they are considering?

It’s on the Ministry for Primary Industries’ work programme at the moment.

Can the Minister assure farmers that their information and data will be protected?

Yes, and it’s being worked through at the moment. Thank you.

12:16

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Seamless.

Yes—thank you, Mr Chair. My question is with regard to clause 281B(1), which amends section 62(2)(f), and this is the key part that allows exemptions and refunds where a climatic or other event has resulted in a loss of export produce and the fee payer cannot benefit from the authority’s services. Given that fees are not automatically waived following major events, such as Cyclone Gabrielle, and relief depends on discretionary exemptions, can the Minister guarantee that growers affected by significant climatic events will be treated fairly when applying for fee waivers or refunds under these provisions?

12:17

Thank you. I have just a simple question while the Associate Minister of Agriculture talks to advisers. New Part 15A seems to have been introduced by the Primary Production Committee—as does the next part—and the select committee report says, “We recommend inserting new Part 15A into the bill to implement the Minister’s proposed amendment”. I’m wondering if the Minister can just comment on the process that was used here—for the Minister to communicate a proposed amendment with the select committee and then for the select committee to implement that by changes to the bill—and whether or not there were any submissions on this part or on the other parts of the bill—but we’ll just stick to this part of the bill—on this topic or whether this is the first time that these issues had been discussed.

I was talking on this bill in the committee stage at some point some time ago, so I know that the bill has been lurking about the place, so it might have been an opportunity for people to make further comments on it. If that is the case—if the Minister’s aware that people have been aware of the bill as reported back from the select committee and made comments—he might want to comment on that too.

12:18

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Hon Jo Luxton’s question, yes. It does give the authority to make decisions on a case by case basis.

To the second question here—the Hon Rachel Brooking; we got there in the end—the Minister did write to the select committee, and it was publicly notified, and I’m advised that there were no submissions received.

Because of the nature of this, I’m happy to wait while the Minister does take advice rather than having to be rushing these things. We’re moving along quite nicely.

12:19

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is with regard to new section 8A, “Exemption or refund of fees”. It states, “The Authority may exempt a person, in whole or in part, from the requirement to pay an annual monitoring of compliance fee, or refund the fee in whole or in part, if the Authority is satisfied that— (a) a climatic or other event has resulted in a loss of export produce for a fee payer; and (b) as a result, the fee payer has been unable to benefit from the services provided by the Authority.” Now, it is stated that it is “if the Authority is satisfied that”.

My question to the Associate Minister of Agriculture is: when something like this happens, when you have a climatic event or a disaster whereby the grower is obviously going to be very traumatised and to be going through a lot of stress at the time, how much of a process is this going to mean for the grower to satisfy the authority? Is it going to be a big admin job for the grower, or is it going to be a very seamless and easy to make a claim, if you like? Given the nature and the situation and stress these people will be under, it’d be really good for people to know that.

12:20

Thank you, Chair. I’m advised that the exporter has to satisfy the authority, not the grower.

Part 15A agreed to.

12:21

Just, again, the same question that the select committee says that they have been inserted because the Minister of Agriculture wanted to make amendments. So can the Minister confirm that the same process was used and that there was some sort of notification and ability for people who’d be interested in regulations about organic products to make those submissions? Also, if he can comment on why it is that the Minister had a desire to make quite a wide range of regulations under the Organic Products and Production Act.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Organic Products and Production Act 2023, section 132, as amended by clause 281G, inserting subsection (5A), what specific examples can the Minister give of circumstances that would justify using the emergency organic standards power instead of the normal legislative process and how will misuse or overuse of this power be prevented?

12:22

Thank you, Chair. The two questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking: the Minister wrote to the Primary Production Committee and was publicly notified. I’m advised that no submissions were received. The answer to the second question: the Organic Products and Production Act 2023 was before the House at the time this bill was being drafted. It contains some of the same issues being addressed in this bill. Amendments to the Organic Products and Production Act replicate other amendments in the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, this is just an interesting section. I guess probably the Ministry for Primary Industries sees it as novel, given that it’s been quite a process to get organic standards in place. A lot of the industry kind of baulked. One of the things that did occur to me as I was looking through here, of course, is the regulations provide an ability to impose levies on the sector. One of the things the organic sector hates is any regulation for a start; but then, accepting that there’s a need for discipline, of course, it’s setting a cost. So these regulations do have an ability to impose levies in regulations. Whereas, if you go through the Commodity Levies Act, of course, that’s one that requires a mandate from the sector.

A question for the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Agriculture, is does he consider that the levies and payments through regulation on the organic sector are fair and how can he give an assurance that they won’t end up being excessive? Because there is an arbitration process here in disputes. I think that’s a positive one. The same provision’s not necessarily under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority one. I’m not wanting to relitigate things, but I guess the organic sector would like to—because there are some quite extensive changes here that have been passed through. I guess, I think, the committee, in voting for these, would want to give an assurance, and maybe the Minister can give the explanation as to how the organic sector is not being unfairly regulated and, in fact, the provisions here are all necessary, I guess, to protect them and protect us from them and to ensure that the organic sector grows.

12:24

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in answer to the Hon Damien O’Connor: nobody does like paying levies at the best of times, but we do find they are necessary. So the clause clarifies the ability for regulations to set a process for determining renumeration amounts for auditors or mediators. The current drafting of section 140 implies the regulations can only set a dollar amount for remuneration, rather than setting a procedure for determining remuneration. This amendment will reduce the need to update regulations frequently and it doesn’t affect any safeguards or regulations.

12:25

Thank you, Mr Chair. That clarification is useful, Minister. I know that the amendments were notified publicly and submissions were sought, but given the very specificity of this bill—a bill that the organic sector themselves fought hard to have developed and, as my colleague has pointed out, which took a much longer time than they would have liked—what direct consultation was had with the sector over these amendments? What was the feedback they gave and are these amendments with the support and the consent of the organic sector, specifically Organics New Zealand being the overarching body?

12:26

Thank you. The consultation was via the select committee process.

Part 15B agreed to.

12:27

I’m sure I’ll find something to say. Part 16, “Amendments to Primary Products Marketing Act”—is that correct?—and, I guess, “1953”. I guess we could ask ourselves why it’s taken so long. It’s a reasonable question. Maybe the Minister can answer that. It’s been around for a while. So, I guess, if it has been, making sure that changes that we make are sensible. So maybe a brief explanation from the Minister on that would be really, really useful for the committee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As the member over there that asked the question would know, all good things take time.

12:28

Thank you, Mr Chairman, because I do have to disappear. My colleagues will be happy about that. But “Amendments to Walking Access Act”—look, I take some pride. This is a piece of legislation that I heralded through and it was quite difficult at the time, I think, as it turned out to be a core part of the New Zealand way of life, I guess, which is access to waterways and access to the great outdoors. Amendments here, of course, actually change the name, which is sensible, because it’s more than just “walking access”. It is access to the wild and wonderful New Zealand that says the Outdoors Access Commission is an appropriate name. Just making sure that the ongoing funding for it and the ongoing principles and objectives are maintained—absolutely critical. I guess, the Outdoor Access Commission, which is what it will be called, has that same long-term commitment and it does underpin a lot of what we see across rural New Zealand. I just acknowledge and support this as a sensible step forward.

12:29

Nothing changes other than the name.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, going back to an earlier discussion in this debate, we were talking about the importance of the great Regulations Review Committee—I’m not sure that anybody is left in the Chamber who was in the Chamber at that point—and the Minister made a quip that perhaps the Regulations Review Committee is like an Uber compared to the other select committees being scooters. That relates to my question, believe it or not, and that is that we’re changing “walking” and making it “outdoor”, and does that mean that we’re supposed to look at other forms of getting around, such as on a scooter or an Uber, even? Thank you.

12:30

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates to clause 289, which repeals section 80, “Minister must review Act”, and I’m interested to know why the statutory review requirement is being repealed. I do note that it does say that the Minister has reviewed the Act, but are we to believe that that was a one-off ever review of the Act, or is it going to be something that is going to be on a cyclic level, and, therefore, if that is the case, then why are we repealing section 80?

12:31

Thank you, Mr Chair. This section 80 requires the Minister to review the Act and this review has been completed. I’m advised that it was a one-off.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Primary Production Committee report says that a lot of the amendments here are to do with fixing up relationships between different pieces of primary industries’ legislation, which makes sense. My question is about clause 294A, which says to insert after section 39, a new section 39A, “Exemption from labelling requirements”, and this relates to the changes that we’ve discussed earlier about food standards and the difference between the domestic food standards and the temporary food standards. The Minister can confirm my understanding, which is that this allows a wine exporter to “not comply with [either a] joint food standard,”—so that’s one with Australia—“a domestic food standard,”—so that’s a special New Zealand one—“or a temporary food standard”—which is also a special New Zealand one—“to the extent that the standard’s labelling requirements conflict with the labelling requirements of the country that imports the wine.”

What I’m interested in here is that word “extent” of the conflict. Could we be in a situation where a country that the wine is being exported to—the importing country—has, say, no labelling requirements, and what would happen then? Would that wine not have any of the normal labelling requirements that we see in New Zealand, or is it just more to do with where the importing country’s standard might be slightly different, and so the exporter wants to still provide the information, but in the slightly different format that is required by the importing country?

I just want to ensure that if New Zealand wine ends up going somewhere else, it will still be appropriately labelled, and I understand that it can be very costly for these winemakers to have lots of different variants of their labels. But I ask if the Minister can just speak to the intent of this new clause, and also, if he can specifically refer to the test of the extent that the standard labelling requirements conflict, where that conflict is imagined to be.

12:34

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Wine Act currently provides that a wine standards management plan does not need to comply with the New Zealand food standards to the extent that the standards’ labelling requirements conflict with the labelling requirements of the country that is importing the wine. However, it’s not the wine standards management plan that has to comply with labelling requirements; it’s the wine. This amendment will exempt wine that is being exported from having to comply with conflicting labelling requirements.

12:35

Thank you for reading out the section to me. That’s what I’m interested in: the conflict. Can he comment on the conflict that is anticipated by how the wine will be labelled in New Zealand before it is sent off, because any conflict might be—the importing country might say that they don’t need any information at all, and you could say that that was a conflict: you don’t need any information, but you need some information. But the word “extent” of the conflict, to me, implies—and it would be useful to have it on the Hansard—that having nothing doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t still supply the label; you would only make a change to the New Zealand labelling requirements if there was some unnecessary double-up of information that would cause that conflict.

That is why we are looking at the extent of the conflict, and that is why the word “extent” is used—and I’m just aware that the Minister is still talking to the official, and so I may be labouring the point somewhat, Mr Chair.

Oh, that’s all right. We’ll wait for the Minister to take his advice. We don’t need to—

Say the point any more?

We need to make sure that the quality of the answer is at its best. The Hon Jo Luxton—but feel free to wait while the Minister is taking his advice.

I’m happy to wait, yeah.

12:37

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been advised that in terms of compliance with the country that we’re exporting to, we should meet their labelling requirements and not New Zealand labelling requirements, otherwise they’re actually in conflict.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates to clause 291, “Section 4 amended (Interpretation)”, and the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine”. Why are we broadening the definition of the fruit and vegetable wine? What is the purpose of this, and what regulatory gap is actually being addressed by this? I mean, it just seems unclear, and I’d be interested to know what the purpose of all of that is.

12:38

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, mine’s on the same clause, and specifically the wording of the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine” includes products that are made with the fermentation of products that include “fruit, vegetables, grains, cereals, or any combination or preparation of those foods;”, but it does not include grape wine. Essentially, it’s any wine product made from a plant, isn’t it? I wonder why the definition doesn’t include mention of grains and cereals, or whether it couldn’t be broader and simply say “plant-based wines that are not grape wines”. What consideration did the Minister give to that sort of clarity?

12:39

I’ve been advised that the answer to the Hon Jo Luxton’s and Steve Abel’s questions is the same. It is that the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine” is ambiguous, and this amendment will bring the definition of “fruit wine or vegetable wine” in the Wine Act into line with the definition in the Food Standards Code, improving consistency.

The Minister was still talking as he was sitting down, which makes it very difficult to work out—

Sorry.

Keep standing while you’re talking, Minister, please.

He’s messing with you.

He is—he is.

Going back to those labelling requirements and his answer, and to clarify then, if the importing country says that no labelling is required, then is he saying that any New Zealand requirements would be in conflict with that? No labelling is required, and as the bottle—whatever it’s in; let’s say it’s a bottle—goes out of New Zealand, it will have no label because that is the conflict. That’s my question about the conflict and the extent of the conflict, if it means that it could result in no labelling, or it might be that every country in the world does have labelling requirements through Codex or something.

12:40

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’ll make sure that I stand up for the Hon Rachel Brooking. I’m advised that, again, it’s exporting from New Zealand to overseas, which I think that the question was—that direction of travel. It should meet their standards.

But if they have no standard?

Well, I’m not aware of—I’ll take some advice on that.

The only exemption the Minister would get from standing up is if he had played in the Rumble at Russell.

If there is no conflict, you’d need to comply with New Zealand’s standards.

12:41

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I mean, I guess the obvious question, for the benefit of Mark Patterson, is: why are you repealing the Wool Industry Restructuring Act? What is the consequence of that? What was the purpose of the Act, what are the contents of that Act that need to be retained, and do they exist anywhere else in legislation?

12:42

Thank you, Mr Chair. I might just start off by saying that wool is now the new white gold, and it’s at about $7.42 clean, which is great, great news for all our wool growers up and down the length of the country. Some Acts that have had short-term effects remain on the statute book, despite having fulfilled their functions and having no live provisions. The Act converted the New Zealand Wool Board into a company to disestablish and distribute the assets and govern its transitional tax year disbursement and employment issues. The final distribution was made in 2011. All remaining savings and transitional provisions are spent, and any residual issues can be resolved through the Legislation Act default settings for repealed Acts.

12:43

Is there clarity as to what happened to the Wool Board’s art collection, or is that a cold case, so to speak?

I’ll take advice on that.

What assessment has been made of the consequences, if there are any consequences, of repealing this Act for the wool sector?

There are none, because it was wound up in 2011.

Pardon—sorry, I didn’t catch that last bit.

The final distribution was made in 2011, and so there are none.

Given that the Act is to be repealed, can he confirm where wool regulation now sits in New Zealand law, if at all?

It’s above the law, Jo!

Was that for Hansard, Mr Patterson?

12:44

It’s outside the scope of this bill.

That’s outside the scope of the bill currently.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 580 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 580 be agreed to.

12:45

Thank you, Mr Chair. There is an Amendment Paper here in the Minister’s name about clause 2, which is “Commencement”. At the moment, the bill as drafted says, “Subpart 2 of each of Parts 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 15, and 18 comes into force—(a) on 1 or more dates set by Order in council; or (b) to the extent not brought into force earlier, on 24 March 2026.” That date, on Amendment Paper 579 in the Hon Todd McClay’s name, will change to 1 March 2027, and so I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment on that change.

Obviously, 24 March 2026 has already passed, and so I do note that. But I ask if he considers now why it is that we’re still heading into a March date for this commencement date, and what consideration was there that went into that date in the Amendment Paper?

12:47

Thank you, Mr Chair. The commencement date of 1 March will allow time for the Ministry for Primary Industries to complete the administrative arrangements necessary to implement the amendments.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, in the commencement clause, I’ve read out clause 1, which was some of those subparts, and then Subpart 3 of Part 1 comes into force 12 months after the commencement of the rest of the Act. Can the Minister explain why that Subpart 3 of Part 1 is treated differently and why it will need this additional year—so, presumably, that will take us through to something like 1 March 2028.

12:48

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m advised that that creates a 12-month transition period for inhibitor products.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The inhibitors, then: why do they need the additional 12 months on top of the time that is now going to be—I can’t count how many months it is till March 2027, but that still seems like a good time away. Why is this additional 12 months needed on top of that?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m advised that it will give manufacturers time to register under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines register.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s currently a bill before the House on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) register, and so I’m interested in the interaction with that bill and the changes here. Is this extension so that that bill that’s currently with the Primary Production Committee—and it has quite a quick report-back date, I think, and I’m looking at members of that committee. So the ACVM bill—is the idea that this additional time frame for commencement is so that the two can catch up, or are they totally unrelated?

12:49

I’m advised that they don’t interact.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 579 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. Madam Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

The Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

12:51

I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a pleasure to bring this bill through its final stage today. As I’ve talked about in previous debates on this bill, this is a piece of legislation about good regulatory practice and making sure our legislation is fit for purpose. A regulatory systems bill is an opportunity to fix small issues that accumulate over time. These are often minor irritants that are not large enough or problematic enough in themselves to justify amending the relevant Acts through a stand-alone amendment bill. But in taking them all together, this omnibus bill becomes an efficient way to make minor or technical improvements to legislation.

This bill has over 250 substantive amendments in it. I’ve gone through some of these in detail previously, and I do not propose to repeat myself; the bill speaks for itself. Many of the changes in this bill will reduce the amount of red tape that farmers, exporters, and public servants have to deal with. It will streamline some existing processes so that farmers and growers can keep their attention on what they do best, not on the paperwork. The Government backs farmers in the rural sector. While minor, this bill will make things easier for the primary sector across New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

I would just note that that legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

12:52

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. We’ve just had a very useful committee stage, going through the very many parts of this bill. As the Minister noted, it does make many changes. Some of them are fairly minor and technical in nature, and some of them have a bit more guts to them—we’re talking about the primary sector so we can talk about guts, can’t we?

We spent some time focusing on food standards. Most of New Zealand’s food standards—well, they are all jointly done with Australia. One of the amendments that this bill does is it says where there is not a joint standard with Australia, then New Zealand can make one, and that’s something that seems very reasonable. There’s also another aspect where there’s a need for a temporary food standard, which seems to be—I think we got to the position from the Minister that where it is a different type of food standard, a temporary standard, when there’s some need to suddenly have a standard, then that can be made as well. There was some discussion in committee stage about how that is made and how robust it is, and the importance—we all agreed, all around the House—of very high food standards in New Zealand.

But then there’s this other domestic food standard that can be made when there’s already a joint food standard with Australia and New Zealand decides to opt out. This is quite a substantive policy decision, I would say, in terms of the fact that, for a long time, New Zealand has benefited from that arrangement with Australia in having those joint food standards, but we have seen, and we can argue about this, one big decision to opt out of that joint food standard with Australia over infant formula. There is concern, of course, that different groups may lobby Government Ministers to get them to opt out of the joint standard, and then that could be the reason for why we’re now looking at another opportunity for a different type of food standard to come through.

So we have had good discussion with the Minister the Hon Todd McClay, who was assuring speakers on this side that, in fact, there was not an intention to go around opting out of that joint food standard all the time. So some comfort was provided, and it is useful to have that recorded in the Hansard.

Other aspects: we had an interesting discussion on labelling of wine when it’s exported to countries where that importing country has different standards from us. Again, that seems to be quite a substantive change where the two labelling requirements are in conflict. Then, you don’t have to match the New Zealand standards and you can go with that importing country. So, hopefully, that will be clear as to how it will be implemented.

We had some good conversation in the committee stage that we’ve just had about wool. We seem to all be loving wool around the House, as well as food standards, so that’s good to be standing here and agreeing with some things.

We didn’t get through probably all the questions that were on the Fisheries Act, but there does seem to be some changes there around the power for the Minister to make regulations to change the rules around when fish can be disposed of. I think that’s an important change, and we’ll want to see that. We’ll be, of course, watching what regulations come out of that, and very much hope that the legislation that the last Labour Government put in place is not diluted too much by those changes, or diluted at all, in fact—that they are just ones that go with the spirit of the Act.

On that note, noting the time on the clock—not the red clock but the other clock above it—I will say that we commend the bill to the House.

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

The House is resumed.

14:00 · to the Minister of Finance

Kam na mauri, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes.

Is the number of people in work higher or lower compared to—[Interruption] I’ll start again. Is the number of people in work higher or lower compared to when she took office?

The number of people in work is publicly available information that I believe the member is well aware of. If she’s here to genuinely discover new information, she’s welcome to do that. If she’d just like to make political points, she’s got lots of opportunities to do so.

Point of order, sir. If question time was limited to information that isn’t publicly available, we’d be reliant on this Government releasing information and we wouldn’t find out a thing.

Part of what you’re saying is absolutely true. I think some attempt at an answer or “I don’t have the information.” would be perfectly acceptable.

Are there more or fewer homeless people now compared to when she took office?

If the Minister wants to ask questions about homelessness, she should probably put them to the Minister for Housing. What I can confirm—

Point of order, sir.

Just a minute.

Is it correct, sir, that once a member starts answering on behalf—

Yes, I’m just taking that advice at the present time, but I think you’re right. Thank you for that inquiry. The advice I’ve got is that the Hon David Seymour was acting for the Minister; now that the Minister is here, the Minister answers in her own right because you can’t act for someone who is here. Slightly complicated—part of the arcane rules of Parliament.

Is the number of people on jobseeker benefit higher or lower compared to when she took office?

As has been traversed many times in this House, the economy has been through a difficult recovery period following sky-high inflation under the last Government, and rapidly rising interest rates that were needed to curb that inflation, and that has led to increases in unemployment. However, our Minister for Social Development and Employment has been doing extraordinary work to ensure that job seekers more readily move into work, and the data shows that that has been very successful.

Is GDP per capita higher or lower compared to when she took office?

GDP per capita is also a factor of a difficult recovery, however, I can confirm for the member, positively, that GDP per capita in the first three months of this year grew by 0.5 percent, and is forecast to keep growing over the forecast period.

Why won’t she accept any responsibility when, on her watch, unemployment is worse, homelessness is worse, people on the jobseeker benefit is higher, KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are higher, business closures are higher, and GDP per capita is worse?

I accept responsibility for this Government’s extraordinary work to strengthen the foundations of our economy following a period of epic mismanagement by the last Government. On our watch, inflation has come back under control, interest rates have dropped; we have seen that even though the world has thrown us curveballs, we have made sensible decisions. We are investing more in front-line education, health, and police services. We have set out a path to get back into surplus and to reduce debt. All I’ve heard from that member is, “Let’s offer some free things and tax Kiwis more to pay for it, drive up inflation, and undermine the fundamentals of this economy.”; while also saying “no” to every idea that we put forward to create jobs, whether that’s fast track, or whether that’s the Investment Boost tax credit—and so I will stand by this Government’s record any day of the week.

14:05 · to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

This morning, the Treasury released the interim financial statements of the Government for the 11 months ended 31 May 2026. Revenue and expenses are tracking better than expected. Core Crown tax revenue in the first 11 months was $940 million higher than forecast at the Budget update, and overall core Crown revenue was $1.7 billion higher than forecast. This reflects both businesses and Crown entities performing better than expected. On the other side of the ledger, core Crown expenses were $929 million lower than forecast. Now, these positive results of course flow through to the headline operating balance indicator, OBEGALx—operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—meaning that the deficit for the first 11 months of the year was $3 billion smaller than forecast in the Budget.

What do the financial statements say about Government’s debt?

The 11-month results for revenue and expenses flow through to the Government’s cash position and, therefore, its debt position. The interim statements show that net core Crown debt was $2.8 billion lower in May than previously expected. The figure of $2.8 billion is the equivalent of 0.6 percent of GDP. That means that net core Crown debt in May was 41.3 percent of GDP compared to the forecast of 41.9 percent.

What is the significance of these statements?

Today’s release covers eleven-twelfths of the last financial year, so it does give a very good indication of what to expect from the year-end statements for the 2025-26 fiscal year—those won’t be released until October. Year-end statements are important because they are actual figures, not forecasts or projections. Of course, a lot of accounting goes on to prepare these full-year accounts, and the numbers will move around a bit, but today’s release is obviously a very encouraging sign that the books will be in better shape than previously expected.

What was driving the increase in tax revenue?

Well, as I said, core Crown tax revenue was $940 million higher than expected. This was mostly due to corporate tax, which was $692 million higher than forecast in the Budget. Stronger corporate tax revenue is a welcome sign of underlying strength in the economy. Indications are that the conflict in the Middle East slowed growth in the second quarter of this year, and we expect the data to reflect that, but they also show that the economy is already regaining the momentum it had before the conflict.

14:08 · to the Minister of Health

Does he stand by the statement from the Ministry of Health that “The principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as articulated by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, provide the framework for how we will meet our obligations under Te Tiriti in our day-to-day work”; if not, why not?

As the ministry has said, the principles developed by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal continue to inform how the Government meets its obligations in the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, which I’m pleased to report was passed in the House this morning. This sets out clearly how they apply in the health sector as part of fixing the basics and building the future of our health system. The bill strengthens the role of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee so that independent specialist advice continues to inform health decisions, keeps iwi Māori partnership boards in place to give communities a meaningful voice, and, importantly, it delivers better outcomes for patients by putting health targets into law. We all saw what happened when the previous Government scrapped the health targets: outcomes for patients went backwards across the board, including for Māori. Our focus is on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori, backed by record health investment and targets that are already lifting performance year on year.

Does he agree with former New Zealander of the Year Dr Lance O’Sullivan, who said that the health system is “a dangerous system with really poor systems for Māori.”, and, if not, why?

Well, what I agree with is the fact that our health targets are seeing year-on-year improvement for all New Zealanders, including Māori. I would just point out, on the shortest stays in emergency departments, that when Labour came to office in 2017-18, 89.7 percent of Māori were being seen within six hours. When they left office, 71.6 percent—that’s now improved back to 77 percent. Childhood immunisation rates: 89 percent of Māori two-year-olds were immunised in 2017-18; that fell to 64.9 percent when Labour left office—that’s back up to 71.5 percent. Our targets are working. There is still much more work to do, but I’d rather be on this side of the House where we’re focused on getting outcomes and delivery, rather than simply restructuring the health system.

Does the Minister consider that he is culturally competent to deliver better health outcomes for Māori, and if so, what has been done to improve competency across the health system in relation to Māori health outcomes?

I just refer the member to my previous question. We’re focused on outcomes and delivery, and I, again, point to improved childhood immunisation rates. Under his watch, two-year-old childhood immunisation rates for Māori tamariki fell from 89 percent to 64.9 percent. Shame on you!

Just one person speaking when a question is being asked, and that’s the person asking the question.

Supplementary question.

Three questions here—last one here, then we’ll come to you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with his own colleague Dr Vanessa Weenink, who, as the deputy chair of the New Zealand Medical Association, welcomed the Māori Health Authority, saying that a “one-size-fits-all model does not work—it’s exciting to see our health system will encompass more Mātauranga Māori and rongoā”, and if not, why not?

I agree with the decision by this coalition Government to have a health system that is based on need and ensuring that all New Zealanders are treated based on their need, not based on their ethnicity, and not based on a co-governed model by the previous Government.

Can I ask the Minister as to what is most critically important for public health: cultural competence or medical competence?

Well, what I want to see are New Zealanders getting the care they need from healthcare professionals who are qualified and competent to do that job, and to ensure that we reach the targets that we’ve set out by 2030, and I’m pleased to see year-on-year progress against those health targets. I acknowledge there is a huge amount more work to do, but, backed by our record investment and the increased focus on front-line workers in our healthcare system, we are making progress. There’s much more work to do.

Why did he intervene in the Medical Council refusing to reappoint Dr Rachelle Love and pursuing what he calls an “ideological agenda”, when Vanessa Weenink did the same thing, or is it only Māori women that he’s interested in sacking?

I’m pretty sure that as a former Minister, Willie Jackson would realise that ministerial appointments are ministerial appointments; the clue’s in the name.

14:13 · to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

What legislation or policy changes, if any, has she introduced this term that would see low-income New Zealanders with less money on a weekly basis?

I’ve introduced a range of improvements to the welfare system this term. These changes are about making the welfare system fair, focused, and sustainable, while ensuring taxpayer funding is directed to those who need support most. Our Government’s welfare reset is shifting the dial by strengthening expectations, supporting job growth, and helping job seekers take up opportunities so that more Kiwis can get ahead. From 1 April, more than a million New Zealanders received additional support through the 2026 Annual General Adjustment. I’ve made changes to the eligibility for 18- and 19-year-old job seekers to reinforce the expectation that young people are supported into work, education, or training. I’ve also rebalanced housing support settings to ensure assistance is focused on those with the greatest need.

What are the policies that have seen low-income New Zealanders worse off on a weekly basis?

I’ve answered that in my primary question.

Point of order. In the answer to my question, she noted policy interventions that have seen people, potentially, with more support. She has not named a single policy intervention that leaves people worse off.

Yeah, but your question itself, if you have a look at the Hansard and see the wording, is putting forward a proposition that may or may not be correct, and so the way the Minister answers is going to be along similar lines.

Is the Minister saying she has not introduced any policies that have left low-income New Zealanders worse off?

As I said in the primary answer, I outlined a number of changes that we’ve made in the welfare reset to ensure that the system is fair, focused, and sustainable. I specifically referred to changes around housing support and eligibility for 18- and 19-year-old job seekers to reinforce the expectation our Government has that every young 18- and 19-year-old will be in employment, education, or training.

How much worse off will the 111,000 low-income people who receive Temporary Additional Support (TAS) be because of the Government’s decision to cut TAS by $196 million?

The changes that were made to the Temporary Additional Support were on several levels. The first was around ensuring in Budget 2026 that we increased the accommodation supplement. By increasing the accommodation supplement, that therefore meant that there would be less reliance on the Temporary Additional Support. Temporary Additional Support is meant to be exactly that—temporary. If people require housing income assistance, it should be delivered through the accommodation supplement. That’s exactly the change we are making. One of the other changes to the Temporary Additional Support was to remove the formula-assessed child support liability as an allowable cost, because Temporary Additional Support—the intent of the policy was that it was never to cover personal liabilities.

How does she expect to reduce the rising rate of children growing up in homes that do not have access to the basic essentials when she consistently has introduced legislation and policies that see those very same families worse off?

Because this side of the House knows that the best way to lift children out of poverty is to have a parent in work. Our record, despite economically challenging times, saw 85,000 New Zealanders leave welfare for work in the last year. That is something I’m extraordinarily proud of.

As the parliamentary term wraps up, is she comfortable creating a legacy of persistently high child poverty, higher unemployment, and a litany of policies worsening hardship for the very same people she’s talking about?

I completely dispute that, and it would have been wonderful to have come into this term of Parliament with a wonderful set of books, a booming economy, and great conditions that mean every New Zealander flourishes. Unfortunately, that wasn’t what we came into, but this side of the House knows that a growing economy and job opportunities are absolutely the best way to lift the conditions of New Zealanders young and old. I’m proud of our record, I’m proud of the direction, and we are going to improve the lives of New Zealanders through fixing the basics and building the future.

To help the questioner, is there anything in the workings and writings of Karl Marx that would help you with your portfolio?

14:18 · to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety

What progress has the Government made on delivering the ACT-National coalition commitment to reform health and safety?

I’m pleased to announce that yesterday, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act, which delivers on the ACT-National coalition commitment to reform health and safety, passed into law. These reforms strike the right balance, maintaining strong protections for workers while delivering a simpler, more effective system that focuses on critical risks and improves safety outcomes. This Act reflects that this Government is listening to the people on the ground—the small businesses—having to deal with our laws day in and day out. They told us change was needed, and we have delivered.

Why did the current law need to change?

For too long, businesses have been dealing with a system that is confusing and difficult to comply with. I’ve heard some members from the opposite side of the House mourn for the days of the John Key Government, which introduced the Health and Safety at Work Act in 2015, but let me share one thing—at least one member of that administration does not share the same attachment. Former Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges, who signed off on the 2013 Government response to Pike River, has said, “Today, I do wonder whether the sweeping reforms went too far and were too overly broad, bringing the strong approach required in mining, and other critical activities, to a wider range of workplace activities than was necessary or desirable. Health and safety needs to be proportionate to risk and foster an economically enabling environment.”

What feedback did she see about the reforms in select committee submissions?

I’ve seen a lot of narrow reporting of what the select committee submissions actually said in relation to this health and safety legislation, so I wish to put the record straight. I’ve seen a number of positive submissions that have supported the legislation from the start. Law firm Simpson Grierson said they were “broadly supportive of the policy direction and intent” of the legislation and they “support its core objectives”. Business South pointed out the issues with the current system, quoting from its members, who said, “Health and safety should save lives, not bury small businesses in paperwork.”, and “Clear guidance on the most serious risks would help businesses focus on safety rather than compliance interpretation.” The Restaurant Association supported the reforms, explaining that its members say that “the current system feels in practice as though a small cafe employing eight people has the same compliance expectations as a higher risk business.”

What feedback has she seen now that the reforms have passed into law?

Business Canterbury has said that the common-sense changes the Government has made to health and safety legislation today responds to concerns the business community has had for years. Business New Zealand expressed its support for the legislation following extensive consultation with small businesses across New Zealand. It said that “What changes is that small, lower-risk businesses can spend less time on unnecessary paperwork and more time identifying and managing the risks that genuinely matter.” Retail New Zealand has said that “Small businesses make up the majority of retail in Aotearoa New Zealand, so streamlining compliance and ensuring their focus is on managing critical risks will relieve some of the pressure being felt by SMEs operating in low-hazard environments.”

14:22 · to the Minister of Health

Does he stand by his statement that “to improve patient outcomes we must ensure we have modern infrastructure to help provide the healthcare Kiwis need”; if not, why not?

In the context it was made, yes. New Zealand has been faced with ageing infrastructure and decades of under-investment, and we’re fixing the basics and building the future to put that right. That’s why we’ve published the first ever health infrastructure plan to set out for our health sector a long-term pipeline across the estate of buildings averaging 47 years of age. We’ve delivered a $1 billion hospital infrastructure boost in Budget 2025, and Budget 2026 delivers additional investment towards the delivery of redevelopments at Nelson, Whangārei, Tauranga, Hawke’s Bay, and Palmerston North, with Taranaki Base Hospital’s new east wing already open. Health New Zealand has continued to lift its maintenance budget year on year, and the new Dunedin Hospital is under construction now, with cranes on site. I also note—as the member will be aware—that not a single new cent of health capital expenditure funding was allocated in Budget 2023.

Why were Nurses Organisation delegates told that plans for a pre-built ward to be placed next to Waikato Hospital’s emergency department were cancelled, as reported in today’s Waikato Times?

They haven’t been cancelled.

Why is a ward that was meant to be delivered by now “still in the design phase”, according to Health New Zealand, and why are details of the site “under active consideration by the Minister of Health”?

Well, it would have been helpful if more funding had been put in Budget 2023 to deliver more health infrastructure to start with. Secondly, in terms of the particular Waikato interim inpatient unit, there is work under way, and it is being delivered. It is in the design phase with stakeholder engagement, including clinicians, and mobilisation activities continue. Current programme assumptions indicate practical completion in 2027, with the facility expected to become operational shortly after. The project has experienced delays due to site selection. I’m advised that this site selection has been an issue which has had to be worked through due to it being quite close to the helipad, and, of course, there being some potential noise issues. There is stakeholder engagement, including engagement with clinicians.

Has he received advice that the pre-built ward cannot be put in the planned site next to the emergency department?

Look, I’ve been advised that there are some issues around the site selection, which is, of course, why it has caused a bit of delay. Of course, that has been worked through with the infrastructure team. It is, as the member will be aware, quite a tight site in terms of the infrastructure at Waikato Hospital. The proposed site is next to the helipad, which, of course, does require, potentially, some additional infrastructure and insulation and other things around noise to manage that, but, as I said, the project is continuing.

Why did he choose to ignore the Treasury, Ministry of Health, and Infrastructure Commission advice about the inadequate planning of this project, including risks about the site, as, now, the project is clearly delayed by at least a year?

Well, I’m not sure if the member wants this project to go ahead or not. I mean, I would like to see more beds put into Waikato Hospital. The rapid inpatient units are being constructed in an off-site manner. They can be constructed relatively quickly. They’re in modular design. It allows that to be done in a rapid way to get more beds into hospitals which need them. Yes, there are some site issues and some site selection problems. They are being worked through, as I would expect them to be, but, ultimately, I’ve been clear that Waikato Hospital needs more beds and the project continues.

Who is responsible for these site selection issues, given that he received details of the site in late 2025, he stood on the proposed site to announce this initiative, and he ignored officials’ concerns, and, now, he has responsibility?

I actually stood on the site of Middlemore Hospital to announce this initiative.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document that is not publicly available. It is an email from the chief nurse of Waikato district to a New Zealand Nurses Organisation delegate, stating that the ward is not going ahead.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

14:27 · to the Minister of Justice

What progress is the Government making on restoring law and order?

The Government, and indeed New Zealanders generally, are making excellent progress on restoring law and order by a commitment to fixing the basics and ensuring the victim’s interests are at the centre of our justice system. A vital part of this is making sure that criminals face real consequences for crime. Very shortly, the Crimes Amendment Bill will have its second reading in Parliament, which makes a raft of changes to the Crimes Act as part of our effort to reduce the number of victims of crime.

What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do to strengthen consequences for crime?

Well, primarily, it ensures criminals face longer penalties for crimes such as coward punches, attacking first responders, retail crime, and human trafficking. As committed to in coalition agreements, these specific offences will be created for those who offend against our first responders, those Kiwis who run towards danger to help those in need. Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk and, therefore, must face greater consequences. It also responds on the matter of coward punches, heinous acts that can cause significant and lifetime harm to others. Perpetrators have, in the past, received insufficient sentences in our view, and the change to this legislation will send a different signal from this Parliament.

What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do to strengthen consequences for retail crime?

Well, the bill will give effect to the Government’s expansion of citizen’s arrest powers so that business owners, and all New Zealanders, have an additional tool available to protect themselves and their livelihoods by fixing an anomaly which allowed a citizen’s arrest to be carried out after 9 p.m. but not at 8.55 p.m. If members of the public think it’s safe and appropriate to do so, they’ll be able to hold on to somebody until the police arrive.

What will the Crimes Amendment Bill do to strengthen consequences for trafficking and people-smuggling?

Well, in the previous 15 years, more than 50 victims of people-trafficking have been identified, but only four prosecutions have been undertaken. Just two have led to conviction. It’s not good enough. The bill will increase the penalties for offences dealing with slaves and will also modernise our trafficking offence for both international and domestic trafficking by making the offence more consistent with international standards, as well as making it easier to prosecute those who engage in child-trafficking. We’re stopping criminals using loopholes to evade real consequences for crime.

Can the Minister confirm that there has been a 25 percent reduction in children and young people with serious persistent offending behaviour, far exceeding the 15 percent target?

Yes, I can confirm that, and that’s good news for the many, many New Zealanders who have been victims of such crimes. It doesn’t matter if you’re bashed over the head by somebody who’s 15 or 25 or 55; the consequences are the same, and there do need to be significant consequences for all actions. I want to acknowledge the sterling work by Minister Chhour in this area.

14:31 · to the Associate Minister of Education

Does he stand by his statement regarding the school lunches programme that “Yes, there were problems. We owned them. We never denied them, and we fixed them”; if so, why?

Yes. Why? Because it was the right thing to do—show up, be honest, acknowledge problems, treat people well, including your staff. I mean, just all good stuff to do.

How can he claim to have fixed the problems with the school lunches when the Auditor-General has found that he failed to effectively monitor or minimise waste, and that over half of all meals aren’t meeting basic nutritional requirements for children?

Very easily, because we have fixed problems, and if further problems arise, we continue to fix them. That is the reality of managing contracts to offer food to 250,000 children at a thousand schools up and down the country, delivering around 36 million meals each year. When it comes to nutrition, as most people who have ever fed a child will know, there is a balance between cost—which is always there, whether we like it or not—nutrition, and getting them to actually eat it. One of the things that the providers have found—Mr Speaker, you’re looking wry, smilingly—as the suppliers, is that if they give things such as butter chicken that may or may not meet the criteria, the kids lap it up. If they start trying to hide a few vegies in there, the consumption rates go down. I think the other 75 percent of parents who have to feed their own children with their own children’s lunch would recognise this as well.

Why did documents refer to KidsCan as “the preferred provider for ECE”—early childhood education—“food programme” before a decision was made about who would deliver it?

In any procurements, it’s often true that you choose the person you prefer, so I guess the reason that they were described as preferred before they were chosen is because we chose the preferred provider, which is what they were. Can I make this any simpler?

Why was there very narrow criteria put forward by his office that led to KidsCan being the only viable provider?

The office was involved in setting policy direction, and the Ministry of Education selected a provider which has delivered outstanding, outstanding work. The levels of satisfaction, the surveys, the on-time delivery has been absolutely superb, and we put that down to specifying a very good contract that has been met by a very good provider. I think it’s important just to pause for a moment and recognise that because of the savings that we’ve made on primary, intermediate, and high school lunches, we have been able to fund another 10,000 three- and four-year-old students in early childhood in low-decile communities. That’s actually a wonderful story, and I’m so glad that we got a good provider, according to good specifications, to deliver it.

Who is actually facing a credibility issue: the Auditor-General, as he claims; or is it himself, for delivering a questionable tendering process that has served up slop for our kids?

Given that none of those things are actually true, I choose none of the above, for the member asking the question.

14:35 · to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcement has he made about supporting parents bereaved by baby loss?

Losing a baby is a deeply traumatic and heartbreaking experience. Before today, on top of dealing with that grief, families had to complete stillborn registrations through a process designed for parents welcoming a live birth, which was causing more pain. Grieving parents who are coping with stillbirth will be able to register their baby through a dedicated website. Every year, around 700 to 900 New Zealand families experience a stillbirth or baby loss shortly after birth, while many thousands more are affected by miscarriage. We’re committed to ensuring those families receive support, care, and compassion at one of the most difficult times in someone’s life.

What support and services are available through the new pathway?

The website provides parents with a dedicated place where they can now register the birth of their stillborn baby, obtain a birth certificate, and get access to timely and appropriate mental health and wellbeing support. Importantly, families will retain the choice of using either the website or the traditional pathway, allowing them to select the approach that best meets their needs. Some families may prefer to use the current process and register the birth through the Department of Internal Affairs, while others may find this dedicated bereavement pathway better reflects their needs during a difficult time.

How was the new pathway for registering baby loss developed?

This work was guided by people with lived experience of baby loss. We heard that aspects such as the language used, the imagery displayed, and how the information was presented can make a significant difference for grieving families. That’s why the work is focused on reducing distress, minimising complexity, and creating a better experience for families navigating grief. I also want to acknowledge those who contributed to the bereavement pathway that identified the need for this important change.

What further support is the Government providing for families experiencing baby loss?

The Government is also investing in the wider maternal mental health support available for families following a loss. Budget 2026 invests $5 million to go further and support implementation of the mental health component of the new bereavement pathway. It will ensure parents and families experiencing baby loss have faster access to mental health support. Today’s change is a simple but meaningful way to reduce harm and show compassion at one of the most difficult times in someone’s life.

14:38 · to the Associate Minister of Education

众院议长下午好。, and happy Chinese New Year. Does he stand by his statement that the school lunch programme “will offer nutritious meals to around 242,000 students, every school day”; if so, why?

新年快乐，恭喜发财。 Happy Chinese New Year to the member. Yes, I absolutely stand by that statement. Why? Because that’s what we’re doing.

Is he satisfied that, according to the Ministry of Education, only 50.5 percent of School Lunch Collective meals met the nutrition standards in 2025, when the contract specifies that 80 percent must meet the standard?

No, I’m never satisfied with 50 percent. We need to do better, and we are. In fact, by term 4 of last year, I understand that that level had reached 75 percent, much closer to the 80 percent target. None the less, we wouldn’t rest on that amount of progress. I continue to manage the project and the contract, which has a quarter of a million children in it, a thousand schools, and 36 million meals a year. It’s a pretty big food project. It’s the biggest food programme in the country’s history. Of course, whenever challenges crop up, we get in and fix it.

Then is he satisfied that the School Lunch Collective is not delivering on its contractual requirements of 80 percent; if so, on what basis?

Well, I guess you’ve got to get into the numbers. If the contract’s 80 and they’re doing 50, then I guess that would be a smaller number, because 80 minus 50 is 30. Yet, as I say, we’ve improved it closer to 75—that lessens the gap—and we keep working on further improvements so we can meet our standards. I think it’s also important to recognise that while you have standards for contract management purposes, you also are doing a lot better by getting food into children’s bellies, by easing hunger, and getting food that they will eat and consume, as I addressed in an earlier question. I would regard the programme as a success, having saved $360 million, hit most of its targets, being subject to continuous improvement, and, most importantly, getting children fed.

Which of the following measures, then, in the School Lunch Collective contract have they met: nutritional standards, student satisfaction, surplus lunches, or waste management; and if it is none or some of these, how can he then be satisfied that his model is working?

First of all, you have to put it in the context that the previous school lunch programme cost twice as much and yet didn’t measure those sorts of criteria. If you’re criticising us for measuring our performance and striving to meet our targets, then we accept that criticism and we’ll keep getting better. In answer to the series of specific questions that he asked: at different times they’ve fallen below some targets—for example, on-time delivery in the early weeks was quite poor, but we got on top of that, we changed the way we do things, and the on-time delivery they’ve achieved has been outstanding. There are certainly cases, at some schools, at some times, where surplus has been excessive. We manage that. We get on top of it. There are also times when they haven’t met the nutritional criteria, but those, sometimes, are the times that the kids are happiest with the meals they get. I would say that, altogether, in terms of the biggest food programme in New Zealand’s history, we’re doing a pretty good job.

Does he then think it’s a sign of satisfaction when, with his changes to the scheme, the scheme produces over 10 tonnes of food waste per day?

Well, you’ve got to start with your basics. I mean, if you’ve got a quarter of a million children, well, that’s 250,000. If you had, for example, a kilogramme each, that’d be 250 tonnes, so you can easily see, with these kinds of numbers, that you can get to that level very easily. Big numbers in themselves are part of this programme. There’s a lot of children and a lot of food, and so a small amount of waste compared with the number of meals can easily sound like a big number. It doesn’t make it important.

Why should parents and students trust his changes to the school lunch programme when it is consistently failing to meet the minimum nutritional standards, and many are left open but uneaten or partially eaten?

Well, that has always been the case. The reason that they should trust the way that it is operating now is that we actually measure these things; when there’s a problem, we fix it, whereas previously that wasn’t true. For example, there was a picture of the school lunch programme put up by a member of this House saying that it was all terrible because this food looks so bad, but unfortunately for that member, she was the former Minister, and the food that she put a picture up of was food delivered when she was the Minister. The other thing is I think it’s important to look at the real information. For example, not so long ago, I was engaged in a television interview with Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, who said there’d been many incidents of children being burnt by the lunches. She was told that it was one. She subsequently tried to deny that she’d said “many” despite it being said two minutes earlier, and so she managed to tell two lies in two minutes. That’s a real shame. Now, I think it’s important that people have the right information, and when they have that, they can have great confidence in the scheme.

To the Minister for Building and Construction—thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Hold on. There’s only one person speaking when a question is being asked.

14:45 · to the Minister for Building and Construction

Thank you, Mr Speaker. How will the Building Amendment Bill make building easier and more affordable?

Later today, or perhaps tonight, we expect this legislation will receive its first reading, and it is the most significant change to the building system since the Building Act 2004 was first passed. It makes a series of changes to improve efficiency, reduce delays, and ensure that responsibility and risk are allocated more fairly, including by introducing proportionate liability to replace joint and several liability settings so that parties are only liable for the defects for which they are responsible; introducing stronger consumer protections, including mandatory home warranty requirements and professional indemnity insurance to protect homeowners; and, finally, removing barriers to the voluntary consolidation of building consent authorities, or BCAs, making it easier for councils to share resources, allowing them to benefit from economies of scale and to reduce inconsistency of consenting services across New Zealand.

What other changes are included in the bill?

The bill makes a number of other changes, as well, to make building easier and more affordable. These include fast-tracking building consents for homes with solar or other sustainable features; making it easier for the offsite construction of granny flats and allowing for the use of structurally insulated panels; halving the time for councils to provide project information memoranda, or PIMs; and, finally, modernising the building research system to create a more transparent and contestable model for the funding of building research.

14:47 · to the Minister for Trade and Investment

Does he stand by all his statements in relation to immigration commitments made under the New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement?

on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment: Yes, this is a high-quality agreement, good for all New Zealanders, and has received wide support by New Zealand exporters. New Zealand always honours its commitments, of course.

Did he or his officials, acting on his behalf, inform the Indian Government during negotiations that New Zealand intended to apply more restrictive settings to Indian citizens?

I can’t precisely locate the exact conversation I had, on behalf of the Minister, but I would say that there are no discriminatory decisions in any of this agreement.

Mr Speaker, I hope he might be better at this one: does the Government have any intention to adjust commitments made in relation to the temporary employment entry visas provided for under the free-trade agreement (FTA)?

Well, we’re focusing on getting this free-trade agreement into place as it is, as soon as possible, because there are huge opportunities for New Zealand exporters in this. If we’re going to grow this economy and provide better living standards for New Zealanders, finding new markets and expanding them is very much front and centre of what this Government is about to do.

Why do immigration settings for Indian temporary employment entry visas differ from other visa holders from other free-trade agreement partners?

Well, every FTA is different and has different requirements.

Who is correct: Winston Peters when he said, “Immigration policy settings are being made more restrictive in a way which targets India and India alone”; or Todd McClay, who said Peters’ claim was “promoting misinformation for the sake of gaining votes”?

On behalf of the Minister, what I’d say is that both of those Ministers are very positive about the opportunities for New Zealand to continue to grow our exports. There’s been a longstanding, slight disagreement around the nature of free-trade agreements between some of the parties of this coalition. I think that’s been well understood over the years.

That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to leave the House to do so, quickly and quietly and without conversations on the way.

14:51

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, we will be supporting this bill, as has been telegraphed. There are some notable parts of the process around the bill that I wanted to articulate to the House. We felt that the debate this morning was going very well. There was a good exchange of questioning between the House and the Minister, but a slightly enthusiastic change in adjudication meant that we missed a big section of the bill because our call was not recognised. It’s an interesting note that, during urgency, when we’re doing these extended sittings and summoning the energy to deal with a very substantive omnibus bill that has a lot of potential consequences—and it is right that we should scrutinise those—it’s a pity when there’s not enough time allowed to do that. A particular section that was impacted by that was a section to do with the fisheries. It would have been useful to be able to ask more questions around the impact of the fisheries section, given that fisheries is a contentious issue right now and there’s a bill that’s been delayed till March because of a lack of agreement amongst the coalition parties. That’s just a note on that point.

I also wanted to refer to the repeal or the removal of the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act 2000, which is part of this bill. The effect of that is to complete, you might say, or lock in for history a process over time which began with the 1986 West Coast Accord. On 6 November 1986, it was passed. It was an agreement between foresters and conservationists brokered whereby it was recognised that a certain percentage of forests on the West Coast would be allowed to be logged and a certain other percentage would be protected in perpetuity.

Now, a decade later, in 1996—30 years ago now—a number of activists of a younger generation thought that the compromise was unreasonable, given the exceptional ecological value of those lowland rainforests on the West Coast of the South Island and remembering we have but 6 percent of our lowland rainforest left in New Zealand. We very diligently and recklessly cleared most of our lowland rainforest. What remains mostly exists in hill country and in the highlands. Those activists sought to get the forests that have been designated for logging protected. That was a matter of debate, over some years, that members of this House will remember. The member for West Coast - Tasman at the time, Damien O’Connor, remembers it well, and I happened to be part of that campaign myself—

Tell us the story, Steve—tell us the story!

Mark Patterson’s asked me to tell the story. I don’t want to, really, but people occupied trees, and some other more reckless characters, passionate about the issue, locked themselves to logging helicopters and got convictions as a result. Those convictions have subsequently been wiped through the clean slate legislation passed by Nandor Tanczos, who happens to be another Green member. That legislation that brought an end to the West Coast Accord was passed when the new Labour Government came into power in 1999 and formed a coalition with the Green Party, and the Act was passed in 2000.

The reason I give you all that history is that this bill extinguished that West Coast Accord Act 2000. The question might be asked: what effect does that have on the conservation status of that 137,000 hectares of forest that were put into conservation estate, and we did indeed ask the Minister that directly during the committee of the whole House, and he assured us that it has no effect in so far as the West Coast Accord is now redundant as a piece of legislation because those forests aren’t to be logged and those parts of the forest that are now in conservation estate are covered by that legislation—of course, notably, a piece of legislation that is at risk or in discussion right now because of amendments being proposed to the Conservation Act itself.

That is not the subject of this bill before us, but I did want to touch on that interesting bit of history that comes to its conclusion, you might argue, in a sense, with the passage of this bill 30 years since those activists first occupied the forests on the West Coast. There was one member of Parliament at the time who said that the chap who was locked to the logging helicopter should have been left locked to the logging helicopter and he should have been taken out and dropped in the Tasman Sea. That member’s still in this House and he happens to be on the same side of the House as me now.

These sorts of omnibus legislation that tidy up laws so that they are more effective, more practical, and up to date—one of the sections in it required that no longer did a notice need to be given through local newspapers, but it could be given by other means. The Minister rightly pointed out that the prevalence of local newspapers has sadly declined over years, and now the way that people receive communication is numerous but it is often not by newspapers. This sort of a bill allows us to update the means by which people are notified of, in that instance, the air dropping of substances so that they know it’s happening. It could be by Gazette, it could be by posting on the Ministry for Primary Industries website, or it could be by notification electronically. These are the sorts of things that are sensible things to do with legislation so that it’s up to date and we take no issue with it. It is important that we are clear that there are not unintended consequences or that the changes become consequential and require more scrutiny.

One final point on that is that I was somewhat concerned that in regard to the changes to the Organic Products and Production Act 2023, there hadn’t been direct consultation with the organics sector on that. I think in the instance where there’s a piece of legislation that is very specifically for a particular cohort or sector of our society or community, then even where it is the view of the officials that the changes are nominal, it would be appropriate for there to be a direct check in with that impacted group—in this instance, the organics industry in this country, which is now worth $1.2 billion to our country, $600 million of which is in exports. It is a valuable sector, one that has a huge growth opportunity, and we should be clear that with a piece of legislation like this, that sector is happy with the changes made to the Act that they specifically requested and worked on over many years.

Other than that, we will be supporting this bill. We supported the process through the select committee. We asked a lot of questions about some of the details of the impact of the clauses in it to the officials, and on the Primary Production Committee—which is, just for clarity, the best select committee in the House—we were sure and confident that there was not significant effects. They were not consequential in terms of the primary intent of those pieces of legislation that are impacted by it, and so it was doing the job that it was set out to do. So, at this point, we commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

15:00

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a not-a-member of the Primary Production Committee, I was glad to see their diligent effort in going through this piece of legislation, the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill, and supporting it unanimously. It shows a bit of cohesion across the House, which is good to see. Who couldn’t get behind removing duplication, inconsistencies, errors, and gaps, and getting a more efficient system?

I’m pleased to see some amendments to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, something that’s been holding back New Zealand’s importation and use of chemicals and compounds for a while, and also the Animal Products Act. Just bringing that up to date is going to be a great boon. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. A really good, thorough, administrative tidy-up of our primary industries legislation. I think 19 different Acts are covered here. There’s just a couple that I’d like to touch on, which are important to portfolios controlled by New Zealand First.

The Fisheries Act: I know Minister Jones and under-secretary Marcroft were working on that and the changes to the deemed values system. Technology now applies with the cameras on the boats, and that’s to continually update those balances and entitlements, rather than it needing to be done manually on an annual basis. So that’s very good. There’s some tidying up around some of the Māori fishing rights regulations that had to go through Māori Land Court process. Now, by general consensus, they do not have to go through that process. So that’s a real tidy-up.

The other one I just wanted to note was the Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003, which is the end of a highly contentious, I guess, part of New Zealand’s agricultural history, the winding up of the New Zealand Wool Board. The final balances were distributed around 2011, so it’s well time this was taken off the statute book. But it does mark the very last day that we dead and buried the wool board, which to a lot of New Zealand farmers will be significant. Although it was pointed out in the select committee process, we never did find the Wool Board art collection, which mysteriously disappeared. It was known for its largesse, which helped the Wool Board in its ultimate demise, but it did have a significant art collection, which seemed to disperse. Anyway, with that, I will commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

15:03

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party—delighted to speak on behalf of the Green Party. I came in during the committee of the whole House. Scott Willis and Steve Abel were doing a great job through that. I think Scott Willis was a little bit disappointed that he couldn’t do this call, but that’s just the life of being in the House. So I’m happy to rise and take this call.

As I sat down, I looked across to Steve Abel, who had the bill in his hand. I noticed he was on Part 14, the amendment to the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014. I thought it strange, because, as we know, these systems improvement bills are tidy-ups, a bit of housekeeping to make sure everything’s up with the play. They were doing some changes, but one of the big things they had not changed in this Act was actually correcting the spelling of Kaikōura. So I did ask a question around that: the fact that the “o” in the title of the Act was missing the macron over top of it. So Steve Abel and myself asked a couple of questions around that point, suggesting that potentially the Minister may want to put an amendment to ensure that was fixed up. It was good to hear that the Minister, after speaking to his officials, said that we didn’t actually need to move an amendment. It was noted that it was a minor editing thing that they could actually pick up. So it’s really good to note, in the third reading, that the correct spelling of Kaikōura will be put into the Act, so that, therefore, it is actually right. So that was really, really good.

Then also, it was quite interesting to be in there for a little bit more. We went through to, I think, Part 18, which was the amendment to the Wine Act. It was a pretty simple one, but, again, it was around the interpretation of “fruit wine or vegetable wine”. We found it quite interesting that when they actually defined “fruit wine or vegetable wine”, the definition was “is prepared from the complete or partial fermentation of any fruit, vegetables, grains, cereals, or any combination or preparation of those foods”. We were querying—why is it then called “fruit wine or vegetable wine” and not “plant-based wine”?, but, apparently, that’s the definition. I did think it was a little bit strange that we have a “fruit wine or vegetable wine”, but if you read the interpretation of that, actually, it went into a lot more different food groups than just fruit or wine. We thought we potentially could have fixed that up, but, no, we didn’t get any changes there—which is fine. I was quite pleased to get the change to Kaikōura.

Part of that reason is I was actually born in Kaikōura. I wasn’t there for long. I was only there for—probably until I was about 18 months or two years old, before we came down to Christchurch. I know you’re familiar with Christchurch. Some would say that it’s the new best city in the world—definitely the sporting capital of New Zealand; definitely a fantastic place.

That’s right.

Matt Doocey agrees. I’m sure the Speaker would agree.

Give him an extra five minutes!

Thank you. Thank you, Matt Doocey.

It’s available.

Although, obviously, my loyalties lie down in the mighty Christchurch, I’m always interested to see what’s happening in the place that I was born, Kaikōura, so it was really good to actually have a positive exchange with the Minister during the committee of the whole House and the assurance that that spelling error would be fixed.

This is not the first regulatory systems amendment bill that I’ve been on. I’ve actually done quite a few speeches in my short time in this House. I think one of the good things about this is we all agree. It’s not often, I’ve found, since I’ve been in this House for, I think, seven months, that we all sit around and actually vote the same way on a bill. So it’s always good to stand here and support something that the Government has put forward. It was really good to see some really positive exchanges during that committee of the whole House stage.

Once again, I will stand on behalf of the Green Party in supporting this bill. Kia ora.

15:08

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. At this stage, I’d really like to thank the Primary Production Committee and the clerks and the officials that advised us throughout the process of this bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can I say this bill has been around for a wee while. It indicates, I guess, the speed that the Government does good things, which is a long time, and the speed at which they do bad things, which is a very short time.

This came in originally in June 2023. To be fair—sorry, the new incoming Minister added some things to the bill in I think it was March 2024, but it has taken quite a while to come through Parliament. So we welcome it, and, for the most part, it’s not contentious, but it is really important.

Speakers before me have indicated some areas of progress, you might say, Acts that have been removed. I’d like to briefly mention the West Coast Accord, the West Coast forest accord, and, I guess, the baptism-by-fire that that delivered for me as a new MP for that region, things that, thankfully, have moved on, and the region is now doing pretty well through goldmining. But we have a lot of forest that would otherwise have been slaughtered. So I think we’re better off.

Moving right along to, I guess, the substance of the bill. It is an administrative streamlining bill for the most part, but it covers a lot of very important areas for our economy. The primary sectors, as we know, are absolutely critical to the past and the present, and will be to the future. If you look at the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, it’s a reasonably innocuous kind of bill. People say, “What’s the importance of this?” There are new products that are being invented and developed for different things—one of them being to try and reduce methane from our pastoral agricultural system—and there were some challenges trying to get these new, innovative products through our systems. The changes in this bill will streamline some of that.

The question that I ask—because a lot has changed from the time that this bill was introduced under a good Labour Government to it now being passed by a bad coalition Government. The “why” has shifted quite dramatically. The why when we introduced this was to genuinely streamline but provide secure backstops in all of these changes. When it comes to changes in the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, we need some of them. But making sure that the door is not left wide enough for mistakes to be made or for our exports to be discredited, polluted, or whatever you like is critically important.

In passing this and supporting this in Opposition, what we do say to the Government is that this will require ongoing monitoring, good regulation through the changes made here to ensure that in that one area of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, that in the utilisation of these products, we don’t pollute our good exports. That’s one area that was raised by the people in the select committee, and that’s great.

The next area, of course, is the Fisheries Act. Again, people are applying for individual approval to get disposal methods for unwanted catch. If you put out a net, you can’t always guarantee what you’re going to get, and there are ways that you have to dispose of that. It has been a bit clunky and a bit bureaucratic. This piece of legislation will assist with that. There might be, as the Government spouts on, an ability to reduce some regulations. We’ve got to be careful that we don’t go too far and deregulate and destroy some of these really, really important areas of Government responsibility.

The Animal Welfare Act—again, this is an interesting one, because time has moved on. It was originally designed to be able to take an exporter’s history into account when deciding whether to issue an animal welfare export certificate. Actually, the Government in its wisdom—there haven’t been too many smart things they’ve done, but that’s one of them—has said that they will not reinstate live cattle exports from the country. It’s a smart thing to do. We can use the animals here, protect their animal welfare, and protect our reputation. The changes in the Animal Welfare Act under this have deemed to be, effectively, unnecessary.

It does a lot more of course. The Walking Access Act is renamed the Outdoor Access Act. The Walking Access Commission that was set up under Labour coalition Government prior to 2008 was a very successful process to get access to the waterways in this country, as people had assumed was always their right but actually wasn’t being delivered, through blockages. That Walking Access Commission has done a great job, but it’s now got a wider mandate, and, indeed, they should be out there to assist people who get bikes and horses and go out for hunting to work collaboratively with landowners to make sure that New Zealanders can get out and enjoy the wonderful country that we have. That is a smart change.

The Biosecurity Act—again, technical changes but ones such that the authorised person could only intervene to investigate a Biosecurity Act breach with the assistance of a policeperson—policeman; man or woman. Clearly clunky, bureaucratic—it just removes that obligation. There will be some questions around protection for those people who may be walking into some fairly challenging situations. Again, it’s not something the Government was able to answer. It will have to step up and provide additional resources for those authorised persons to check on what might be suspected breaches of the Act.

Organic Products and Production Act—again, something the Government hasn’t traditionally been very enthusiastic about. The economic realities of opportunities in organic have become apparent to a lot more people, and we certainly as a Government under Labour introduced the Act that then guaranteed certification and verification of the systems within New Zealand. Making sure that the changes here provide flexibility is indeed what has been supported.

Another area of real importance to the primary sector is the Commodity Levies Act and extending the levy orders from five to six years. These are orders that are voted on by the majority of producers, and so redefining what is a majority—50 percent of land or production or the numbers of growers—is really quite important. So this bill—or this Act, as it will be—will move that forward and extend those commodity levy cycles out to six years, which will help people. Labour supports this.

Other areas are the Food Act. Stepping back from our marriage with Australia when it comes to food safety regulation does come with its risks, so the Government has to ensure that in bowing down to pressure either from sectors or from businesses, they don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and then deregulate to the point where our products are not trusted in the international market place. Deregulation is a fine mantra that we hear all too often from that side of the House. In these areas of exports, particularly in food, we need to ensure high standards of food—consistent, safe, and free from contaminates. So it’s really important that the Government doesn’t cut back in those areas as it has cut back on just about every other area of Government responsibility.

That’s why things have shifted from June 2023 to July 2026. The Government, as I say, is taking a long time to get through good stuff. It seems to rush through in urgency the bad stuff. But this is one piece of legislation that we will be supporting because we on balance believe that we’ve moved forward with some of the technical glitches that we’ve had in legislation. It should, if the Government follows through with resourcing, provide a better system for the primary sectors.

I will state on the record that if we continue with this current Government and the way it is cutting all these areas of Government responsibility, then this bill can potentially expose our exporters to failure and the destruction of our international reputation. It is upon the Government to properly resource and follow through on this piece of legislation.

15:18

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill makes minor, technical, uncontentious changes across 19 Acts. It’s about improving efficiency and cutting red tape. We are fixing the basics and building the future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. As previously mentioned, Labour will be supporting this bill at this third reading. This is not a bill that will generate a lot of headlines, but it’s the sort of legislation that helps keep important systems working properly. It updates a range of laws that affect farming, food production, forestry, fisheries, biosecurity, animal welfare, and horticulture as well. It tidies up legislation, removes duplication, and fixes those technical issues that are being traversed throughout the House today. It makes regulatory processes work better for the industry and regulators. Minister McClay actually earlier today likened it to a car: changing the tyres, changing parts to make it more efficient, and so on and so forth—and that’s what this bill, essentially, does.

It’s had a long journey. It was originally introduced as part of a package of regulatory system bills in 2023. It has been through the full select committee process, and I’d like to thank the Primary Production Committee for their efforts. There’s a lot of detail in there. It’s been a very pleasant committee when I’ve subbed in on it, and it feels very amicable when I’m there. They did some consultation. Further amendments were proposed, and that’s important, because even technical changes deserve that proper scrutiny and public input.

One of the things I like about this bill is that it focuses on the practical improvements. The individual amendments might be small, but together they remove those unnecessary hurdles and make compliance easier for businesses that are already dealing with enough paperwork and costs.

For example, under the current law, companies with agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines can find themselves having to go through a full application process when their registration expires. That can be time-consuming and expensive, and this bill allows a straightforward renewal process instead. That’s a sensible change that helps maintain access to products that farmers and veterinarians, and so on and so forth, rely on.

The bill also streamlines some fisheries administration. Rather than requiring fishers to apply individually for approval to use certain alternative disposal methods, regulations can seek methods to apply it more broadly. That means less paperwork and fewer delays and a more efficient system overall.

There are also changes that improve the clarity of the law. One example is the Animal Welfare Act, where officials will be able to consider an exporter’s compliance history when deciding whether to issue animal welfare export certificates. Most New Zealanders would expect that previous behaviour should be relevant when assessing risk. This amendment makes this clear.

Another example is the renaming of the Walking Access Act to the Outdoor Access Act. We heard, during the committee of the whole House, about how that’s kind of a signature of New Zealand and being able to get access to our beaches, to our waterways, for a whole range of outdoor activities. It’s only the name that’s been changed, however. The components of the Act remain the same, and so many Kiwis will be happy with that.

The bill also contains a number of improvements relating to biosecurity. We all know how important strong biosecurity protections are to our economy and our environment. Changes that help authorised officials respond more quickly and effectively at the border are absolutely worth supporting.

I also want to acknowledge some of the additions made during the select committee process. One in particular will be welcomed by many growers. Following the experience of Cyclone Gabrielle, amendments to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act will allow fee waivers, exemptions, or refunds in circumstances where exporters suffer losses because of a major event and cannot benefit from those export services. That’s a common-sense response to a situation that many growers found themselves in, through no fault of their own, in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle.

It’s a good bill. It’s well overdue, and I commend it to the House.

15:23

This sounds like a highly pragmatic bill and it’s something very much that the National Government would do. Within fixing the basics, this is very much part of that, and so now we get on to building the future.

Ah—

Rachel Boyack.

Yeah—no, I know that, but I thought we’d come to the end of it. But, anyway, Rachel Boyack.

15:24

No, we’re not quite at the end, sorry, Mr Speaker.

Sorry.

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on a third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill. Just noting that this was a Labour Party bill that was introduced in 2023, and it has now, eventually—three years later, and through a select committee process—made its way back to the House for its final reading. So it’s great to see that things are happening quickly in this place.

This is a sensible bill that is an omnibus bill. It covers across a number of different Acts and it’s a wide-ranging piece of legislation. It strengthens and modernises the regulatory systems that underpin some of New Zealand’s most critical sectors: our farming and food production systems, forestry, fisheries, biosecurity, and animal welfare settings. This bill in total amends 17 Acts of Parliament and repeals five outdated Acts. It contains more than 300 clauses and over 250 substantive amendments. So there has been a significant amount of work put into what is a detailed piece of legislation. It was introduced in 2023, it had its first reading in 2024, and now it’s come back to the House.

I’m going to talk through some of the changes that have come through as a result of both the bill and the select committee process. The Acts being repealed reflect early eras of industry, structure, and policies. These include the Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999, the Food Safety Law Reform Act of 2018, the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act of 2000, the Hop Industry Restructuring Act 2003, and the Wool Industry Restructuring Act 2003—who knew all these Acts existed? These frameworks are either no longer in use or have been fully superseded by more modern legislation. There are an extensive number of Acts being amended. They span the breadth of the primary industry system, from biosecurity and fisheries to food safety, forestry, animal welfare, and export systems. A few other Acts were added to this bill through the select committee process, including the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act 2023, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987, and the Organic Products and Production Act of 2023.

This bill can be grouped into four clear objectives in terms of its intent. The first is around reducing administrative burden. It reduces the unnecessary administrative burden on industry and regulators. For example, under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, companies previously faced full re-registration of trade name products when approvals expired. That process is costly, repetitive, and discouraged companies from maintaining products in the New Zealand market. This bill introduces a renewal pathway that removes unnecessary duplication and helps maintain access to safe agricultural tools for farmers and veterinarians.

Similarly, under the Fisheries Act, commercial fishers currently must apply individually for approval to use alternative disposal methods for unwanted catch. This creates delays and inefficiencies for both industry and officials. The bill allows for standardised regulatory settings, reducing hundreds of individual applications and improving operational efficiency.

There’s a further change to the Fisheries Act which was quite important, given that the Government has chosen to delay the Fisheries Amendment Bill, as that bill would’ve dealt with a legislative cliff that would’ve been occurring in September of this year. Under the Fisheries Act, there are rules that require commercial operators to land all of their catch. There are some fish species that are currently subject to some transitional landing exceptions, and those are listed in Schedule 1AA of the Act. Those transitional landing exceptions were due to expire in September 2026, and that would have been dealt with, as I’ve said, through the Fisheries Amendment Bill. The Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Shane Jones, has therefore proposed extending those transitional dates for landing exceptions through until 30 September 2028, and so that’s a further two years to give that time for the full impact of Labour’s on-board camera roll-out to occur, because those two parts actually operate together, the landing rules and the cameras on board boats. So this is a pragmatic decision to continue with that exemption for a further two years while more work is done in that space.

The second objective of this bill is around clarifying and updating legislation. This bill updates outdated provisions to better reflect how systems operate today. For example, under the Animal Welfare Act, decision makers will now be able to consider an exporter’s compliance history when issuing animal welfare export certificates. This is a topical issue at the moment and an important one in this Act. It closes a gap in the current law and will strengthen animal welfare oversight through a more practical and risk-based approach.

The Walking Access Act is also renamed the Outdoor Access Act, reflecting the broader scope of the commission’s work beyond walking alone. This provides clarity for landowners, councils, and the public about the true nature of its functions.

Thirdly, this bill fixes errors, gaps, and inconsistencies, and that’s probably why it’s quite a long, omnibus bill that we’ve got in front of us today. Under the Biosecurity Act, for example, authorised persons will be able to seize unauthorised goods without requiring the presence of a constable in certain situations. This strengthens front-line responsiveness and removes unnecessary procedural delays that can hinder the effectiveness of our biosecurity system.

Finally, the bill ensures our regulatory frameworks remain modern and adaptable. Under the Organic Products and Production Act, for example, the bill introduces the ability to make minor or technical amendments, where the statutory test for minor or technical change is met, to delegated legislation without requiring a full statutory process. This reflects the fast-moving nature of the organics sector, where small technical updates must be made efficiently while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

Another example is the Commodity Levies Act, where levy orders have been extended from five to six years. This reduces administrative burden on industry bodies and supports stability in levy-funded programmes.

Finally, I want to talk to some other updates in this bill, namely amendments around the Horticulture Export Authority and Cyclone Gabrielle. Not only does the bill reduce administrative burden, clarify and update legislation, fix errors, gaps, and inconsistencies, and ensure our regulatory systems remain up to date, it is also the product of responsive policy making driven by recent events.

One of the most important changes in this bill relates to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority. The devastation caused by Cyclone Gabrielle is still fresh in the minds of many New Zealanders, especially farmers and growers who are still recovering from that devastating event. Orchards were buried in silt, infrastructure was destroyed, and families who had spent generations building their livelihoods saw that work swept away in a matter of hours.

Section 62 of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act empowers regulations relating to the fees the authority can charge licensed exporters. However, it did not clearly empower regulations to provide for exemptions, waivers, or refunds of fees. There were policy proposals in 2023 to allow fee relief for exporters affected by the North Island weather events, but under the existing legislative settings those proposals could not be implemented. So growers may have had nothing to export, but under New Zealand’s current legal settings, they still faced fees or obligations, even where they had been unable to benefit from the authority’s services. That isn’t fair, and it raised concerns around fairness and flexibility.

This bill addresses that by enabling the authority to grant exceptions, waivers, or refunds where climatic or other events result in loss of export produce, and ensures the system can respond appropriately in times of severe hardship. With the increasing frequency of extreme weather events across the country, including in my area of Nelson-Tasman, it is important that the legislation does not become a barrier to what is fair.

The select committee gave a lot of detailed consideration to this bill. One of the changes that came back was on the National Animal Identification and Tracing information-sharing system. Submitters raised concerns that wider sharing of data with police could weaken privacy protections. The committee agreed, and the proposed amendment was removed, ensuring farmers retain confidence in the protection of their personal and commercial information.

On agricultural compounds and inhibitors, submitters highlighted concerns about delays in approvals and regulatory uncertainty. New Zealand farmers operate in a highly innovative and competitive environment. It is essential that they have timely access to new technologies.

In conclusion, the bill isn’t about radical change. This one is not a world-changing, front-page headline - driving bill. But it is about ensuring that the systems that govern our primary industries are efficient, coherent, and fit for purpose. It is important for the sector. Importantly, it ensures that New Zealand’s primary industries—our farmers, growers, fishers, foresters, and exporters are supported by a system that is responsive, practical, and future-focused. Labour was proud to introduce this bill to the House, and we’re pleased to see it reach its conclusion, today, three years later. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

15:34

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just want to firstly recognise the members of the Primary Production Committee, who spent some time on this. It is an efficient bill that gets red tape out of the way—which is what we call fixing the basics in the National Party—for a better future, which is what we’re building. I’m particularly pleased that it will help our horticultural sector in areas like Tairāwhiti. I commend the bill to the House.

I present a legislative statement on the Building Amendment Bill.

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

15:35

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

Building in New Zealand has become more complex with risk-averse practices; limited accountability; and slow, costly consenting processes holding the sector back. This bill supports the Government’s objective to promote and enable a more efficient and productive building system—one where it is more quick and affordable for Kiwis to build. It delivers major systems reform, including a fundamental change to liability settings, removing barriers to building consent authority (BCA) consolidation, and modernising the building research funding system. It also includes two targeted measures: a fast-track consent pathway for homes with solar generation and other sustainable features, and an amendment to support the uptake of offsite buildings for consent-exempt small, stand-alone dwellings, popularly known as granny flats.

A central feature of the bill is the shift for building and construction from joint and several liability, which prioritises full recovery of the claimant, to proportionate liability—a fairer system where each party can only be held responsible for their contribution to defective building work. Of course, the purpose is to prevent work from being defective in the first place.

The joint and several setting has held back the sector’s performance for decades. It creates an imbalance where parties with deeper pockets, such as building consent authorities—typically councils, and therefore their ratepayers—can be held responsible for the full cost of defects, even where their contribution is relatively minor, at least in some situations, exposing ratepayers to those costs and making BCAs disproportionately risk-averse. This has slowed building progress across New Zealand.

This is not a new issue. The Law Commission carried out reviews of joint and several in 1998 and 2014, and the inefficiencies it causes and considered whether it’s the right system for New Zealand. This has been raised in the office of various Ministers of building and construction since long before my time, yet nothing has changed, and the issues persist. In that sense, it’s been a team effort, and I’m glad that we are in the process of being able to bring it to a conclusion together.

Australian states, by contrast, have been operating proportionate liability models for some 30 years. We’ve taken lessons from our counterparts across the Tasman and engaged directly with them, as well as local stakeholders, of course, and legal experts in the development of the bill. In April 2025, I attended a roundtable hosted by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I give a particular shout out to Dr Michael Warren. The roundtable brought together leading Australian liability experts and key stakeholders from New Zealand’s building, legal, and insurance sectors. Their message was loud and clear: it’s time to move from joint and several liability to a proportionate model, with appropriate measures in place to protect consumers.

While fairer at a system level, some building owners risk being left out of pocket when building work goes wrong and liable parties are absent or insolvent. To mitigate this, and to help protect the so-called mum and dad homeowners in particular, we are introducing mandatory home warranties for most residential building work and higher value renovations. This requirement will also make it harder for cowboys to operate—yee-ha. Without a track record of quality and accountability, it will be difficult to obtain warranty backing, and that’s a good thing because these measures are about better protecting homeowners taking on significant risk.

We’re also making professional indemnity insurance compulsory for design professionals, such as engineers, architects, designers, and surveyors. These changes formalise existing good practice and have been welcomed by industry. As a precaution, to avoid disruption in the construction sector, we have enabled targeted, temporary suspension of home warranty and insurance requirements should this become necessary in the future. It’s not a signal of concern but a forward-looking safeguard developed alongside the sector. These requirements can be paused in the event of significant disruptions and global market shifts, with home warranties and insurance remaining available on a voluntary basis, if that should come to pass, just as they are now. Taken together, these reforms rebalance the system, moving to fairer allocation of liability while ensuring that homeowners are supported by stronger, more reliable consumer protections.

Another change introduced by the bill, which is again being welcomed by councils and industry alike, is the removal of legislative barriers that have hampered the consolidation and collaboration of building consent authorities. When the current framework was introduced in 2004, it was expected that smaller building consent authorities would consolidate over time to achieve greater scale, resilience, and consistency. In practice, though, this has been limited. Some building consent authorities process up to 3,000 building consents per year, while the smallest handle only a handful. Many lower-volume building consent authorities rely on rates to subsidise their consenting functions.

There are also inconsistencies in how consenting requirements under the Building Code are interpreted and applied, contributing to delays in efficiencies, including across different council borders. The bill enables greater flexibility in how building consent functions are delivered. It removes requirements that currently constrain how territorial authorities arrange their consenting services, including enabling functions to be transferred to another council or a stand-alone BCA, improving competition and giving councils more options.

Alongside these changes, statutory processing times for councils to provide project information memoranda, or PIMs, are being reduced from 20 working days to 10 working days. This will support more timely delivery of consent-related services by stand-alone BCAs. BCA consolidation is voluntary, I emphasise to fellow members of the House; the changes do not force building consent authorities to change how they operate, but they remove unnecessary barriers for those that wish to do so, supporting a more consistent, efficient, and competitive consenting system. At the same time, the bill modernises the way that building research is funded, improving parliamentary oversight and accountability and alignment with sector priorities.

The current Building Research Levy - funded system, established back in 1969, is no longer fit for purpose. To better support housing and infrastructure development heading into the future, we need to enable greater innovation, promote value for money, and open opportunities beyond the single current provider. The bill repeals the Building Research Levy Act and gives the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) chief executive a new role in funding building research, with funding ring-fenced and collected through a single building levy. The research levy has historically been paid only to BRANZ, the Building Research Association of New Zealand, which has received more than $260 million in levy revenue over the last 12 years. Amalgamating the two levies creates a more coherent and streamlined funding framework, improves oversight and accountability, and introduces new mechanisms to support contestable funding processes and a clearer link between research, investment, and sector needs. A more coherent system and a more coherent Minister for Building and Construction would also be helpful, Mr Speaker.

In addition to the system-level reforms, the bill includes two more targeted changes to support faster, more efficient, and sustainable building. It introduces a fast-track building consent pathway for new residential buildings with solar generation and sustainable attributes, requiring eligible building consents to be processed by BCAs within 10 working days, compared with the standard current 20 working days. To access this fast track, buildings must meet specified performance criteria relating to solar generation or sustainability, such as energy efficiency, water efficiency, low-embodied carbon, and/or climate resilience. These criteria will be set through a notice issued by the Chief Executive of MBIE to ensure that they can adapt over time, as building practices and technologies evolve. This reform is intended to encourage greater uptake of solar generation and sustainable building design, while speeding up the consenting process and supporting more efficient delivery of new homes.

Finally, the bill also supports more efficient construction methods by permitting the offsite construction of consent-exempt granny flats to take place in advance of receiving a project information memorandum, or, again, a PIM—that’s for the site a home will, ultimately, be located upon. Since the exemption came into effect in January 2026, some 225 PIMs have been issued in the first quarter of this year, representing $34 million worth of potential building work. This is real progress, but I’ve still heard, none the less, that there can be challenges for some offsite construction models where homes are built in advance of receiving a PIM. So, again, we’re doing something about that. The bill allows offsite construction to take place before a PIM is issued, while still requiring a PIM before any onsite building work can take place. This change will support faster delivery of homes under the exemption and allow potential buyers to inspect completed dwellings before purchase, while maintaining the existing safeguards and protections for homeowners provided under the exemption.

In the closing minute of my speech, acknowledging there’s a lot that we’ve put into the bill—as well as into this 10 minutes—I note that the bill makes a deliberate shift in how the system works, from one that concentrates risk and holds back performance to one that shares responsibility more fairly and supports better outcomes across the sector. It pairs changes to liability settings with stronger consumer protections so that while responsibility is more fairly shared, homeowners remain well protected. Alongside this, the bill removes unnecessary barriers to support a more efficient consenting system, it modernises how levies are collected and allocated, and it makes targeted changes that will have real impacts for Kiwis looking to get on and build.

This is a practical package of reforms that improves system performance and gives New Zealanders greater confidence in the homes they build and buy. For all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

15:45

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Building and Construction is correct. This is a significant piece of reform and there is a lot in his speech that he has canvassed. He didn’t make it in 10 minutes, Mr Speaker; how shall I make it in five? I will, at the end of my speech, ask you for another three minutes, if you’ll indulge me.

Supporting this bill is consistent with Labour’s positions, under the two Law Commission reviews, into the changes from joint and several liability to proportional liability. That is a system we inherited from England. England still has it, but most of the economies that we like to compare ourselves to do not, and they have moved to a proportional system. That is why this bill has our tentative support, but there will be some bottom lines that we must see progress on, and one in particular is the Building Research Levy.

The Minister will not be surprised about this. We feel that it is an important part of the building system—that State-funded and -enabled science research behind the work of the Building Research Association of New Zealand is an incredibly important part of the building system in New Zealand. It is something which not only enables innovation in our building system but is also a contributor to a built environment which deals with our conditions. We’re a long noodle of a country: we shake, we have floods, we are different from anywhere else in the world where we have the same sort of built environment, and it is important that we have a New Zealand system which recognises that and continues to update and innovate on behalf of our industry, with the basic science that we need. No other part of the system will fund that. It is an industry-led science system. The industry buys into it, the industry pays for it, and the industry assets that sit up there in the backblocks of Wellington are an important part of New Zealand’s commercial system around this—it is incredibly important.

The proportionate liability system that we have now is something that has given successive Government cause to pause because we know, as the Minister has outlined, that there are significant trade-offs here. On the one hand, we have councils that are behaving, rightly, in a risk-averse way. They behave in a risk-averse way because there is a lot of risk in the system; the risk doesn’t go away. When consumers are left with a home which represents most of their life savings and it is not suitable to live in, not only are they significantly affected but their community is significantly affected. The kind of event like the Christchurch earthquake is a different sort of building failure, where thousands of people were left without homes they could live in. That is unlike any other kind of market failure, because you have a system where New Zealand, as a whole, doesn’t have enough places for people to live safely and to raise their children.

Housing market failure is one of the most public kinds of market failure, and that is why the State will always have a role in adequately spreading the risk, not only between consumers who bear most of that risk but to the communities that share it with them. It is everyone’s problem when we do not have enough houses for New Zealanders to live in. That is what we are trying to mitigate, in this circumstance in the bill, with an insurance product: to meet the amount of risk that is being put back on to the individual homeowners.

What is the problem here? I laugh at this: it is always former chairs of the Regulations Review Committees who love to put in a “Henry VIII” provision, and this one is a big one. This one is one where this House can pass a law which requires insurance products to meet what is a system-designed choice, where consumers are being asked to bear a larger amount of the risk but then to hold insurance products which suit them so that they spread that risk adequately, but, later, Cabinet can make a decision to exempt them from all of that. Why is that? Why has this critical design choice been designed in that way? Because insurers are saying now, in the New Zealand market, that they cannot provide the kinds of insurance products that this relies on. They tell me, and they will tell the Minister, that they cannot provide the product which he is describing to New Zealanders, now, that will exist in future. Maybe they will have that sort of product in future, but maybe they won’t, and the point is that this legislation is designed to give them exactly that out.

It creates two moral hazards here: one is for the consumers who think they are getting a protection, but one is for the insurers, because the insurers look at this legislation and they go, “OK, well, if we don’t offer this sort of product, then we’ll get out of it anyway.” The Government has a role here. It could either have had the Queensland model, which was the State model—which the Minister in his public comments alluded to several times when asked by journalists whether that was what he was looking at—or it could have been the kind of model where you draw a regulatory box and ask the insurers to get in quick or else. Neither of those are what we have gone with. I’ll tell you other jurisdictions which have used the second one. Canada’s states, Ontario and British Columbia—Mr Speaker, please can you put a motion to the House to ask that I could have five more minutes.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Yes.

I call on the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

15:50

I don’t understand why Government MPs are so uncharitable. Clearly, Arena Williams had many useful things to say, and it would have been great for her to have more time. [Interruption] But I’ll try to get through my concerns with the bill—

Hang on, sorry—there’s too much talking around the place.

We have a number of concerns with this bill, but I’m going to start by saying that the Minister for Building and Construction accurately describes the problem. There’s no question that there have been barriers to consenting buildings, particularly in a more energy efficient way, using methods that aren’t explicitly set out as alternative solutions in the building code. I don’t question the fact that the liability for councils has made them very risk-averse, and it has been very costly for local people. To me, it makes sense that risk and that cost would be shared more at a central government level rather than at a local government level, so the problem definition there is accurate.

I should also say that this is a massive reform that was dropped on us in a week of urgency, when the Government is trying to get through a huge number of bills, so we really haven’t had time to look at this in the level of detail that we normally would want to. We’re not in a position to support this bill at this time, even if we support the intention that the Government has in addressing the issue around a more proportionate liability. It looks like shifting away from joint and several to proportionate makes things a bit fairer, but it also could be potentially prohibitive for smaller builders and smaller businesses. Already we have builders who are concerned. I see here in a Radio New Zealand article that there are a number who are raising concerns that this is going to make it impossible for them to keep operating. There are real concerns that I share with my Labour colleagues about relying on private insurance. I think we’d be wanting to look at a model that is more like our ACC model—that’s publicly owned. The other changes in the bill—moving towards a more privatised network of building consent authorities—we have serious concerns around.

It’s public-good incentives that need to drive the decisions around consenting. It has to be information, expertise, and the wider public-good incentives, not maximising profit, as will be the case with privatised organisations. We all know that, when you have that profit motive, we’re unlikely to get the public-good outcomes that we need from our buildings. While some states in Australia have proportionate liability, this is often paired with a centralised public insurer or backstop, and that’s what we would want to see in this system.

We completely disagree with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) analysis on the building research levy. We’re too small; it’s kind of ridiculous. We’ve got this specialised institution with the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) that has built up all of this capability, has these really fantastic employees—they’re independently governed, it’s primarily industry led, and they’ve been able to develop real expertise that is specific to New Zealand. Why would we take that away from them so that some policy people at MBIE—and I’m sorry, I’m sure there are really great public servants in MBIE, but there’s no guarantee that you’d get actual experts in those roles. They’re very far removed, in a public ministry, from the practice of the world.

Doing this contested approach just makes the funding all bitsy. It makes it harder for us to have really high-quality research. We’re a small country; let’s stick with the institution that has been invested in for 60 years, that has built up fantastic capability, that employs a bunch of scientists, and that is well respected internationally. To me, this seems completely absurd. It’s, like, what is the problem here? We haven’t seen a problem definition of why the building research levy should be taken away from BRANZ and given to policy people at MBIE to decide how it’s going to be distributed.

Even if we agree with many of the intentions of the bill, we don’t agree with the solution that’s been put forward in this. There’s no way we can support it at first reading, and I hope the Minister will listen to the select committee and make sensible improvements.

15:55

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a great bill, to be removing the barriers around building consent authority (BCA) consolidation. It does good reforms. I disagree with the previous speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter. To the building levy, making it contestable—I mean, anyone who thinks that it’s working fantastically now with one provider should go and talk to someone who’s been trying to get their products certified in a system where there’s only one gatekeeper, but we’ll go there. Making clearer paths and streamlined paths for solar generation, efficiency—it’s fantastic, fixing some of that stuff. We should have maybe picked up on the small stand-alone dwelling stuff in committee. Maybe we should have been a bit more on to that, but I’m glad the Minister for Building and Construction has come in here and fixed it.

I do want to take just a moment to talk about proportionate liability. This is not a simple matter. It’s going to require a lot of the committee’s concentration. Joint and several has got its problems. Proportionate liability is no panacea. The real problem is getting to the real crux of what’s causing the delays and the inefficiencies and the lack of innovation and choice in our system. It really comes down to who pays the piper. At the moment, it’s sitting with ratepayers and council, and Government in really extreme circumstances, but if a private BCA, or any other BCA, was going to come in and start trying to compete and provide a better service—maybe be a bit more open to innovation and finding ways to make sure that that’s safe for consumers—they’re going to have to do that in a way that is open. Right now, you’re going up against a BCA that has the ratepayer to fall back on and doesn’t actually have a charge upfront that anybody can see. It does really get to the core of what’s causing our delays.

It’s been traversed—the risk aversion; why would a council take on that risk? Previous speakers have mentioned it, so I’m not going to, but I will just look to Andy Foster, the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and say he’s going to have to do some good concentration on that. To the Minister for Building and Construction, also a final word for you: well done on grabbing the nettle, working hard with the sector and finding some solutions and bringing them to this House. I think you’ve done a fantastic job. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

15:57

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to welcome this bill. It’s a bill of considerable substance. I just want to start off by talking about my experience around joint and several, as a councillor and as a mayor. We got to the stage where this was costing the ratepayer an absolute fortune. It was about $150 million, and that was just on the leaky homes. Then we started getting cases around seismic issues, where people were starting to say, if a building suffered damage in an earthquake, “Oh, the council should not have consented that building, and therefore we’re going to have a go at the council legally on that as well.” When you start getting faced with those sorts of things—and certainly, I was actively saying to the likes of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, “We might well want to hand back our building warrant, because it is just a liability for us.” That sits behind my support for joint and several being moved to proportionate liability.

The question is, though, if the ratepayer is not the one—at the moment, the ratepayer is unwillingly the one who’s standing behind building consents. It doesn’t make councils money. They barely cover the costs of actually doing the consent process themselves, let alone when something goes wrong. Of course, buildings, homes, are really, really significant. For most of us, they’re the most significant assets we will ever own. It’s interesting that there are some parties around this House who actually want to try and drive down the value of those assets and make those assets more and more expensive—not parties on this side of the House, I might say. I think parties on the other side might want to think about that, because they are damaging the most valuable asset that most people will ever own.

It’s really important that somebody is there. Most people who own a home are going to want to know that somebody is there behind them—obviously, you don’t want something to go wrong—and that there’s somebody there who’s going to pick up the pieces if something goes wrong. If it’s not the ratepayer, who is it going to be? If it’s a small sort of product, we’ve got the Consumer Guarantees Act, but that’s not relevant here. Of course, the most important thing is to do the building right the first time. We’ve heard, in my Transport and Infrastructure Committee, about 10-year claims limitations, but this bill is predicated on a system of warranties and insurance. That’s something we’ve already traversed as a select committee and recently as bills through this House—the plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters bill, and the overseas building products bill. Those things are about the issue of liability. Warranties and insurance was an important one for both of those.

It’s been observed that one thing—if we do go down that track—is that it might well drive out some of the poorer operators who can’t get insurance. So be it, because we don’t want people who are cowboys in our building industry. There’s going to be a lot to consider in that area.

The second thing I wanted to talk about is the ability to join building consent authorities together. I think it’s a really good initiative and I think it will give some scale and hopefully draw them away from councils more. I think it’s a good thing.

The third thing I wanted to briefly mention is this issue around long-term research strategy. That sounds like a really good idea but I do share some of the concerns which I’ve heard about the Building Research Association of New Zealand, BRANZ. I have visited them; I’ve seen some of the great work they do in seismic, fire, and insulation. Obviously, we want to make sure that we keep that research capability in our country and be able to do good work for building and construction going forward.

The final couple of things I just wanted to mention—the fast tracking of consenting for solar panels, I think, would be widely welcomed. I do note there’s been a lot said recently about what has actually been claimed a central government policy, but it’s actually been something that local government has been asking for a very, very long time, and that’s the ratepayer assistance scheme to be able to use the backing of the ratepayer, in this case, for cheaper-cost loans for people to be able to upgrade their homes by putting solar panels on them. That’s something that, actually, again, when I was Mayor of Wellington, I was part of the National Council of Local Government, and we were working actively on that, saying to Government, “Please can you come on board with that.” It’s great to see parties around this House supporting that, and I very much welcome it.

The final thing to say is just in terms—this bill will be reported back, I understand, for six months. I’ve just been asking around to say, well, look, there’s a lot in here. One of the things we should do is give the maximum possible time that there is for people to respond to this. Of course, there is not much point in getting responses back some time in mid to late August, because we’re not going to do anything with them. It’ll be a new committee in the new Parliament. I think we should give them more time to do that and maybe get these submissions in maybe some time in November. I commend this bill to the House.

16:02

This will deliver a fair and more balanced liability framework. It replaces joint and several liability with proportionate liability, ensuring each party is responsible only for the loss they cause. I think this is a great bill. We are here to fix the basics and build the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. There aren’t many—actually, no, there are a few opportunities in Parliament where you get to demonstrate a genuine desire to work with both sides of the House to get the bill right because it could bring significant benefits to the country. It is therefore disappointing that whilst we are in urgency—and I understand that the Government just wants to get through things as quick as possible. I would have thought this bill—of all bills that are on the Order Paper, this urgency motion—would have been one where the Government would have wanted to contribute fully in support of the Minister for Building and Construction.

I thought the Minister’s contribution was sound, and my experience with this Minister is that he is eminently reasonable. He has worked constructively with my colleague and friend Arena Williams—his counterpart, our building and construction spokesperson— and, of course, there is some relevancy in this bill to my portfolio of housing, and infrastructure, frankly.

Now, as Arena said in her unique, enthusiastic style, we support the vast majority of this bill. I think it is important for the construction sector and the infrastructure sector to see that this Parliament is working together to get this bill into a position where all parties can support it, because, frankly, they are sick and tired of the stop-start chopping and changing that we have seen as a country over recent years. It’s got to stop.

Many of the things that this bill seeks to address have been identified over the previous years, and they do need to be addressed, but there are two main areas that we as the Labour Party want to use the select committee process to get right. As Arena Williams pointed out, the way that this bill is currently written could potentially give insurance companies an out, because a lot of the assurances—and when they’re given, I’m sure they are sincere—to homeowners by the Minister are that there would be an appropriate insurance product, to ensure that they are not unduly lumped with a disproportionate level of liability.

Now, you’ve got that assurance and you’ve got the requirement in the bill but you’ve also got the ability for future Cabinets to waive that requirement. It leads to what I think is a reasonable question: why have the requirement in the bill if it can be withdrawn later, and the assurance is reliant on that product, but the requirement of the product might be removed at a later date? What is the potential impact on homeowners in that respect? That is something that we really do want to dive into at select committee and make sure that we can address those concerns—not just concerns that we’re raising; we’re raising them because we’re hearing it.

The other thing, too, is the Building Research Association of New Zealand. Now, for 60 years, they have been a credible, respected contributor to the building sector in this country, providing trusted research on the quality of building products—so much so that they are now in demand for overseas clients who are coming to them asking them to test their products. They are internationally renowned, and they’ve been funded by a system that has proven to work. We are confused, I think is fair, at the provision in this bill that suggests that the building levy that has funded them so successfully over that time is then potentially going to be redistributed to other organisations.

We’re very serious about this, and if our concerns about this aren’t addressed at select committee, in all honesty, that might be enough for us not to support it. Now, we don’t want to do that. We do want to support this. It is important that it has broad support because the signal that was sent to everybody is that this isn’t going to change if there is a future change of Government. That’s important, but if we don’t address the concerns in that, we may have no choice. It’s not a threat; it’s just being completely upfront.

We’ve got a six-month—it is full select committee, Minister? Yep, great. That is a good start—a full select committee process. Those are the two issues that we’ll be working constructively with the Government and the committee to make sure we get those things right.

16:07

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the member that just sat down, we will be teasing these issues out in select committee, but this is a good day, because this bill gives long overdue reforms to the Building Act. It rebalances the performance of the system to balance risk and efficiency. It provides a way forward on liability settings that have been much needed to change in this country. It’s all part of our plan to fix the basics and to build the future. I commend it to the House.

16:08

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise to support this bill, the Building Amendment Bill. I note from several of the contributions to date that there’s a certain amount of excitement, I think, in what this bill can achieve and will achieve, and there’s a certain amount of thought that’s gone into looking over it and seeing some potential fish-hooks and some potential changes that certainly need to be advocated for in terms of change. I think that bodes well for the select committee process and for the rest of this process.

Labour will be supporting this bill at first reading. As my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty has just said, though, our continued support will be contingent, but at this point it’s certainly consistent with the approach that Labour has taken when it went through the Law Commission’s two reviews on building risk. Obviously, our objective—as I should imagine everybody’s objective should be—is a building system that does deliver more homes and does deliver better infrastructure, because goodness knows we’ve got a lot of catching up to do in that respect. Also, a building system that ultimately delivers lower costs, because it aids no one to see cost escalations or for things to be unaffordable. Whilst those are all very good aims and those are all what we should be aiming for, we also have to remind ourselves that it’s important that it maintains strong consumer protection and real accountability in that regard as well.

We’re going to be absolutely constructive in the pursuit of perfecting this bill through the select committee process. Many of these reforms, as I’ve said, are consistent not only with our previous work that we’ve done through that commission but also with our prospective work that we’re doing in terms of our own policy development, as well. The job at select committee, as I’ve said, will be to strengthen the areas that mostly have been outlined via this process at this first reading, although I note that my colleague Arena Williams didn’t quite get enough time to elucidate fully on some of the insurance issues that she wanted to raise. I’m sure there will be plenty of other opportunities to tease that out.

At the heart of this bill is a shift—and I think it is the number one issue—from that joint or several liability to that proportionate liability. Whilst that might sound technical—it is somewhat technical—but it also matters because if a builder goes broke or disappears, it could be the homeowner and not the council or other parties that ends up carrying that cost. There’s an opportunity for us to figure out not only what products are available but also figure out that potential loophole where insurers may not offer the products that need to be available to make that work.

We support removing barriers to councils sharing and consolidating their building consent functions, as well. Many councils, I think—certainly, we hear both anecdotally and formally when we sit down with relevant people—can often struggle to keep that specialist expertise in-house and keep all the relevant people required throughout that process to make sure that it’s smooth. We welcome faster consenting—also, I want to say, for both solar and sustainable homes—and support off-site and modular construction and the ability to do that.

We think those are really good ideas. Again, these are things that Labour has long championed, and a more specific articulation of our commitment to that—I’m sure, we’ll hear more about over coming weeks, given that it’s election year, but there’s no doubt that is absolutely congruent with our thinking on this. There are a couple of bits and pieces that colleagues have pointed out from having a look at the bill today in preparation for select committee that they will raise there, but I don’t think that will come as a surprise to anybody.

I think it sounds as if everybody is relatively united and is wanting to give this bill a really good shot through the select committee process. In service of that, I won’t hold it up any further, other than to commend it to the House.

16:13

This bill is literally fixing the basics and building the future, and I commend it to the House.

16:14

The question is, That the Building Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill.

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

16:15

I move, That the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 July 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting in the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193,195, and 196.

This bill clarifies climate change laws to provide businesses and New Zealanders with certainty around their obligations. Ongoing litigation in the High Court, where civil claims have been made, is creating uncertainty in business confidence and investment. It risks the development of a new regime that runs in parallel and it may contradict the framework that Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change. Ultimately, if there is legal uncertainty, there is less investment over time, and that affects us all by making our country less competitive. Therefore, the Government will amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to prevent findings of tort liability for activities that cause or contribute to the emissions of greenhouse gas and, through those emissions, may cause or contribute to climate change harm.

A tort is a civil claim brought in private law in situations where the conduct of one person causes harm or invades the interests of another person. Tort law has primarily been developed through the common law, which arises from decisions made by judges in court, rather than by legislation that has developed in Parliament.

In the Smith v Fonterra case, the defendant is asking the court to develop a regime to control and reduce the emissions of six of this country’s largest businesses. This would be potentially contrary to the regulatory response set by Parliament under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, which sets out our legal framework for New Zealand’s regulatory response to climate change. This framework includes a 2050 target for emissions reduction and a regime for setting and meeting successive emissions budgets, with a view to achieving that target.

The Government’s view is that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change harm are best regulated by Parliament and the executive, who take a whole-of-economy approach that carefully considers environmental, economic, and social implications, rather than having that done on a case by case basis through litigation in the courts. A statutory bar prevents courts from issuing a certain type of finding or considering a particular issue. In this case, the bill will prevent a person or entity from being liable in tort law for climate change or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. This will apply to all activities contributing to greenhouse gas emissions directly and indirectly, regardless of when or where they occur.

However, the bill is targeted and will only affect tort claims relating to climate change damage or harm arising from greenhouse gas emissions. It will not affect traditional environmental torts—for example, where a factory burning fossil fuels causes harm through odour or ash residue. This may still be covered under the tort of nuisance.

The bill will also apply to the proceedings of Smith v Fonterra. I acknowledge that care is needed when deciding whether legislation should apply to existing court proceedings. However, these proceedings are still at the procedural stage, and the substantive proceedings have yet to start.

Currently, there is no tort liability for climate change damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but this is what Mr Smith is asking to be developed. I therefore consider that the application of the bar to existing proceedings that have not been finally determined is necessary. This will ensure that there’s no risk of a parallel regulatory regime being developed in future which applies to some of emitters and is inconsistent with the Government’s regulatory response. As no rights have yet been identified in the existing case, this legislation will not deprive the litigants of the fruit of litigation.

The bill clarifies the regulatory framework in which we are operating as a country with regard to climate change. The bill doesn’t change New Zealand’s climate targets or the approach that the Government has taken. Businesses with obligations under the emissions trading scheme will still be required to meet them. We have a good regime in the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions trading scheme, and we’re seeking to make sure this regime is clearly in place without confusion.

The bill makes it clear that the response to climate change sits squarely with the elected Parliament and the executive. The bill clarifies the law to ensure that there is certainty around climate change obligations of New Zealand businesses. It also ensures our response to climate change is managed by Parliament and the executive at a national level, rather than on a case by case basis through the courts. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

16:20