Thursday, 28 March 2024 - Volume 774 Sitting date: 28 Mar 2024 THURSDAY, 28 MARCH 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker—National): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 9 April, and can I wish everyone a happy Easter. In that week, the House will consider the first reading of the Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill, the second reading of the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill, and the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. On Tuesday, there will be a 90-minute debate on local issues, Wednesday will be a member's day, and on Thursday we will have all remaining stages of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill as per a determination of the Business Committee. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the Minister's previous enthusiasm on the progress of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, does he have any plans to introduce a replacement now that the Government has scrapped it? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): If the member read the Order Paper, he will see that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is no longer on the Order Paper. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Mr Speaker, perhaps I can repeat my question? SPEAKER: Well, you can, but you're supposed to be asking questions about what's on the Order Paper, not what's off it. But, however, go ahead. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): This has never been that type of process, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Oh, I know, but I'm a bit of a stickler for the rules, as you require of me so often. So please ask your question. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: OK, no worries. In regards to the Order Paper and what might soon be on it, will there be a replacement for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, as the member knows from his time in Government, the Government intention to progress bills is announced in due course, and when they make their way on to the Order Paper, they get reflected on the Order Paper. PAPERS, PETITIONS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Te Rito Maioha requesting that the House implement a 1:4 ratio for under threes, supported by realistic funding. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2022/23 annual review of Callaghan Innovation and the 2022/23 annual reviews of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the New Zealand Tourism Board Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2022/23 annual reviews of the education sector Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Observations from our central government work in 2022/23 Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2022/23 annual reviews of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service Reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2022/23 annual reviews of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori (Māori Television Service), Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency), Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (Māori Language Commission), and the Ngāpuhi Investment Fund Limited (trading as Tupu Tonu), and the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill 218-2 Report of the Primary Production Committee on the 2022/23 annual review of Quotable Value Limited Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2022/23 annual review of the Ministry of Social Development, 2022/23 annual review of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission, 2022/23 annual reviews of the housing sector, and the briefing on the 2022/23 financial performance of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the 2022/23 annual review of KiwiRail Holdings Limited. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The briefings and the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pire o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about the Budget operating allowance? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) yesterday, I announced that the operating allowance in Budget 2024 would be less than $3.5 billion. The operating allowance is the amount of money allocated in the Budget to fund new spending and revenue initiatives. To put this amount in perspective, the operating allowance, on average, across the past four Budgets was around $4.5 billion. In Budget 2022, the allowance was around $6 billion, and in Budget 2023, it was $4.8 billion. So the Budget we will release 30 May will be significantly tighter than those in the immediate past, and it will also contain personal income tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders. Miles Anderson: When will she announce the operating allowances for future Budgets? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said in the Budget Policy Statement, the operating allowances for Budgets 2025 to 2027 will be set out in the Fiscal Strategy Report, which is one of the Budget documents. Operating allowances for future years are planning assumptions that improve the accuracy of fiscal forecasts. They are often amended and revised over time. To give the House one historical example, the operating allowance for the most recent Budget in 2023 was announced as being $2.6 billion in Budget 2020, but as the years went by, it was raised to $2.7 billion, then to $4 billion, then to $4.5 billion, and then to $4.8 billion—some $2.2 billion more than indicated three years earlier. That is why I take any comments about future allowances with a large grain of salt when those comments come from the Labour Party. Miles Anderson: What reaction has she had to the Budget Policy Statement? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I've seen many positive comments on the Budget Policy Statement. However, someone did accuse me yesterday of refusing to provide a concrete Budget allowance in the BPS and said, "Oh, it's highly embarrassing for a finance Minister to be unable to do what has been required of every finance Minister since the introduction of the Public Finance Act." That assertion is wrong. The Public Finance Act does not require anything from the finance Minister with regard to Budget allowances, and, in fact, it makes no mention of Budget allowances whatsoever. What is highly embarrassing is for someone to publicly accuse a Minister of breaching an Act of Parliament while getting basic facts wrong, and I am disappointed in the Opposition spokesperson Barbara Edmonds. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary. SPEAKER: The Hon Megan Woods. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Sorry? SPEAKER: The Hon Megan Woods—you know yourself, yeah. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it correct that the reason that she has broken the convention of providing an operating allowance in the Budget Policy Statement is because coalition Budget negotiations have broken down, or coalition partners can't agree? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, that's another one from the Labour Party fantasy file—the same file they get their idea that a new tax will somehow make New Zealand more prosperous. In fact, what we have here is a party that had a very strong convention. The Labour Party's convention was every time they said they'd stick to a spending limit, the next opportunity they had, they broke it. Well, this Government is going to break that convention. Miles Anderson: What other feedback has she seen? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I did have another, quite different reaction to the BPS yesterday. I received a lovely email from someone whose name I will protect for her privacy, but I do think the House would benefit from hearing this as it represents a point of view that is often missing in the media commentary. This is what the email said: "I thank you, the National Party, and the coalition Government for promising to honour the tax cut. It is a way to help the squeezed middle, and especially mature singles, who are often forgotten. I am one of them, with a mortgage on one average income to spread across many bills. It is difficult out there for people like us. For once, I feel like the unseen can get some relief, whatever the amount—really appreciated.", and yet the members opposite would take it from her. Question No. 2—Disability Issues 2. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Did the reports she received from Whaikaha that she referred to in her answer to question No. 4 yesterday contain figures of those who used disability support funding for pedicures and massages, or did they just contain anecdotal evidence? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): The report contained advice from the ministry which outlined that the uses of flexible funding that Whaikaha would pause are for a range of services including, "self-care services such as massages, hairdressers, pedicures, and other appearance or therapeutic services that some carers have accessed as part of carer support or individualised funding." I have received further advice from officials that the evidence Whaikaha relied on in making the decisions to clarify what funding could be spent on came from a range of sources, including analysis of spending data, concerns raised directly with Whaikaha by providers, including individualised funding and choice in community living hosts and needs assessment service coordination organisers on what funding was actually being spent on, and feedback directly from the community. I have also been advised by officials that expenditure information from providers indicates that, in a number of instances, individualised funding has been used to purchase Lotto tickets, alcohol, and tobacco. Clearly, the system set up under the previous Government did not have appropriate settings in place. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. If I heard the Minister correctly, in response to a written question, she expressly quoted from a document, and I would request that she table that document. SPEAKER: Is the Minister quoting from a document she has in the House? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I don't have it in the House with me, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can she confirm that at least 26,000 carers currently accessing carer support through Whaikaha will be impacted by the changes announced on 18 March? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I can confirm that carers that were accessing the funding for care services such as massages, hairdressers, pedicures, and other appearance or therapeutic services, or for purchasing Lotto tickets, alcohol, or tobacco will be impacted. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What advice— SPEAKER: Just wait. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: —did the Minister receive prior— SPEAKER: Excuse me; just wait. Your own team seem a little unsettled. Carry on. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What advice did the Minister receive prior to 18 March on the number of people in total who would be impacted by the changes that were announced on 18 March? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, I received a range of information, and the numbers certainly were not fully explained that would be impacted, but that is because the vast majority of carers use their support for assisting in their care of their disabled loved ones. Those carers do an absolutely amazing job, and they should not be being impacted by a very small number of people who are using it for the purposes that I've outlined. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did the Minister or her office sign out, as part of this report or any other report, wording that was used in Whaikaha's announcement of the 18 March changes? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Whaikaha advised me that they had a comprehensive engagement and communication plan in place. Clearly, that did not happen. I have apologised that that did not happen, as did the chief executive (CE) of Whaikaha. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That question was very specific about whether the Minister had signed out a briefing that then appeared on the website. That answer did not address that specific question. SPEAKER: Well, I think it did address it, because it talked about a process that the Minister was aware of in relation to the question. Well, members can shake their heads all they like. I'm sitting here listening to it. I listen to the questions; I listen to the answers. I think we'll move on. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can I ask it again? SPEAKER: As part of whatever your allocation is. Use it up as much as you like. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Did the Minister or her office sign out, as part of this report or any other report, wording that was used in Whaikaha's announcement of the 18 March changes? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Whaikaha advised me that they had a comprehensive engagement and communication plan in place. Clearly, that did not happen. That is why I have apologised and that is why the CE of Whaikaha apologised. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, when I asked a question about whether the Minister signed out a report and she didn't answer it, your ruling was that her answer didn't get close to—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Start again. Sorry, there was noise here. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: I'm just seeking your guidance, because last week I asked a very similar question about whether she signed out a particular report. The Minister didn't get close to answering or addressing that question, and when I put that to you, you did request that she have another go at answering that question. SPEAKER: Well, I might have. That was last week. This week, I just heard the Minister say what she was advised of. It may not satisfy the member who's asking the question, but it does address the question. Is there another supplementary on this? Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I know that you go to great lengths to ensure consistency in the approach to question time. The difficulty we have there is that on one occasion you saw fit to ensure the Minister responded specifically to the question about whether she signed a briefing. This time the question is pretty much the same. If the question was "Has she received advice?" of course that would have been addressing it—no question—but on two occasions she was asked whether she had signed a briefing, which, of course, is different to receiving advice, and on both occasions she simply said she received advice. SPEAKER: I would have thought the inference in that was enough, but if you also look at 207/2, you'll see that it's not my role to judge the performance of a Minister. It's to simply ask the question, "Has the question been addressed?" And my judgment is that it has. Question No. 3—Education 3. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she seen about student behaviour in classrooms? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): A report published by the Education Review Office this morning showed that behaviour in New Zealand classrooms is amongst the worst in the OECD. This report tells us an important story about what is happening in our society that is mirrored in our classrooms. It gives us the evidence that we need to make important changes to support our principals and our teachers, including the ones we've already made to better support our hard-working teachers. Mike Butterick: What action has the Government already taken to improve behaviour in classrooms? Hon ERICA STANFORD: The report said that 51 percent of teachers mention device use reduced the ability to concentrate and may be one of the causes of worsening behaviour. We've already taken action to ban cellphone use in our classrooms, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Feedback from Hornby High School was that they had no reports of cyber-bullying since the ban was introduced. So, we know the effects of this policy on behaviour is already having positive impacts. We will take the recommendations in the report and see what further we can do to support our hard-working teachers. Mike Butterick: What can we do to better support our teachers when it comes to student behaviour? Hon ERICA STANFORD: The report stated that less than half of new teachers reported being able to capably manage behaviours in the classroom in their first term. A significant number of teachers feel demoralised and are considering leaving the profession. I know that from talking to principals and teachers that initial teacher education is a key solution to helping our teachers manage behaviours in the classroom. Initial teacher education is a priority for this Government, and we are already looking at what changes we can make to help better manage student behaviour. Mike Butterick: What comments has she seen on this report? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Ruth Shinoda from the Education Review Office said this morning, "We need a national approach to how we manage behaviour in our schools so our kids can get the best out of their education. We need to increase support for teachers, alongside setting clear expectations from all of us about what good behaviour looks like so we can prevent and respond to this challenge effectively." I agree with Ms Shinoda that we need a more nationwide, consistent approach to what behaviour is acceptable, and what consequences there are for unacceptable behaviour. We want to support principals with minimum standards that are consistent across the country so there is agreed and widely-understood expectations in this area. Question No. 4—Justice (Firearms) 4. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): Is it important that licensed firearms owners take the time to revise the rules of firearms safety over the coming months? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): With the first cold snap of the year about to hit New Zealand, many deer hunters are keenly anticipating getting out and about in the back country in search of roaring stags this long weekend. As licensed firearm owners, it is our responsibility to ensure that before we hit the hills in search of rutting deer, we have revised the rules of firearm safety. Understanding and adhering to these rules is crucial to prevent incidents and ensure that everyone has an enjoyable time in the outdoors. Cameron Luxton: Of the seven basic rules of firearm safety, which is the most important? Hon NICOLE McKEE: All of the seven rules of firearm safety are important. However, during the roar, rule No. 4, identify your target beyond reasonable doubt, is mainly the one to be emphasised. Failure to properly identify a target could lead to tragedy. No matter how experienced a hunter is, they should take their time to keep a clear head and treat every roar as if it's coming from a fellow hunter, because it very well could be. Cameron Luxton: What advice would she give licensed firearm owners who are travelling with firearms this roar season? Hon NICOLE McKEE: It is important that licensed firearms owners follow the guidelines for the storage and transportation of firearms and ammunition to the letter. These guidelines have changed significantly over the past couple of years, so it's important that licensed firearm owners revise them again and understand what their new requirements are. Cameron Luxton: What other points would she like to make regarding firearm safety this roar? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Treat every firearm as loaded and pay attention to the firing zone. After properly identifying a target and before firing, a hunter should ask themselves, "What could happen if I miss?" Hunters need to be sure of what is in between them and their target and what is beyond. A solid backstop is a must. Good luck out there to everybody who is going to be hunting during this roar and stay safe. As the old saying goes, it's better to go home with no meat than no mate. Question No. 5—Public Service 5. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she agree with Nicola Willis's promise in 2023 that no cuts will be made to any front-line services? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for the Public Service): I often agree with Nicola Willis, although I have observed that from time to time, she does fall short of perfection. I would like to add some additional context to her comment for the member. The coalition Government is focused on shifting resource from the back office to front-line services, and in making that commitment, we are not committing to doing things the way they have always been done. We are not going to ban ourselves from looking at other ways we could do things better or differently to ensure the resources we're employing have a bigger impact for the people we're seeking to serve. Furthermore, I anticipate that in some cases where our Government reprioritises resources from back-office functions, that member and her colleagues will mischaracterise it as a cut to front-line services. They will be wrong, but their political motivations are clear. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What evidence has she seen that assures her that proposed job cuts at the Ministry of Health won't impact the Government's ability to respond to public health emergencies? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen the guidelines that were provided to all agencies when they were asked to identify reprioritisation and savings measures, and I have spoken with the Minister of Health about his expectations in relation to his agency and his view that we need resources in our hospitals, in our emergency rooms, immunising our children. And I agree with his priority. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What evidence has she seen that assures her that proposed job cuts at the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) won't impact the Government's ability to respond to biosecurity emergencies? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This could get a bit repetitive. However, I have seen the clear guidelines that were given to Government agencies about the proposals that they would put forward for savings. Furthermore, in the case of MPI, I've been assured that MPI is not proposing any reductions to its front-line services and that statutory staff—such as veterinarians, animal welfare, fishery, food-compliance officers, and biosecurity teams at the border—remain. The primary sector can have confidence that MPI's key functions—including bio security, food safety, forestry, and fisheries—will not be compromised by the proposed changes. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What evidence has she seen that assures her that the safety of children or prisoners or prison staff will not be impacted by cuts to support services at Oranga Tamariki or Corrections? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have sat down with the Minister for Oranga Tamariki and its chief executive, and I have been assured by them that, actually, they are looking forward to the opportunity to ensure more of our resources are focused on supporting vulnerable children and that less of our resources are focused on middle management. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the Minister interrogated the assurances of the chief executives that she cited in response to two of the preceding supplementary questions by requesting evidence that that is the case, and, if not, why should New Zealanders believe her claim that no cuts are being made to front-line services? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I'm getting a bit of a flavour for what the last regime might have been like—interrogations and evidence—but actually that doesn't at all marry up with what we saw in practice, does it—which is that spending got completely out of control, resources were tied up in the back office, the headcount in public agencies exploded, and New Zealanders were left wondering, if spending's increased by 80 percent in just six years, what have we the people got to show for it. Well, the member's right: there's a different Government in charge now with a different approach, and we're going to drive value for those taxpayer dollars. Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety 6. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What advice, if any, has she seen on the impact of the Government's coalition agreement policies on workers? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I've already delivered two of the commitments from the ACT-National coalition agreement in my portfolio: to repeal the fair pay agreement system and expand the 90-day trials to apply to all businesses. I've also implemented a moderate annual increase in the minimum wage, as required by the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement. In each case, I've received a regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment which included mentions of the impacts on workers. I consider and appreciate the advice I receive from officials on all fronts, but I also consider a wider range of views when forming my policy decisions. Teanau Tuiono: Will she guarantee that workers will be able to continue to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have only received very early policy scoping advice on contracting arrangements, so the member will have to wait for further policy decisions to be made, but one thing that's very clear from the coalition agreement's intentions is that this Government intends to clarify the law to make certain for both businesses and workers what are employment or contracting arrangements. Teanau Tuiono: Is it correct that she will not promise workers that they will continue to have the right, as they have for decades, to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: We are not removing the courts from New Zealand. However, what this Government is intending to clarify for all businesses and workers is what the law and the intention under the law and the intention of this Government is when it comes to businesses and their arrangements with contractors and workers. Parliament sets the laws, which the courts follow. Teanau Tuiono: Does she acknowledge that minimum wage workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation through working as contractors, and, if so, will she ensure they are able to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I have suggested earlier, I have only received very early policy scoping advice on the contracting arrangements. This is very early in my work programme, and I'm very excited to clarify the law about the role of contracting arrangements and employment law arrangements within existing New Zealand law. I think it's very important to note that we want all businesses to thrive, we want all workers to thrive, and it's very important that we're giving clarity for both workers and businesses about what their rights and their obligations and their opportunities are in New Zealand's economy. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether she believes that it is sound industrial relations to clarify one's employment status before they commence a job, not halfway through when there's a dispute? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you for the question. I think it's very important for everybody to know what they are signing up to under the law. There are many, many people who sign contracting arrangements every day who are very satisfied with the terms of their contracts—90 percent of people who are in contracting arrangements are satisfied or very satisfied with being self-employed and not being employees, and we should uphold their rights to continue to be contractors. Teanau Tuiono: Does she recognise that employees treated as contractors have included people such as the Gloriavale workers, who worked full time from age six years old and were able to protect their rights because they were deemed employees by the Employment Court? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: When it comes to the issue of Gloriavale, the labour inspectorate is there to help Gloriavale understand their obligations when it comes to employment law and the Employment Relations Act. I think it's very important that we're looking at this from all across New Zealand; that everybody knows what their obligations are, they know what their rights are under the law, and, where there is any form of exploitation, the relevant authorities are notified so that everybody has their rights upheld under our Employment Relations Act. Camilla Belich: Does the Minister agree that it is sometimes the case that during an employment relationship, the nature of the work will change and it may be necessary to seek clarification at an Employment Court or the Employment Relations Authority, and will this policy be maintained despite her commitment to change the law in relation to contractors? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I've suggested, I'm in very early scoping work about the changes to clarify the law for the Employment Relations Act, and I look forward to the member being part of that consultation and bringing her views in the relevant time. Teanau Tuiono: Does she think it's bad that people at Gloriavale, who work from six years old, full time, were able to clarify their employment status in the Employment Court—the opinion? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I would also like to note this question was regarding the advice that I've received on the coalition agreement's commitments. We are not changing anything specifically in the coalition agreement to do with Gloriavale. However, where employment law fits within my purview for the coalition agreement, which is to clarify the intent that Parliament sets for employment relations, for contracting arrangements, and for employment agreements, this Government will be clarifying that law. I only, at this stage, have very early policy scoping advice. However, I expect more advice to follow and I look forward to engaging with the member at a further date. Question No. 7—Science, Innovation and Technology 7. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: What recent announcement has she made in the science, innovation and technology portfolio? Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): Yesterday, I was pleased to announce the establishment of a Science System Advisory Group. This group will help us explore the well-documented issues facing the science sector and will be chaired by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who will also chair the University Advisory Group appointed by the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills, the Hon Penny Simmonds. The Science System Advisory Group has been tasked with delivering two reports: the first in June 2024 and the second in October 2024. It will form the basis of what is needed to enable this Government to bring about the changes needed to ensure the science and higher-education systems are well-placed to deliver maximum benefit for the country and its people. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is this needed? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The issues facing the science sector are very well documented. Science, innovation, and technology are critically important to rebuilding the New Zealand economy. With a country of our size and with a limited human and financial capital and markets, we need to focus our approach to science and innovation. Unfortunately, the status quo is not working. We have great scientists and innovators, but we as a Government must ensure that taxpayer money is being spent wisely and creating benefits for the economy. This advisory group will address these issues and provide us with advice. Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the Science System Advisory Group tie in with the University Advisory Group? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, we understand the critical link between our universities and science and the Crown research institutes. For too long, these sectors have not had the synergy required and have been disjointed in the way that they operate. It is critical that we get these two sectors working in conjunction with each other to ensure that we can turn research excellence into global impact. And while the two advisory groups will operate separately, having the same chair of each group will ensure that any changes made can benefit both science and higher-education sectors. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What goals does she have for the portfolio? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: So many goals, but right now there are real opportunities for New Zealand in areas of emerging and existing research, such as space and aerospace, biotechnology, quantum technology, advanced materials and medical technology, alongside other areas of strength and high potential. But commercialisation is essential to the success of science, innovation, and technology, and the Government will support more partnerships between the public and private sectors to see better outcomes from the amazing science research being done in New Zealand. We will also deliver on our election promise of establishing a dedicated gene technology regulator, investigating changes to employee stock ownership plan taxation, and delivering tech visas to get the best talent to New Zealand. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How much will the Professor Sir Peter Gluckman's Science System Advisory Group review and reports cost? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you very much for that question. I've had a look at that and it's actually about just over $400,000 for the entire system—which is pretty amazing, considering that was pretty much what one Government agency might have spent on gifts for its outgoing CEO. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How is this not a waste of the time and effort put in by the science sector in fully documenting the issues in the sector and developing a plan which was contained in the 2022 Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways White Paper? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, thank you so much again for that question. That Te Ara Paerangi was, frankly, a waste of paper. In fact, the forestry people should have taken back the money. It was really a shame, because I was looking for something that didn't just say, "Oh, everything's going really well and we just keep doing a bit more of it."—nothing in there about where we need to be. So that was a waste of space. This is actually about getting things done. And unlike a previous Minister in this role, I actually get stuff done. Question No. 8—Police 8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes. Hon Ginny Andersen: Which Minister in the Government has primary responsibility for delivering 500 police officers within two years? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Myself, as the police Minister. Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did his office inform the Herald that Casey Costello holds—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Sorry, just start again. There will be silence when people ask a question. Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did his office inform the Herald that Casey Costello holds responsibility for delivering 500 in two years? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because the Hon Casey Costello is my associate, and she is assisting me as part of her delegation in the delivery of the 500, and I think it's a fair recognition of her that the last 1,800 was a great New Zealand First policy and the next 500 is another great New Zealand First policy. Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he confirm and put on the record that the response his office gave to the Herald—that Casey Costello held primary responsibility for delivering the 500 in two years—was incorrect and false? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think the member is getting a bit hung up on the word "primary"—[Interruption] I can assure her that myself and my very competent associate will be working together to deliver the 500 police officers over the next two years. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how long did it take him to authenticate that they're not 1,800 but that the 2,338 extra police officers was, in fact, New Zealand First work and not Labour's, as they claimed? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that's a very good question. Labour claimed New Zealand First policy of 1,800 additional police officers— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Yeah, I know where you're going to go. Just make your point of order. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question in itself, it is questionable whether that was in order—whether there is ministerial responsibility on which party claimed success for what, and whether that is accurate or not clearly isn't the responsibility of the police Minister. And, immediately upon attempting to answer it, it was straight into—against the ruling that you made to this House just earlier this week. SPEAKER: That's right, but the question, though, was in order, because it asked him about how long it had taken him to assess, which is not an unreasonable question. Words matter, if I may quote one of your former colleagues. And, on the answer, it's not appropriate to start out with an attack on a previous Government. But it is OK to reflect upon the content of the question. Hon MARK MITCHELL: It didn't take me very long at all to understand who was responsible for the policy around the 1,800 additional police officers for our police service, and it didn't take me long to understand and work out that, in fact, they only delivered 1,500 because 300 were authorised officers. Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Police advice, released under the Official Information Act, that retaining non-sworn staff will be important and necessary in order to deliver 500 police within two years? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I agree. Non-sworn staff have a critically important role to play in the Police. Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he commit to not cutting or reducing any non-sworn roles within Police this financial year and next financial year in order to enable police to deliver a 6.5 percent cut and also make sure the 500 are delivered? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, firstly, it's not a 6.5 percent cut. As an incoming Government, it became obvious—although we had very clear ideas—that the previous Government has left a shambles behind. You are economic—or the previous Government are economic vandals. Hon Dr Megan Woods: You can't say "you", Mark. Learn the rules. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the previous Government—Megan Woods might get upset about it, but the fact of the matter is you've been economic vandals. The books are a shambles, so what we've had to do as the incoming Government—and we've been very clear. We've been very clear with our chief executives, including the commissioner, as we've asked him to go and look for where there are savings, because the country accepts the fact that, under the previous Government, there has been a bloated bureaucracy, an enormous amount of investment, not much to show for it, and, actually, we are being responsible with taxpayers' money. Now, in terms of the Police, we're being very clear that we're going to be focused on delivering stronger, better front-line services that actually provide better services to the members of the public, as they should expect. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister going to take, and has he been advised to take, a very practical, common-sense, experienced view to his administration rather than dreaming the pie in the sky stuff? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Good question. Yes— SPEAKER: It should be a very brief answer, I think. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Good. That's enough. Well done. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it true that Winston Peters called you and asked you to take back the responsibility and not delegate it? Hon MARK MITCHELL: That is absolutely not true. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, if we're going to have people getting up and talking about how this House should be run in question time, asking a question without any authority or any record or any authenticity is just plain outside of Standing Orders. And, therefore, I'm raising a point of order to ask her to apologise for that. SPEAKER: Well, given the tenor of the day, that is probably—well, hang on a minute. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I beg your pardon? SPEAKER: No, hold on—wait on. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I want two apologies now. SPEAKER: Well, I tell you we'd be here all day apologising if every member wanted to be apologised to. Can I just say, while the question itself might have been wide, it is in line with the opening question, which was, does he stand by all his statements and actions? So the question is OK. Question No. 9—Building and Construction 9. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has he made on removing red tape in the building system? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Today I announced that the Government is cutting all that dam red tape. [Interruption] Thank you. Arguments in favour of retaining existing settings simply do not hold water. Dam safety regulations imposed by the previous Government are set to come into force on 13 May, but farmers and growers have warned us about the downstream effects, which include an unreasonable amount of compliance cost for the relatively low risk posed by small dams that are used in farms across New Zealand for water storage. This week, the coalition Government has agreed to raise the height threshold of the dams caught by regulations from 1 metre to 4 metres. James Meager: What impact will these changes have? Hon CHRIS PENK: These changes will mean around 1,900 fewer dams will be impacted by the new regulations, reducing compliance costs by more than $13.3 million. It will also better align dam safety regulations with the requirement for dams over 4 metres to also have a building consent. This higher threshold strikes a balance between managing risk while easing the regulatory burden faced by owners of smaller dams, such as farmers and growers. James Meager: What feedback has he received on these changes from regional New Zealand? Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback's been extremely positive. By extraordinary coincidence, it was from the member's very own electorate of the mighty Rangitata that we have heard farmers saying that they were attempting to comply with the regulations at the cost of some $5,000 each, not to mention the additional ongoing compliance burden and administrative costs. On-farm water storage is crucial for supporting greater resilience, particularly with the impact of extreme weather events such as droughts. Rather than making life harder for rural New Zealand, this Government is making it easier. James Meager: Is the Government planning on making more announcements on removing building red tape? Hon CHRIS PENK: Why, yes; this Government is focused on reducing costs and removing unnecessary red tape so that we can get the economy back on track. You can expect to hear a lot more on how the coalition Government is going to remove unnecessary regulations that are merely adding costs and getting in the way of Kiwis trying to build. Question No. 10—Oceans and Fisheries 10. STEVE ABEL (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by all his statements and actions? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Āe. Steve Abel: Does he stand by his statements that the fishing industry "deserve respect", and that he would "stand up for people who regard fisheries as part of their birthright", and does he therefore share the opposition of fishers to seabed mining, that totally destroys the seabed with flow-on impacts to fisheries? Hon SHANE JONES: I've gone from the champion of the provinces to the leader, the leading politician, who is going to ensure that the fishing industry is not demonised or driven out of existence by stupid Green policies. Steve Abel: I have a point of order on that response, please. SPEAKER: Point of order, Steve Abel. Steve Abel: The question was quite specifically about whether he shared the opposition of fishers to seabed mining, that totally destroys the seabed with flow-on impacts to fisheries. SPEAKER: Yes, I think have another crack at that. Hon SHANE JONES: Point of order. That question had multiple limbs, and I responded to one of those limbs relating to my status as the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. I repeat again: the answer that I've given adequately covered one of the limbs of what was an octopus-like question. Steve Abel: When meeting with mining lobbyists Straterra on 23 January on the resources and associate energy portfolio, did he, in his capacity as fisheries Minister, communicate the longstanding opposition of the fishing industry to seabed mining? Hon Judith Collins: You can't have questions across portfolios. Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can't do that. SPEAKER: Yes, that's right. Just try again to get it inside the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries portfolio. Steve Abel: OK. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Just hang on—we don't talk while there's a question being asked, or about to be. Steve Abel: Does the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries share the opposition of fishers to seabed mining, that totally destroys the seabed with flow-on impacts to fisheries? Hon SHANE JONES: There are some apocryphal, unbounded, dangerous assertions in that question. The processes that are in play pertaining to applicants seeking to gain access to the half a trillion dollars' worth of wealth on the bed of the sea are entitled to go through that process. That is shared space enjoyed also by quota owners. Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't believe he answered the question which was specifically about whether he shared the opposition of the fishing industry to seabed mining. SPEAKER: Well, look, I think it is one of those that I spoke of earlier. If you have a look at a Speaker's Ruling I'm leaning heavily on today—it's 207(2). I think, in consideration of that, the Minister has addressed the question. Ask another supplementary. Steve Abel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the decision to cancel progress of the Kermadec sanctuary, did he consult with interested and impacted iwis, such as Ngāti Kuri, before making this decision? Hon SHANE JONES: The decision that the member refers to is a decision of the Cabinet. In terms of talking to the associated iwi, it may involve me talking to myself. That is a decision endorsed by the entirety of the Cabinet, and it reflects the fact that nothing in the Kermadecs will change as a consequence of the overdue decision today, whether it's noddies on land or pufferfish at the sea. SPEAKER: We move now to question No. 11— Steve Abel: Point of order. I think I have one more supplementary, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Oh, my apologies, sorry. I thought your leaning back was satisfaction with the answer. Steve Abel: I may have been in amazement. But I do have a supplementary, please. SPEAKER: Steve Abel. Steve Abel: Does he support the view of the International Seabed Authority that it strongly recommends a pause on seabed mining until there is a clear understanding of the impacts of the industry—that the industry may have on the marine environment, its living resources, and those dependent on them? Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, within our domestic jurisdiction, there are opportunities to excavate, extract, and take rare earth seabed minerals necessary for the climate change journey. There is also the New Zealand involvement in a working group, under the UN, dealing with high seas international waters mining. The latter does not drive the former. Question No. 11—Environment 11. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes. Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret that the Minister for the Environment is not listed as a decision-making Minister in the Fast-track Approvals Bill when those decision-making Ministers can override Resource Management Act prohibited activities? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret that the Minister and the Ministry for the Environment have not been involved in work to extend marine consents by 25 years under the Resource Management Act? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret contacting the Otago Regional Council to slow down its water plan to improve water quality? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I contacted the Otago Regional Council to release them from the obligation that had been placed on them by the previous Minister for the Environment, to ensure that I extended the date for their statutory deadline for notifying their freshwater planning instrument so that it was in line with all other councils. Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret the potential for extended marine protection today being taken off the table for the Kermadec Islands? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The Kermadec Islands have already got a considerable amount of protection and I'll list it for the member: there is a marine reserve around each Kermadec island out to 12 nautical miles; there are regulations prohibiting bottom trawling; there is a minerals reservation—prevents new mining permits; and there are a range of marine wildlife regulations. There are already a range of protections in place. Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she regret accepting the environment portfolio when she is powerless to protect the environment? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I reject that assertion. Question No. 12—Mental Health 12. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Mental Health: What is his response to the rate of suspected suicide which, according to Te Whatu Ora's data for 2022, is 51.9 per 100,000 for Māori males aged 25-44 years compared to 16.4 per 100,000 for non-Māori males? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Mental Health: I can respond that any loss of a young life is an unspeakable tragedy. The suicide rates in New Zealand are unacceptably high and disproportionately affect some groups in New Zealand, including Māori men. That's why this coalition Government is so focused on improving access to mental health. Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What evidence-based initiatives that specifically address suicide rates is the Minister considering in the next five-year Suicide Prevention Action Plan, and how will these address the disparities of suicide rates between Māori and non-Māori? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The work on the next Suicide Prevention Action Plan has just started to set the direction of priorities and clear owners and accountability for the five-year period. This coalition Government is committed to reducing suicide rates in New Zealand. That's why we've established the first mental health portfolio. As Minister for Mental Health, this role will bring a clear focus for mental health and addiction and suicide prevention for all New Zealanders. We're working with our coalition partners to fund front-line services such as Gumboot Friday and I Am Hope charity. This Government is also working to establish the mental health innovation fund to increase access to mental health services in this term of Government. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What procurement process, therefore, was used for the I Am Hope trust to receive $6 million of public money? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I do not have that information to hand. I am sure the Minister will be able to respond in writing. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Therefore, has the I Am Hope trust, who provide free counselling in schools, made a different to the inequity of youth suicide rates between Māori and non-Māori, which was 34.1 per 100,000 for rangatahi Māori compared to 16.9 for non-Māori youth? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I am unable to provide that specific information, but if the member would put it in a written question, I am sure the Minister could respond. Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What Māori-specific initiatives is the Minister funding with regard to suicide prevention? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I have stated before, the coalition Government is committed to reducing suicide rates in New Zealand and better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. This is why we are focused on committing delivering of services close to home and as close to hapū as possible. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Fortunately Māori are New Zealanders, which is a good thing. Does the Minister accept therefore—[Interruption] I was purely responding to the "all New Zealanders" comment, excuse me, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: We're going to do all of that again because there is too much noise. And no little commentary at the start would be most in order. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister accept that colonisation and racism are a leading contributor to high suicide rates for Māori? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I cannot speak for the Minister himself, but no, I don't accept that assertion. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the impacts of statements by Government Ministers that marginalise rangatahi from their whakapapa, such as comparing Māori and Pasifika spaces to Apartheid and segregation, on the mental health of rangatahi? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I reject the assertion in that question. I will state again: we've said we will bring healthcare for all New Zealanders closer to home and closer to community. This will serve Māori and non-Māori well. SPEAKER: I'll just make the point, too, that that last supplementary was quite a distance from the primary, which as a supplementary we tend not to do. URGENT DEBATES DECLINED Budget Policy Statement SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Megan Woods, seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Budget Policy Statement. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However, the Standing Orders provide a mechanism for debating the Budget Policy Statement after it has been examined by the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Standing Order 340. In light of that fact, the Budget Policy Statement is now before a select committee and it will be debated in due course. It is, therefore, not appropriate to hold an urgent debate today. The application is, therefore, declined. ROAD USER CHARGES (LIGHT ELECTRIC RUC VEHICLES) AMENDMENT BILL Third Reading Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. [Interruption] SPEAKER: I don't want to interrupt; the member will start his time again. Could people leave the House without the conversations on the way through. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Would you like me to move the bill again? SPEAKER: Oh, look, I think we'll take that as done. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Take that as done—well, thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to bring the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill to the House. I just want to start by outlining the purpose and intention of this legislation, which is to ensure that all users of our roading network—whether you drive an electric vehicle, a diesel vehicle, a petrol vehicle, a hybrid vehicle, a plug-in hybrid vehicle—pay your fair share of, and contribution towards, building and maintaining our roading infrastructure here in New Zealand. Of course, it was the last National Government which provided the exemption for light electric vehicles back in 2009. And that was when, I believe, there was around six or eight electric vehicles actually on the roads at that time. The intention was to have that exemption in place until the number of light electric vehicles—and I think it was possibly you, Mr Speaker, or one of your predecessors, who put that exemption in place as Minister of Transport. But the intention was that once the number of light electric vehicles reached around 2 percent of the vehicles on our roads, that the exemption would stay in place. Of course, we now know that the number of light electric vehicles is above the 2 percent threshold and so, therefore, this exemption runs out and this legislation is needed. And so, of course, the exemption runs out on Monday, 1 April and this piece of legislation helps to transition those vehicles into the road-user charges (RUC) system, by ensuring that they are required to pay road-user charges and that, importantly, there is a lower rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Acknowledging the fact that those vehicles both use petrol and are plugged in and use electricity, there is a transition period of two months for people to be able to purchase their first RUC licence whilst continuing to keep an exemption for very light electric vehicles which are less than 1,000 kilos, which is still in place due to the very small number of those vehicles on our road. Of course, this legislation is needed to ensure that that smooth transition takes place, firstly because, otherwise, plug-in hybrid vehicles would have to have paid the full RUC rate, which of course would have been unfair due to the fact that they also use petrol. It also allows for a two-month transition—and, of course, there's over 100,000 vehicles which are going to have to come into the system from 1 April, on Monday. So this provides a two-month transition period, which I think allows for the systems—for people to understand their obligations and to be able to enter the system, which is very important. And so this legislation helps to provide for that transition and which otherwise could have been quite clunky. And, of course, the last Government didn't do much, but I do acknowledge their support of this legislation thus far into the House. I do want to acknowledge that they have supported this legislation thus far, but if this legislation wasn't put in place, owners of plug-in hybrid vehicles would have to pay a full RUC rate. They would then have to claim exemptions on any petrol that they did use. That would of course mean that the New Zealand Transport Agency would have to hire huge numbers of people to process that and, of course, there'd be opportunities for fraud throughout that, which of course is not ideal. So this system, I think, helps with that transition whilst ensuring that the plug-in hybrid rate is set at a fair rate. We sent the bill to select committee to consider that. The last Government consulted on a 20 percent rate reduction based upon what the manufacturers say the fuel efficiency of those vehicles is. In the legislation we brought to the House, we increased that to a 30 percent reduction, taking into account the actual variableness in terms of plug-in hybrid vehicles; of course, that has now been changed to 50 percent to ensure that is a fair transition. What I would say is that this is a temporary transition period. This Government does intend to shortly make the next steps, which is to actually move all vehicles to a road-user charge system. This bill, whilst it deals with the immediate issue in front of us, which is ensuring that those light electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles are brought into the system, we do acknowledge that there are variances in the system. There are variances based on what type of fuel that you use. So this Government has made it very clear in our draft Government policy statement on transport and in bringing this legislation to the House, that we need to make further reforms to how we pay to use our roads here in New Zealand. That means ensuring that—it doesn't matter what type of fuel your car has, whether it's a petrol car, whether it's a diesel car, whether it's a hybrid, whether it's a plug-in hybrid, whether it's a full electric vehicle, whether it's hydrogen—actually, we want to ensure that everyone pays the same based on the number of kilometres they drive on the road and the weight of their vehicle, rather than what type of fuel they use. So that is a significant piece of reform which we're currently receiving advice on and which decisions will be made on shortly. But I want to make that very clear that this is a transitionary period, that there are still variances in the system, and that this Government is committed to continuing with this reform, and we look forward to receiving support from across the House as part of that reform, to ensure the future sustainability of the National Land Transport Fund and to ensure that the revenue that is used and that is raised by road users is put back into maintaining and building our roads. So, this piece of legislation is an important piece of legislation. It is the first step in making those reforms. I do want to acknowledge all of the submitters who submitted as part of the select committee process. I do want to acknowledge the support of all of the parties of the House who supported this bill. I do particularly want to acknowledge our coalition partners and the ACT Party, who have, as part of the coalition agreement, made it clear that it is part of the agreement to move all vehicles to road-user charges. I do want to acknowledge their support in particular, and I want to commend this bill to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to begin this debate on the bill. Look, I want to acknowledge the Minister for his approach to not only the committee stage but being flexible and adaptive in what has been generally a really good working process for working through what is a very detailed piece of legislation. He's come to the House, he's accepted the changes put by Opposition members in select committee, and I want to congratulate him on that and the way that he took on questions in the committee stage in a back and forth that really helped Opposition members engage with this work. Even though he cannot thank me for my contribution to this legislative programme, I can thank him. This is a good bill and Labour will be supporting it. It began in 2022 when the Government of the time went out to consultation on an appropriate discount for electric vehicles (EVs) that were using the roading network to take into account the cost of using the roading network as a whole. But that was alongside the Clean Car Discount and other policies which incentivised not only the uptake of EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles but also the cost to Aotearoa as a whole of our transport fleet and the large proportion of emissions that transport represents in New Zealand's total contribution to our emissions as a country. So we then have this piece of legislation which did not consider as part of the policy rationale for setting a discount those things that go along with incentivising people to pick up cars that are more efficient in terms of emissions. And that is something that Opposition members grappled with in the committee stage and in the select committee room, and it's something we would like to revisit with the Minister when he calls for support from across the House for the universal road-user charges regime. It's important that we understand the policy considerations around pricing, what individuals pay when they use not only the roading network but New Zealand's transport system as a whole when they are using a private vehicle. I'm not going to drag this call out, because it is important to acknowledge that we support this bill and this is work that has been a long time coming. What I want to flag, though, is that these decisions are not just having an impact on future users of EVs and plug-in hybrid EVs; this was a set of decisions that also affects about 25,000 people who have plug-in hybrid vehicles now, and many more users who are using purely EVs. And I want to make the point, and this has been made by a number of my colleagues at various different points in the House, about how we make law which affects people who already have made an investment. I hope that we get out of the habit of using urgency in those situations when people have either made a very significant investment in an expensive car for their household that they expect to last for the next 10 years based on the economics of having that car or for their business. Because this deeply affects taxi drivers, it affects Uber drivers, it affects the profitability of their business and, particularly for taxi drivers, the amount of time that they have to be working to make their fixed costs make sense if they have invested heavily in an EV like a Tesla. So I hope that, in future, when we're making decisions as a House about what sorts of bills we grant urgency to, that we can give due consideration to those people who are affected by this and have told us in select committee, with only 24 hours to prepare a submission, that they would be hanging up the keys of their EVs because the discount didn't make sense for them to continue to use it. Grant McCallum: Had to be done by 1 April. ARENA WILLIAMS: And I hear calls from the other side of the House. Mr Grant McCallum has said that it had to be done by 1 April. That's true. This piece of legislation has been extended—I think it's four times. I have it here. Yes, it's been extended four times and that is generally accepted practice and something that Labour members would have supported in order to get this right. The only reason why we would be sort of accepting a process like this this time is that we've heard that it is transitional. And we heard in the select committee advisers from the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi told the committee that they had been asked to prepare advice that would go to Cabinet in June about this issue. We expect the Government to continue on with that work in that kind of time frame so that this is genuinely transitional and so that the wider policy considerations can be taken into account. That's why I'm happy to commend this bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive work and I look forward to working on it together. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Actions speak louder than words, and future generations will look back on people who had positions of power and the ability to make decisions, and judge us on whether we made the decisions that were going to result in a survivable climate or not. People here may not realise that right now. They may not be paying attention to the reality of what is happening out there with global sea-surface temperatures and global air temperatures and the impact on our ability to grow food, the impact on food prices. But, every year from now on, it's going to become more and more evident, and it's incumbent on us to make decisions for our kids and our grandkids. And those decisions need to be judged on whether or not they're having the impact that we know they need to have. What are the outcomes of our decisions? This Government has said they're committed to our climate targets, and every action they take takes us in the opposite direction. Just like when they say they care about economic growth and productivity, every action they're taking in the transport space will objectively not take us in the direction of economic productivity. So we have a Government who's completely out of touch with reality, and the Green Party will stand here and continue to oppose legislation that is going to mean more emissions at a time when we know we cannot afford more emissions. It is that simple. We have to very rapidly reduce our use of fossil fuels to zero. That's what we have to do. These people have absolutely no clue how to do that, and it's very clear in this legislation. We have the entire vehicle industry saying to us at select committee—and over 500 New Zealanders who had less than 36 hours to submit on this bill—saying they opposed the bill. We had a joint submission from the industry—the Motor Industry Association, the AA, Drive Electric, the vehicle importers' association, the Motor Trade Association, the Better NZ Trust—making a compelling case and showing the numbers on why the specific proposal for the rates on electric vehicles in this bill penalises electric vehicles (EVs) relative to fossil fuel vehicles. They weren't saying that we should continue the exemption forever, and the Green Party has not said that either. It is possible to ensure that electric vehicles are making a contribution towards the use of the roads without overcharging them, which the industry has clearly stated. Supposedly, this Government cares about fairness, but clearly they don't, because they're saying to people who purchased electric vehicles, "We're going to charge you twice what you would pay if you bought the hybrid equivalent, which is a conventional fossil fuel vehicle." And the real outcome of that, as we've heard from the industry and as would be evident to anyone who understood anything about economics, is that, over the next five years, people will make different choices. They will import and purchase more brand new fossil fuel vehicles instead of electric vehicles, and that will emit more emissions on our roads for at least 20 years. So the practical consequence of this bill is more emissions, more pollution contributing to greenhouse gases. And this Government had the opportunity, if they listened to the industry, to make a different decision, to make a decision that would still have seen electric vehicles contributing to the cost of the roads, but at a rate that would have been fairer. And the Minister says that he's committed to bringing in full road pricing, irrespective of what the fuel is. Well, I will take bet with any member of this House that we will not see that system brought in before the end of this term, and over the next three to five years, that is the critical moment which would have made a consequential difference to the vehicles coming in. So it's one small part. Obviously, there's many, many, many other things that we can and must do in order to reduce emissions from our fleet. But this was one small thing that the Government could have done to import more electric vehicles into the country instead of more fossil fuel vehicles. And the reality is that we will be living with the consequences of this decision, and every other decision they're making, forever in the future. But, for at least the next 20 years, it will mean more emissions. And that's why the Green Party cannot support this bill. Now, we would have been happy to support the bill if they had amended it in line with my proposed amendment, which was recommended by a joint submission from the industry. We hear time and time again that supposedly these people listen to business and listen and respect the industry, yet they don't. They don't. They haven't. They're completely ignoring what the industry is saying. A simple change which would have said that electric vehicles pay a rate of $60 per 1,000 kilometres instead of the rate that is proposed here, which is significantly more and will mean that EV drivers are paying more than fossil fuel drivers in comparable cars for the exact same journey. How is that fair? Well, the point is, it's not fair and it's just very clear from every action this Government takes that they don't believe in climate change, they don't believe in taking action on climate change. All of their actions demonstrate they have not one single bit of commitment to taking action on climate change, even when there are economic benefits for New Zealand in doing so. And every step we take to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels in our transport system is not only good for the climate and absolutely essential for future life on this planet but it actually saves New Zealand money. It improves our current account deficit. Is if they cared. No, no. We know what this Minister cares about. He's fighting those silly, tribal culture wars as if it mattered. He wants to punish people who buy EVs. He wants to continue subsidising those who use fossil fuels. He wants to ensure that children cannot even walk to school safely by stopping the survivable speed limits around schools. He wants to stop every safe pedestrian crossing that is evidence based in this country. Why? To save 15 seconds on the average car journey. That is a negligible amount that no one will notice. But he does it because he doesn't understand the incredible opportunity. And I'm sorry for him, because here he could have been someone who not only delivered on his values of freedom, economic productivity, and a more beneficial, productive, lower-cost transport system for New Zealand; he could have done that in a way that also looked after the planet, the planet that his kids live on and my kids live on. So, as is evident, the Green Party is not supporting the bill. We did contribute, with the Labour Party, to a constructive improvement on the bill in terms of reducing the rate for plug-in hybrids. And, luckily, the Government did make a mistake in the select committee which meant that that amendment got passed. Grant McCallum: No, we supported it. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that is true. Members say they supported it. Of course, the report says they didn't support it, but that's OK. Look, I'm glad they supported the lower rate for plug-in hybrids, but they should have listened to the industry and had a lower rate for electric vehicles. And there's a lot of yelling from the other side of the House, and I know I've been very animated. Look, it's because the decisions that we make matter. The outcomes of those decisions matter. And, if I went out there and asked any New Zealander if they think the Government should be making decisions that increase emissions and increase fossil fuel vehicles on our roads, they would say no, because most New Zealanders know about climate change. They want us to be pulling our weight, and many of them would like to be able to access electric vehicles. But the Government is currently adopting policies that make it harder, more expensive, more difficult to do the right thing by the climate. They're going to make it harder to take public transport, more expensive to take public transport, more expensive to use EVs. They're going to probably try to completely kill our rail system. And for what? For what? To own the libs. Congratulations! CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is a happy day, is it not? After so many years of certain members of the driving community having a free ride on the roads, we're finally sorting it out, and it perfectly aligns with the ACT principles of user-pays. Now, we all understand the history. There was an intention, a good intention in 2016 to incentivise people to get into the electric vehicle and plug-in electric vehicle market. But that market has developed. We have electric hybrid vehicles, we have plug-in, we have electric vehicles. But, you know, there has been a lot of, well, are we allowed to use the word "misinformation" in the community? I've heard a few people tell me they want to sell their hybrid petrol vehicle because they fear the road-user charge. Well, I can give those people assurance that we will not be charging a road-user charge while they are still paying a fuel excise duty because that's just not fair. We believe in user pays, not user-pays twice. What we're saying is that in this interim period, while we are working through—and this Government is working through—a road pricing regime which brings in electric vehicle road-user user charges and other methods to fund our roads so that we can have the infrastructure that we need in a modern liberal democracy with property owning, to be able to get to work so you can work where you choose, for who you choose, and in industries that you enjoy. Because the roads are so important and the efficiency of the roads, the maintenance of these roads, they only come from one place and it's other Kiwis paying their fair share. SPEAKER: Sorry, don't mean to interrupt. The member leaving the House—can we just remove the scarf from the back of the chair? Other parties have had to do that, it can't be left there like that. Sorry to interrupt you, it won't affect your time. CAMERON LUXTON: Appreciate it Mr Speaker; no, fair call, we do need to keep the decorum in this House and I appreciate you doing so. So we heard "living with the consequences" and how this is going to impact on climate change. Well, this road-user charge regime is not in any way designed to address incentivising people into which and which car not to choose. It is merely there to pay for the renewal and maintenance and improvements of our roads. We have an emissions trading scheme (ETS) which deals with a user-pays mechanism to deal with carbon emissions and pricing carbon to make sure that people who are actually emitting carbon pay for that, not people who we do or don't want to be seeing on the roads. Tradies and farmers have been very disappointed in being singled out, I would say, in a lot of ways and over many years. You know, people who go and build and farm and create stuff with no choice. And myself, I have been both a farmer and a tradie and I tell you what I'd keep an eye on these new catalogues that would come out with all these great choices of vans and utes and I'd be waiting for one with an electric vehicle component to it. Well, they are still coming and when they do, I'm sure my fellow tradies and farmers will take the greatest advantage of those opportunities. But until that is in place, they have been left out to pay for the rest of the country. We have a road-user charge coming in on all vehicles. It's going to be made in a way in the future by this Government that will allow all vehicles to no longer have to deal with the fuel excise duty and have one method of payment, and I'm looking forward to that day. I commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: I call on Andy Foster. Andy Foster: Mr Speaker, thank you. SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. In the scheme of things, it's Te Pāti Māori. Is there another—well, in that case, stand up and take the call. Scott Willis: Oh, are we—sorry. SPEAKER: Good. Apologies. I call Scott Willis. Andy Foster: Usually we're number five. SPEAKER: Well, your name is not Scott Willis. Andy Foster: Well, usually we're number five. SPEAKER: Oh, yeah, I've got it completely wrong. It's unbelievable isn't it? Even I'm shocked. So it must be Thursday afternoon. So stand by Scott Willis, can we call Andy Foster. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My name is not Scott Willis, but, look, I was privileged to chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that considered the submissions and considered this bill, and I just want to start by just saying thank you to all the people: all the members of the committee on both sides of the House for what was genuinely, generally, a collaborative process, and I also want to thank all the officials who worked very industriously with us, who gave us, I think, really, really good advice in a very, very short period of time—and also the submitters. Now, while we've heard that they had 36 or so hours—I think it might've been between 36 and 48 hours to make submissions—we got 518 submissions, and I think they were really good quality and we got some really good input from submitters. So in the space of nine days, we did all the work that was required of us to notify submissions, to receive the submissions, hear submissions, to get officials' advice, consider that advice, make changes to the bill, deliberate, and report back. Now, why did we end up, because we did have minority—both minority reports said that, actually, they were concerned about the speed that we had to do this under, and, yes, there was some pressure there, but the reality is, as we've already heard from Arena Williams, that the then Labour Government actually started this conversation two years ago but didn't advance it. Now, perhaps the incoming coalition might've advanced it earlier, but look how many things we've had to do in the first hundred-odd days of this Government. So I don't think that anybody should point the finger. I don't think that anybody on that side should point the finger at this side and say, "Well, you know, it was truncated in terms of its time frame." We did hear from the public and we responded to the public, and we did the best that we possibly could. This bill was expected. The application of road-user charges (RUC) was expected for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). This is not a new tax; it is something that was always expected. EVs and PHEVs have been exempted from this until we got to roughly 2 percent of the vehicle fleet, and we've got to that point and, therefore, Labour had started that work. The coalition Government now is continuing that work and completing that work to say, actually, we're bringing EVs and PHEVs into the RUC system. If the bill were not passed, EVs and PHEVs will be required to pay RUC at full rate; there'll be no discount. There is a discount which is going to apply to PHEVs; there would be no discount if this bill was not there in front of us and was not passed. The second thing is that there would also be no two-month, if you like, grace period for those owners of EVs and PHEVs to actually get their RUC—1 April, so this weekend, that people would have to have a RUC certificate, would've paid for their RUC, and if they weren't, they would be able to be fined. Now, they're going to be given two months of grace. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is going to be able to reach out to those owners and try and make sure they know what is going on, they know what their responsibilities are, and they've got a little bit of time to do that. So this piece of legislation is really important for both those reasons. Now, we've heard a lot from the Hon Julie Anne Genter about climate change— Hon Member: We've heard a lot. ANDY FOSTER: —well, we have heard a lot; yeah, we have certainly heard a lot—but this is not about climate change; this is about access, as you heard from my colleague Cam Luxton This is about access to the roading system. It is about EVs and PHEVs paying a fair price for access to the roading system. Largely, our submitters were from the industry or they were the owners of EVs and PHEVs. They weren't petrol car owners, they weren't diesel car owners or diesel vehicle owners; they were people who were actually going to have to pay this cost, and they said, almost entirely—in fact, it might've even been entirely—"This is fair that we pay towards the use, the operation, the maintenance, the resilience of the road network." The only argument was around the rate and what is the fair rate. So, two parts to this: first of all, PHEVs. The issue, of course, with PHEVs is they partly use petrol, they partly use battery, and therefore it's a complicated arrangement because the petrol part is already paying through fuel excise duty. The battery part at the moment is not paying anything, but come 1 April they will be paying for some component of RUC, and the question was how much component of RUC, and what is the right level of discount? We discussed quite a number of different possible justifications for different levels of discount. We started off at 20 percent, which is where the initial consultation happened that the then Labour Government started two years ago. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) had given advice that, actually, because there was a range of different vehicles within the PHEV fleet—and let's bear in mind that it's only 30,000-something vehicles; it's not a huge number of vehicles, but there's still a range of different ages, vehicles that are used in the urban environment, vehicles that are used in the rural environment, and every single one of those will be unique. So the MOT suggested that 30 percent was the right discount. We had some advice that they also provided to us that came from Europe, which said they'd looked at 9,000 PHE vehicles in Europe, which suggested that maybe a 50 percent discount was the right number. So you could actually make an argument for anything, probably, between 20, maybe 30, and 50 percent, and we've ended up, by hook or by crook—and, actually, I'm not at all upset by that—at 50 percent. You know, that was one of the things that the Minister of Transport actually asked us to do specifically in the terms of reference, that we were asked specifically to look at what was the right rate of discount for PHEVs. We've ended up with 50 percent, and I think right across the board, right around the House and in the community, 50 percent is seen as actually pretty good. We're pretty happy with that. So I think ka pai, well done, for all of us there. There was a question that was asked in the end of the committee stage, if I might say, which didn't actually get answered because the closure motion actually was unopposed at that point in time. So it didn't get answered, but there was a question asked in committee about what the average saving would be—and we're always talking averages in these things, because every vehicle is different, every vehicle circumstance is different. What was the average saving going to be? Now, if you used 11,000 kilometres, the MOT's advice for that was the average saving across a year will be $165. So it's a reasonable number, but it's not massively significant. And that total cost across the fleet, which was the other part of the question which was asked, was somewhere between $4.2 and $5.7 million. So the numbers we're talking about are not huge, but I think we've ended in a good place for the PHEV fleet. In respect of EVs, there was an industry submission, which you've already heard about, which argued for a slight reduction. The reason for that reduction is because petrol vehicles have become more efficient. Originally, petrol vehicles, or less-efficient petrol vehicles, would've been paying the same level of RUC as the diesel fleet, but now, because petrol vehicles—and that's good news—have become more efficient, they're actually going to be paying slightly less on average than an EV or a diesel vehicle. So there is a little bit of an argument there, but I would make the point that when the opportunity was there during the select committee process to say, "Does anybody want to have a crack at reducing the rate for EVs?", nobody did. No party wanted to move that. I also note that during the committee stage of the House yesterday, when it came to the final vote, it was unanimous—it was unanimous. So I'm disappointed to hear the speech from the Hon Julie Anne Genter to say that the Green Party won't support this. I think, look, the amount we're talking about here is not a huge difference, between the full RUC and the $60 rate that was being suggested there. But the reality is, going through that process, there were opportunities to tackle this; they were not taken, and I think people should reflect on that. Just to finish off with a couple of other things, I do want to just touch on the minority reports that were there in front of us. The first one, from the Labour Party, the concerns were about pace—I've already answered that issue—and the PHEV rate. The reality is we've actually ended up with a PHEV rate that the Labour Party supported, so I'm hoping they're going, "Hey, that's great." With respect to the Green Party, the same issues were raised with the EV rate, and I've, again, already addressed that issue. They had the opportunity to tackle that; they didn't take that opportunity, and I think they should reflect on that. Look, finally, the point I'd like to make is that regardless of what the rate is at this point in time, there are attractions to having EV vehicles, because they are cheaper to run; they certainly don't have to pay the emissions trading scheme rate. The biggest issue with EVs, which we heard from the industry as well, is they're actually more expensive at the moment to buy, and the New Zealand market is not going to overcome that. What's going to happen is that if the market internationally makes it more attractive, it brings the price down of construction of those EV vehicles; more people will buy them over time. But, regardless, the aim here is to move towards RUC right across the board. One of the other comments that the select committee made is that NZTA needs to be much more efficient in its RUC administration process, and we believe that it could do that. The last thing I did want to say is that the issue of funding our transport system has been an issue that's been exercising the minds of officials. I know that because I was involved in that, if you like, from the local government side of things. I know that officials were thinking about that very deeply over quite some number of years, and Governments of both colours over quite some number of years. We know that as petrol vehicles have become more efficient, as EVs start to become a greater proportion of the vehicle fleet, our transport system needs money. It needs money to be able to build, to maintain, to operate roads and public transport systems and so on, and so we are going to need a new way of funding our roading system. That will be RUC, and that is where we need to move as quickly as possible. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to call Scott Willis, but before I do, I just want to note that this is normally a split call but I've been advised that Te Pāti Māori have given their call to the Green Party, so it will be a full call. Thank you. SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the questions and the responses from the other side. One thing I'm very proud about is my sons. I have two sons who both live in Wellington at the moment, and when my youngest son moved to Wellington, he and his partner at the time bought an electric vehicle (EV). They bought a second-hand EV, and it cost them $5,000—a Leaf that they have driven around and used for transport around the city. I think that illustrates the importance of incentives to decarbonise, because my sons are, like many youth, really concerned about their future. They are concerned about climate chaos that will ensue if we do not reduce emissions at pace, and so they want to do the right thing. What they did was purchase an EV— Simon Court: What has this got to do with collecting money to pay for roads? SCOTT WILLIS: If you will listen, you will hear, but— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not the "you". Don't bring the Speaker into the debate. Please refrain from using the word "you". You can interject, but— SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you. So I have heard that the road-user charge (RUC) is going to be applied right across the board, and that's great. It is such a pity that we weren't waiting until something could be done properly, rather than rushing something through. I've heard that there was an exemption in place until 2 percent of the fleet was zero emission, and that's been reached, and so legislation was needed at that point. But 2 percent of the fleet at zero emission is ridiculous. It is minimal. Norway survived different flavours of Government to achieve substantial decarbonisation of land transport, and the main signal all Norway's Governments have given is that it should always be economically beneficial to choose zero-emission or low-emission cars, so their ambition is to make sure that all new cars are zero-emission by 2025. Now, this is an ambitious goal that is, obviously, working up the Government, because I know that the Government is keen to work up the fossil fuel sector. We know that. We've heard that from the Minister for Resources, but the Climate Change Commission has made clear that the Government should continue with incentives to meet our climate goals. The Climate Change Commission has been really clear on this, and that's really the key problem with this bill, because it is sloppy work. It's sloppy, it's chaotic, it's destructive. That's what we've come to expect from this Government—rushed through under urgency without careful thought. But at least it has the good value of uniting Aotearoa. Māori have never been more united. Rainbow have never been more united. Youth have never been more united, and I am really looking forward to the school strike for climate. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I please ask if these groups are united on the RUC charge? That's what the bill is about. SCOTT WILLIS: And the motor industry has almost universally contested this bill. So what this bill shows is that the Government is not listening to business. It's not caring about progressive business. It's not listening to the Climate Change Commission. It's not listening to progressive amendments that were put forward that could have helped and that could have made a difference. It is not paying attention. Is it simply because this Government is so full of climate change deniers that they do not want to work on solutions? What we know—what we know—is that there will be many, many billion dollars that will have to be spent because of this Government's inaction on climate. We know that this is going to cost us heavily. We know that this is kicking a can—a big can—way down the road, because the Climate Change Commission suggests that this is going to cost us a fortune. The Climate Change Commission has talked about—let's see—how the inaction on climate is going to cost us somewhere between a minuscule $3.3 billion to maybe $23.7 billion— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Willis, we are halfway through the 10-minute call. I want this to be bought directly back to the RUC bill, please. Thank you. SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you. So in relation to the cost and the dis-incentivisation of EVs, this is going to cost us in missing our climate targets, and that cost will come to us when we have to buy offshore credits. I have friends who are tradies driving EVs. I have colleagues who are tradies, whose businesses depend on driving EVs— Helen White: Point of order, Madam Speaker. SCOTT WILLIS: —and this is an incredible— DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have a point of order from Helen White. Helen White: I am actually sincerely trying to hear the debate, and I can't hear the member speak because of the noise. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We'll just note that interjections are fine, but not overly loud ones. Thank you. SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you. So my friends and tradies I know who work with EVs are now reconsidering, because of this unfair cost that we could have addressed through amendments to this bill. My colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed very sensible amendments, for example, to have a fairer rate of road-user charges of $60 per 1,000 kilometres, and that aligned with the industry request. This is a lot simpler, to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We, of course, recognise that we need to have some roads, but we also recognise that we need to have rail and we need to have ferries that'll connect the two islands, and those have been kicked to touch as well, haven't they? Simply because we seem to have a Government of climate change deniers. But the thing that unites the Greens with the motor industry on this is that there is sloppy legislation that could have been fixed and could work better, and it is going to take the 2026 election to ensure we can get back on track to climate action. Because, quite simply, this country and the globe can't support the type of head in the sand climate inaction and backward-looking proposals that this Government keeps on throwing at us. We need to ensure that we have land transport that is fully decarbonised, and that is going to mean low-emission vehicles, zero-emission transport, with their fair contribution to road-user charges, but let's ensure that rural communities are not paying more because they drive on poor roads. Let's ensure that we divvy it up to ensure that those people who are who are driving in heavier vehicles—SUVs and utes—pay their fair share of road-user charges. So let's wait until we have a whole system approach, rather than just rushing through things. This is the problem with this Government: it is unable to do legislation well. It would rather rush things through and do it in a sloppy and chaotic way. It does not care about the future we are leaving for our children and for our grandchildren, and that is the real issue we have here. We want to do good by business, to progressive business who want to help decarbonise, and we are stymied by a Government that has stuck its head in the sand while the sea was rising. This is the issue we have to deal with, and, quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing from the Government that they want to do something on climate and yet demonstrate in every single action that they are climate deniers. This is the shocking, shocking thing we have to confront every day in this House, and I would love this Government to propose something that showed that they were working for the country, rather than against our future. There is so much we could do here, and so, so much that we've missed, simply by an ideological position and a willingness to reject any compromise and any discussion with this side of the House. That's the sad, sad fact—that this Government is ideologically driven to do the worst they could do to take us on a great leap backwards. Back to the future, back to baccy—backwards, backwards backwards. Thank you, Madam Speaker. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we are here to debate the final reading of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Unlike the previous speaker, Scott Willis, I think I have worked that much out. Right, I think I'll start off by, firstly, giving a little bit of history to the electric vehicle (EV) situation in New Zealand. Under that great former Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce, in 2009 we brought in the— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Jobs for your mates! DEPUTY SPEAKER: 2009 was the reference. GRANT McCALLUM: That's correct; did you hear that? We brought in the encouragement for people to purchase EVs by exempting them from having to pay road-user charges (RUC), which has been a great thing. But we also said at the time, when it gets to about 2 percent—when the number in the fleet gets to about 2 percent—we would then bring them into the system so they could help pay their way, right? Tom Rutherford: It's only fair. GRANT McCALLUM: Yes, well said. And this is all about the fairness, so that everyone is seen to be contributing to the roads, using the roads of New Zealand. And, actually, why is that important? I'll tell you why that's important: because we need to fix our roads, and we need everyone to contribute to that, everybody who's using it to contribute to that, so that we can fix the Brynderwyns, which have now been struggling for the last while—which are open. By the way, have I mentioned already that you can actually go there this Easter on holiday? But that's what you require the money for, right? That is why we are doing this: so that everyone pays their fair share for the roads, OK? It's really, really important, because it's all part of that, so we can help fund the roads of national significance, which are a great idea, so that we can actually create productivity and jobs in this country. We can create business opportunities, particularly in the Far North, where we need to be able to create jobs. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is this about the RUCs? GRANT McCALLUM: Yes, it is. It's about creating opportunities—it about creating opportunities so that we can pay for the roads—pay for the roads. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, Mr McCallum is about to explain how the RUCs will fix the roads in Northland. GRANT McCALLUM: That's exactly right. Well said, Madam Speaker. That is well said. Well, moving on, it's very important that we fix those roads so we unlock potential around the country. But it has to be paid for, right? We worked through this very carefully as a select committee, listened carefully to the submissions, and we came to the conclusion that we had to make some changes, after the last Government delayed and delayed and didn't act on this bill—the challenges that were faced through the road-user charges that were going to be coming automatically on 1 April this year. We had to act quickly. We've been challenged about this—saying it was acting too quickly. We had no choice, unless we were going to leave the electric vehicle fleet having to pay the full RUC of $76 per 1,000 kilometres, which would have been unfair for the whole lot of them. So we went through the system, and particularly the plug-in hybrids, and we reached the point which the previous Government had set at 20 percent; we took it to 30 percent. After consultation, we went to 50 percent. And that's where it sits. So we've reached that situation. But, ultimately, for it to become completely fair, we need to have everybody paying road-user charges, because that is how it will be a fair system, and that will take time. We've got a transition period set in for that, so we can actually work that through, so that, ultimately, if you use the roads, the amount of road-user charges you pay will be based on the distance you travel and the weight of the vehicle, not on what powers your vehicle. That will be a fairer system for everybody, and I'm sure that New Zealanders will really appreciate that. So we've got to be able to do that moving forward. And, as we worked through this as a select committee, we heard some great submissions, and, ironically, virtually everybody said, "Yes, we have to all pay our fair share." We had some debate about the fair share, but the Government is focused, and that's why it is so important that we move through the transition as quickly as possible so that we get to the overall RUC situation. And I'd finally like to say that this is a good bill, a good compromise. I thank the support from the members of the Opposition, from the Labour Party, on their bill, for their work in the select committee. It's just a shame that the member for the Green Party has left, because I would have liked to have pointed out to her— DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can't talk about members not being in the House. GRANT McCALLUM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry. But, anyway, we have had good support generally across the House, so I thank them for that, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Happy Easter, Madam Speaker, and to all of the members across the House and those at home, I hope you all have a safe trip on our roads in Aotearoa New Zealand, wherever you are going. To acknowledge the last speaker, I encourage people to head to Northland and support that member and the roads up there and the local economy of Northland. This is a debate about the road-user charges, and I acknowledge those from the past that have carved the path—including Steven Joyce—for people, actually, who have taken action to reduce emissions in this country, because only by taking action, putting in new tools to change behaviour, will we see the outcome in this country that we want to see. There is a lot of excitement in the House this afternoon, and it is Easter, of course. We've got a four-day weekend ahead of us. What this bill is not, though, is utu. It's not paybacks; it's not justice, because something was done right. The incentives scheme that was put in place to allow electric vehicle (EV) drivers not to have to pay these particular fees was in fact that. It was an incentive to encourage people to change their mode of transport, to choose an electric option in order to reduce our emission. We have, in many respects, achieved what we set out to do, and I acknowledge that across consecutive Governments. But, again, I go back to the point that now is an opportunity to set the way forward. But the next question is what is the next set of actions for this House to reduce emissions in this country, and we are yet to see that particular piece of work from this Government. The road-user charges provides for light EVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to pay road-user charges from 1 April in 2024. It's actually a win for plug-in hybrids that we've seen, and we saw the member Andy Foster talk about the progression of what percentage might people or users pay in this sense. It started at 20 percent, it then got up to 30 percent, and then, thanks to our Labour team—acknowledging Tangi Utikere and Arena Williams for the work that they did with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—it got up to 50 percent. After spending a couple of sessions with this term's Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I just want to acknowledge the listening that took place and collective decision making that caused a win for plug-in hybrid owners when they pay their road-user charges. Something I spoke openly about is my concerns when it comes to the cost of living. This Government campaigned on cost of living relief for New Zealanders. Where I live in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, our largest city in this country, we have a high uptake of EVs—more so than any other part of Aotearoa New Zealand—so we're well represented in this particular group. When it comes to the cost of living, though, what we've seen from the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, is only a pile-on of costs when it comes to achieving our transport outcomes, and don't get me wrong, because I agree—and that's why we're supporting this particular bill—that people have to pay their fair share, that we do have to invest in things like road maintenance, and that we do need to have good infrastructure. But my question to the Minister during the committee stage yesterday was: to what extent? When we look at this, this is adding on additional costs to people that use the roads. What we've seen in Auckland, under the Government policy statement and under the repeal of the regional fuel tax, is actually the Minister forcing more people to take their car as opposed to taking public transport. Auckland has just experienced, in this Government policy statement, a cut of $500 million from their public-transport network. What that means is that cost will be offset to people that use public transport in Auckland, and their fees—as advised by Auckland Council's submission yesterday—are likely to increase by 126 percent. That's another cost that is being piled on to Aucklanders alongside these road-user charges for those that are using electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. On top of that, we've seen the additional $50 on our registration fees for cars, an anticipated fuel-excise tax that will start in two years' time. The Minister's proposed an additional cost in toll roads to pay for infrastructure that we need, and the inclusion and plan to introduce congestion charging in our largest city, Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. So when we start to look at the actual costs and the promise made by this Government for cost of living relief in this election, there's got to be a point where we agree that we are investing in critical infrastructure and paying in the areas that we need to. But when we start to see the public transport costs, the rego fees, the fuel excise, the toll roads, and the congestion charging, where does it end for Aucklanders? So while we're supporting this particular bill, I do encourage that people keep their eye on the work that this Minister is doing. Our Transport and Infrastructure Committee have also got to have good, solid debates, generous debates, and to listen to each other to ensure that what we do in achieving our transport outcomes—which is to reduce congestion and to get people, as the Minister said, faster and more safely to the places that they need to go—is also affordable for families in Aotearoa and in Auckland. So— Grant McCallum: That's why we have tax cuts. SHANAN HALBERT: Just to respond to the member from Northland, actually, this is my point. There are no savings for Aucklanders, even if you include a tax cut in that, when you're piling on these costs just in transport alone. Add on to that 23 percent in water rates additionally for Aucklanders. There are no savings in that, so let's not hoodwink Aucklanders and make them think that they're getting a tax cut and then they're going to have more money in their back pocket. That is not the case. Let's focus on actually what we need to achieve in our transport network, which is good investment in our infrastructure and a good discussion and debate on how we pay for that collectively to achieve the outcomes that we need to to reduce congestion and reduce emissions into our climate. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy Easter e te Whānau. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've really enjoyed being a part of this debate from the first stage, through the select committee process, the second reading, and now the third and final reading. But after listening to a couple of contributions, particularly from the Greens, I say to my colleagues, what the RUC—what the RUC are they talking about? They are so out of touch and unaware of the process that this bill has actually focused on. The previous speaker Shanan Halbert spent almost his entire 10-minute call talking about climate change and this Government being climate change deniers. He didn't once talk about road user charges (RUC) and actually talk about what we're here to talk about. Why didn't he talk about it? Because he's got no idea what the bill actually is intended to do and to deliver on. So I say to that member, what the RUC—what the RUC? Now, members opposite have also been talking about how rushed they believe this process has been—how it went through the select committee process and was rushed. I say to members opposite, they consulted on this in 2022 at a reduced plug-in hybrid rate of 20 percent. But following consultation at that time, did nothing about it. They consulted with the public of a reduced rate for plug-in hybrids at 20 percent and then did nothing. So let's take that walk down memory lane. They're now complaining that this process has been rushed, yet they sat on their hands for nearly two years and did nothing to reduce the rate of plug-in hybrids in the road user charges. I will not take lectures from the previous Government when they consulted and then did not deliver. They regularly state that—and I quote—"words matter". Well, I'll tell you something: delivery matters—delivery matters. Words can only go so far, but actually delivering on what you consulted on is what this side of the Government is focused on. So the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill is all about equity. It's all about user-pays and that everybody contributing their fair share to the upkeep and maintenance of our roading network. I am fortunate to represent in the Bay of Plenty—beautiful electorate—wraps around the city of Tauranga. We have two vital State highway networks which are in dire need of an upgrade, and it is only fair that the people using those roads pay the fair contribution to its upkeep and its maintenance. And that starts with electric vehicle owners, and that starts with plug-in hybrid owners. If I think about State Highway 29 over the Kaimai Ranges, that piece of infrastructure and roading will unlock 20,000 new homes which our community so desperately needs, and it is only fair that if you're an electric vehicle driver or you own a plug-in hybrid, you pay your fair share to the upkeep and the maintenance of that road so that it can be delivered for our local Bay of Plenty community. The second road is the Takitimu North Link through Te Puna and Ōmokoroa. Stage one is under way but our Government is committed to delivering stage two of that project all the way through to Ōmokoroa—an extra 7 kilometres. It's only fair that if you're an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid owner and you want to use that road, that you have made your fair contribution to its upkeep and its maintenance. It's not fair that you drive on those roads— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't overuse the word "you", please. TOM RUTHERFORD: My apologies, Madam Speaker. It's not fair that if you are an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid owner, that you haven't made a contribution to the road— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You—you did it again. TOM RUTHERFORD: —that they are travelling on. Stopped myself—caught myself there. Thank you, Mr Webb. So this bill is about equity. It's about ensuring the maintenance and upkeep of our roads in our community. Now, let's just look at the process that was undertaken from the start to where we are now. Initially, the previous Government consulted on 20 percent. When we then took it to select committee by our Government, we were proposing a reduced rate of 30 percent for plug-in hybrids, and we listened to the feedback that was received in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Overwhelmingly, those submitters who both submitted in hardcopy and made email and online submissions and those who presented and gave oral submissions to the select committee said, "I'm an EV owner, I'm a plug-in hybrid owner, and it's only fair that I make my own contribution to the upkeep and maintenance of the roads." What was the debating point was what should that rate be set at, and many plug-in hybrid owners told us that "The 30 percent option that you're consulting on probably doesn't go far enough." So what we did as a select committee is we went, "Fair enough. We need to relook at what has to take place in that area.". That's why we came to the final decision of reducing it from our proposed $53 per 1,000 kilometres to a very pragmatic, reasonable, consensus-driven proposal of $38 per 1,000 kilometres, because that's equitable, that's fair. Now, the member opposite—Julie Anne Genter—raises her hands in disgust. She's not supporting this bill, and I simply say to her: what the RUC—what the RUC? Why don't you support this bill and get in behind it because it's all about equity and it's all about everybody paying their fair share. Now, there's so much to talk about in this space, but my 10-minute contribution is going to be coming up soon so I'm going to capitalise on my last few minutes. When this proposal was introduced by the previous National Government in 2009, it always had an asterisk next to it saying, "This is only in place until the vehicle fleet in New Zealand of electric vehicles reaches 2 percent." Standing here today, we have reached that target. So now we're just simply closing the loop on what was introduced in 2009 and saying, "We've reached what we said we would do, and now we're delivering on what we said we would do at that time." Transitioning EVs and plug-in hybrids is the first step in the National and ACT Party coalition agreement to bring all vehicles into the RUC system. The Minister of Transport has outlined his intention to outline how that will happen moving forward. I look forward to seeing that detail of work, and I have no doubt that that will come through the hard-working and very diligent Transport and Infrastructure Committee as well. This transition is about fairness and equity: ensuring that all road users are contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of our roads, irrespective of the type of vehicle they choose to drive. Hybrid vehicles do remain exempt from paying RUC, as these vehicles are not powered by externally supplied electricity. Due to the small market share of very light EVs such as electric motorbikes and electric mopeds, these vehicles will also remain exempt from paying RUC. I simply say to the House that this bill is about restoring equity. It is about user-pays and everybody contributing their fair share to the maintenance and upkeep or our roads, and I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn't know it was a split call, but I'll keep to the five minutes. I want to talk a little bit about what I've seen in this House today on this bill. Because, as you know, the Labour Party is supporting this bill because it was agreed that the time had come to put back on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids some of the cost of roads. The reason that the exemption was made was it is a very serious issue that we face, that we are still dependent on petrol and diesel vehicles to the extent we are. I have noticed the behaviour in the House today, particularly the reaction to the Greens' speakers, and I'm not impressed because what we have there is a constant reaction of suggesting things like that—there is a sort of insinuation that people who have had the benefit of the different regime have somehow not been paying their fair share. So, I want to talk a little bit about what that means, because what has been happening here from the Labour Party is we've tried to seek balance in the response we've had. We've supported this bill, but I don't want anyone to not think that there's an issue with regard to having a petrol vehicle rather than an electric one. One of the things that I think goes under the radar a little bit is the pollution issue. There was a report out last year—so well after the signal and the commitment was made to look at the vehicles to 2 percent and then revise this charge that we bring in today—that went to Cabinet from the Minister of Transport, and it talked about the cost to New Zealand society of that kind of pollution that comes from vehicles that are petrol and diesel. I think that hopefully many of us are familiar with the kinds of particulate matter that comes out of those vehicles, and what that causes. So that particulate matter is causing cancers and it's causing respiratory issues. Then there is your carbon monoxide. Now, carbon monoxide—95 percent of the emissions from New Zealand come from our cars and that causes things like heart issues and brain issues. So, it is very, very serious for people. Then there's the nitrogen oxide, which causes respiratory issues. So, again, those are very serious. Now that is estimated by the Ministry of Transport to mean that there are 9,200 hospital admissions as a result of that, and the cost in childhood asthma is 13,200 childhood asthma cases and the social cost is $10.5 billion. These are costs that when we talk about fair share, we don't really have any capacity to estimate. So when I hear words like "You've got to pay your fair share if you're an electric vehicle owner", I think it's really important that we honour electric vehicle owners for the fact that they're not putting those things into the atmosphere so that they are not responsible for the childhood asthma that I would see as a real issue in the inner city of Auckland, including in my electorate of Mt Albert. It's a very serious issue. So when I hear the gaffawing on the other side of the House with regard to some of these things, and the self-congratulatory tone, I get worried that those issues are being pushed underground. I hope that I am not right. Hon Shane Jones: Relevance! Relevance! Come back to the bill. HELEN WHITE: It's absolutely relevant, Minister. It's absolutely relevant because what I'm talking about is a very difficult balance that we have to strike here. We have, in the Labour Party, recognised as an issue the need to pay for roads in this country—and I note the Brynderwyn is open this weekend, and they're vital places—but, at the same time, I seek a more mature response from the other side. So rather than be self-congratulatory, it would be nice if there's a recognition— Hon Members: Aw! Aw! HELEN WHITE: –and arrogant; it would be nice if there was a recognition of the issues that underline this, and an attempt to actually work with others on what is a fundamental issue in New Zealand. And it is very, very important that we work as a Parliament on that, and that we do not divide on something that is so important. I mentioned childhood asthma, I mentioned cancer. There is a myriad of environmental issues that could be mentioned as well. I commend this bill to the House, MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I promise I won't mention the Brynderwyns once in this call. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's once. MIKE BUTTERICK: This bill is quite simply about fairness and equity. It supports a system where, irrespective of the type of vehicle you drive, you should be contributing to the maintenance and improvements on our roads, just as every other vehicle is required to do so. This is simply about road-user charges (RUC), and if I use the Oxford Dictionary meaning for each of these words, I might simplify it for those on the other side of the House that are feeling confused or aggrieved or feel that they shouldn't have to contribute for whatever reason they might believe exempts them. A "road" is "a wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use.", and while it might be argued that some of our roads might not be that wide, I think that's a pretty fair definition. Tom Rutherford: What's "user" mean? MIKE BUTTERICK: Next is "user"—thank you. It's "A person who uses or operates something"—pretty self-explanatory—and "charges a price asked for goods or services." So in simple terms, this bill is about ensuring those who use our roads help to pay for them, regardless of what their vehicle model, make, or type is. It doesn't matter if your car is red—I prefer blue ones myself—or if it goes faster, or it's a people-mover used by parents to taxi their children from place to place or it's a commercial van or truck delivering our much needed goods and services that earn our export income. Everyone using the road should contribute to the maintenance and upkeep, and not be that person who's happy to use something without paying, at the expense of someone else. There's a myriad of reasons why people don't own electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Maybe they just simply can't afford them, or they can't afford to upgrade or replace their vehicle. Maybe they're not able to source a vehicle to do the job required of it, especially in a commercial sense, such as those tradies and farmers, who need utes to do their job and who, by the way, are now not forced to pay thousands of dollars extra because we got rid of the ute tax. Maybe it's because they live somewhere that prevents them from being able to plug in—the last time I looked, there weren't any chargers at the bottom of a tree or in the middle of nowhere, let alone on our country roads—or perhaps there's no parking on the property, or their power source isn't able to go. This Government sent a very clear signal that we have a priority to build and maintain our roading network and that we will reverse the blanket approach to speed limits and make sure there's a common-sense approach to how we get things done. There's plenty of common sense on this side of the House. I commend this bill to the House, and would finish with three final words: up the RUC. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Well, there is a lot of things I could say in response to that last speech, but I do want to note that red cars go faster, obviously! Now, I appreciate the work that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, in a very tight time frame, and obviously the important changes that my colleagues Tangi Utikere and Arena Williams made—good work them. Of course, it's always good if a select committee can be longer and the full six-month process, but it wasn't in this case. I also note that, in the report we've got with this bill, it says, "While the vast majority of submitters recognised that EV owners should still contribute to the land transport network, they considered the RUC rate for EVs to be unreasonable."—and this is in relation to those light electric vehicles (EVs). I do just want to expand on that point for a moment, and that is that whilst, yes, we've heard about user-pays, we've also heard the good points raised by my colleague Helen White about the fact that internal combustion engine vehicles have a whole lot of negative health effects that are not necessarily being considered in the economics of this type of legislation. But also, when the exemption happened for the EVs some years ago, that was to increase the uptake of EVs. And it was always a time-limited policy idea. [Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just lower the chatter a little bit, please. Thank you. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What we've seen is that all those other policy initiatives to increase EV uptake have gone by the wayside, in particular the clean car discount. And I want to just touch here on my hometown of Dunedin, because we have heard from other members about how many EVs you find in Auckland. But, of course, if you come and visit the beautiful Dunedin, which I, of course, suggest that you should—I saw you there recently in fact—there are a lot of Nissan LEAFs. This is a specific type of car that, of course, was there well before the clean car discount. And it is because many Dunedinites are truly passionate about reducing their climate emissions, and where they can afford to—and I, of course, note that this does involve capital investment—when they can do that, they have done that, and I congratulate all the LEAF drivers of Dunedin. But we also noticed that, with that clean car discount, many more EVs were coming into the market. And, of course, there have been fleet EVs. And we will soon be seeing that secondary market of those new-to-New Zealand cars, unlike the Nissan LEAFs. So I am disappointed that we're not seeing the policies to decarbonise New Zealand, which is so important, particularly when we know that such a high percentage of our carbon emissions comes from our transport fleet and our light transport fleet is there. Hon Shane Jones: Adaptation—adaptation. No more alarmism! Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And I hear one of the Ministers talking about adaptation, and I hope that he appreciates how expensive it is to adapt when almost all of our cities in New Zealand, including, of course, the beautiful Dunedin—it has a lovely harbour and coastline—will be impacted by climate change. This is very serious. We have signed up to international agreements, and we need to do more than adaptation. Adaptation is very important as well—we need to think about our vulnerable communities there—but we also need to reduce emissions. We've signed up to the Paris Agreement, and I just keep seeing all the good work that the previous Government did be undone and nothing to replace it. And it is shameful and very depressing. But I'm going to end on a positive note, and that is to thank all those people in Dunedin who are doing their best to reduce their emissions. Well done them. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I'm very pleased to take the final call on the third reading of this bill. I am very, very pleased. But, hey, what I just want to say very briefly, because it's going to be a short call, is this is all about user pay. This is all about fairness. And the fact is that when you're thinking about user pay, this is a commonly used term, but this is based on the principle that all asset users should pay for the long-run marginal costs of the assets in question. Now when we're talking about road-user charges (RUCs) itself, there's been a lot of discussion here about the amounts that each different type of vehicle pays. Now, I've got a bit of a confession. I have purchased a plug-in hybrid vehicle. Yes, I have, and I also know that other people that I know closely in my electorate have also made choices around electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles as well. And there are a lot of reasons and a lot of thinking that goes into the type of vehicle one buys. And I do question the comments that have been made—particularly from the other side of the House—that this here is going to absolutely sway people away from buying such vehicles. I actually don't believe in that. I actually believe that people have all sorts of other reasons that they take into account, and I don't think we're going to have the demise that the so-called speakers on the other side actually talked to. I just want to talk briefly about the roads in Taranaki. Taranaki roads—well, first of all, the users of Taranaki roads: there are significant RUCs, or road-user charges, that come from the Taranaki region. We have a lot of trade that moves in and out of that region. We've got some very, very big trucking firms and that, and there's lots of money that's collected from that there. But we in Taranaki feel that our roads, perhaps, don't get the investment that we feel apt for it itself. Now, why I bring that up is that the revenue that the ministry collects, to be able to afford the upkeep of these roads, is so important. This here just goes some way towards it. The fact is we want to make sure that those that have the biggest impact or use the roads are actually contributing every way. And finally, after some time—we talk about the fact that about 2 percent of the vehicles are now EVs—it's finally reached that threshold where we believe that it's now time to bring them into that programme itself. So this will also go some way towards allowing regions, like Taranaki, to potentially have the opportunity to have increased investment in some of the roads they had. Recently I've had the opportunity to go up to Northland to the wonderful celebrations at Waitangi. Unfortunately, I didn't go over the Brynderwyns, but I am sure, the next time I go over there, I'll be very happy to look at the progress that's been made there. But I did happen to have a trip while I was up in the north to travel some of the local roads, including up one Waimate North Road. I went to a little shindig up there, and I tell you what— Grant McCallum: Little? DAVID MacLEOD: OK. It was rather a little bit more than little, but it was a very well-prepared and well-conditioned road, and it made me think that someone of influence actually lived up that road somewhere, but I'm not too sure about that. But the fact is that we do have roads around the place that do need investment. This bill here is about making sure that all users are contributing. This is based on kilometres and weights. So, in other words, it's making sure that the contribution of the vehicle is appropriate to the wear and tear that it has of the actual assets. I could speak on a lot more, but, I'm happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 21 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. FISHERIES (INTERNATIONAL FISHING AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I present a legislative statement on the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. We are world leaders in the sustainable management of fisheries. Fisheries resources in the Pacific and Southern Oceans are valuable to our nation and they are the lifeblood of our industry. Very briefly, let me outline what is available in the regulatory impact statement, the legislative statement, so let no one think that there are omissions in relation to why we're doing this bill. Our position in terms of the $2 billion seafood export industry needs to be consistently affirmed. Secondly, we protect New Zealand's continuing access to the lucrative fisheries in the Pacific and the Southern Oceans, and, who knows, as a consequence of an overdue decision today, even the Kermadec zone. The third issue is that New Zealand can continue to access valuable export markets like the US, EU, and Japan, which all have measures to block imports from illegal, unreported, and unregulated—or what they call IUU fishing—a blight that we have sought to contain and address throughout the Pacific for a long period of time. Illegal fishing undermines New Zealand's contributions to sustainable fisheries management, and it undermines the interests of our legitimate fishing operators. But, more importantly, illegal fishing threatens our interests in the Southern and Pacific Oceans. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee presented to this House last year such a report on IUU fishing. Many are the delegations that have been to various fora, both at the UN, other international entities, but also at the World Trade Organization to address the subsidisation or the laxity associated with other Governments and what they are or are not doing in respect of IUU. This bill reflects the Government's commitment to a strong domestic framework against illegal fishing. The bill also reflects New Zealand First's policy for primary industry and the environment. All of the parties that comprise our side of the House with the powers of Government are pro-industry. We want to accentuate every positive dimension about the primary sector that was undermined, weakened, and corroded as a consequence of foolish regulation, ill-conceived plans, and too much "Kumbaya". The regime, in terms of international fisheries, goes back, in terms of our Fisheries Act, over 25 years. Since then, international awareness, conception, and obligations in terms of IUU fishing have evolved. This is an attempt, with this bill, to update our responses, our obligations. Two overarching aims should be read into the record of our parliamentary proceedings. One, to enable New Zealand to better meet its international obligations of a compliance nature and a management nature. Number two, to improve the efficiency and clarity of the provisions and decision-making processes related to international fisheries. How will that happen? By amending provisions in the following areas: permitting of New Zealand vessels fishing outside our waters, and effectiveness and efficiency in terms of actions against violations. Permitting regime: all regimes are capable of being improved. Some regimes disappear and others come to the fore, and I speak on behalf of the current group of politicians who hold the privilege of constitutional ministerial positions and the obligations of governing for New Zealanders, and we want to ensure that the commercial interests of New Zealand, both internationally and domestically, are not either undermined or neglected or marginalised by people who have an excessive level of interest in joining international green NGO echo chambers. We are not going to allow fisheries in New Zealand to be forced into that trap, but we are going to ensure that where we do have fisheries interests, we remain positive global citizens. Under this bill, vessels will require a permit to fish anywhere outside our waters. This will improve our ability to ensure that our vessels comply with both international obligations and the obligations of other states. We're going to ensure that conditions in terms of what are required to be upheld when we permit a vessel are consistently observed. Just winding up, we will take effective action against violations. Our fishing industry has a high level of compliance and our officers are resolute at enforcing rules. We need to update, however, enforcement tools to demonstrate that we can continue to take effective action. If a New Zealand-flagged vessel was to be found to have undermined a measure and New Zealand failed to take effective action, that could not only damage our reputation but it could be used in a way negative to our prospects as primary producers. Our seafood exports will be scrutinised by import markets, without a doubt, but let no one buy into the ongoing false narrative for the small number of parliamentarians and their fellow travellers who are trying to use international trade obligations to intimidate New Zealand politicians who have been mandated to form the Government to come up with sensible climate change policies that make sense to ordinary Kiwis who want to see an economic dividend and a surplus continuously generated so we can afford, through fisheries industry and other industries, the accoutrements that define us as a First World nation. We need practical, pragmatic, sustainable climate change outcomes, of which fisheries is a key part. So, closer to home, we have the western and central Pacific: over 6.5 percent of catch of all tuna species were found to be involved in IUU—not a good outcome. Updating the Fisheries Act strengthens our hand at holding offenders to account, and, in addition, this will strengthen our ability to inspect, investigate foreign and stateless vessels, allow us to deter and penalise the support or engagement of IUU fisheries. Who have we consulted? Extensive consultation has informed this bill. The Ministry for Primary Industries led multiple and regular engagement sessions. All stakeholders agreed that the regime should be updated. On the Treaty of Waitangi, as the fisheries Minister, I could have consulted myself, because we've had far too much expansiveness and rubbery thinking fitting of a comic figure in relation to the application of the Treaty. But I can assure you, where the Treaty features in this bill—mercifully modestly—we are not going to allow that creeping sensation that has blighted legislation pertaining to primary produce legislation through the Treaty to continue. You have the word of an experienced politician in that regard. So, in conclusion, I have set out, at the beginning of my speech, the reasons why we're doing it, the importance of a robust regime, and, for those reasons, I look forward to the select committee, when it finally is received, doing a robust job. Therefore, I am very proud to introduce this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Very happy to hear the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries say that New Zealand should be a positive global citizen, and I am, in fact, delighted to be speaking on this bill, which was, of course, introduced by someone called the Hon Rachel Brooking, as you'll see on the bill here. It's nice—I think this is the first time that I've ever spoken when my name has been on the bill. Now, it was a very good process that went into the creation of this bill that we have in front of us. That is because it involved the public servants who are involved in the international agreements and regional fishing bodies, such as SPRFMO. SPRFMO stands for the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, and you talk about the Convention Area. These officials have been looking at our legislation, and there was a review of the Fisheries Act undertaken in 2020. There was then—and new members of the House might be particularly interested in this—a regulatory impact statement, and there were no redactions to that regulatory impact statement. Then there was a departmental disclosure statement. That records consultation, and you can see that at page 7—an extensive consultation it was. Now, we've just heard from the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries that this is going to go to select committee, and it will go through the normal—because I didn't hear anything else—Standing Orders process of six months at that select committee. So it can hear the submissions from the people who are interested in IUU—that being illegal, unreported, and unregulated—fishing, and the in and outs of what is quite a technical bill. Now, it is amending the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is an important piece of legislation for New Zealand that includes regulations in it for our quota management system, for permits and registration of fishing and of vessels. This bill also relates to the high seas. So the high seas are where there is no exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and that is where you have international fishing. But there's a change here that "high seas" is replaced with "international fishing", so it's a bit broader and can include States where New Zealanders can fish. As mentioned, there are international agreements which New Zealand has signed up to where New Zealand can regulate other countries' vessels when they're outside of our EEZ. If a ship has no nationality, then it's a stateless vessel and is unregulated. So I just really want to commend this bill to the House. It's gone through a very good process. It's about a very serious topic, which is that illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and I hope that the members of the select committee enjoy getting into the detail of it and talking to the officials who have done so much work on it. I commend them for their work. Thank you. STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The current regime in terms of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing is not fit for purpose, and it risks falling out of line with our international obligations. Illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing is a significant threat to the sustainability of fish stocks and the overall health of our ocean ecosystem. This bill is limited, however, to fisheries beyond our exclusive economic zone. Whilst we commend it, we would like to see broader reform which assesses all of the Fisheries Act against New Zealand's international obligations. This bill should be thus expanded, including our domestic fisheries, and fix them where they fall short. I believe that is a forlorn hope with this Government, because we have a Minister of fisheries, who is donkey deep in dead fish, and we would have thought previously that he was an advocate for fisheries, but what we find emerging in his seeming co-advocacy for seabed mining is that he doesn't really care how the fish die as long as as many fish die as possible—whether it's through overfishing or through seabed mining. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we could talk about that as a consequence but not as an intention. Thank you. STEVE ABEL: Honestly, Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I think when the Hon Shane Jones comes into the Chamber the fish swim for their lives. And I appreciate— DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member can carry on with his speech. Thank you. We've just got to be careful that we don't make personal attacks in the House, OK? STEVE ABEL: I appreciate it, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. In terms of this Government's position on fisheries, today of all days, when we have a bill here that is doing something useful but manages to ignore what is happening within our exclusive economic zone and what is within our ambit, the Kermadec sanctuary bill falls from the order paper. On this very same day, the Kermadec sanctuary bill that was brought forward by a National Government as a flagship piece of legislation to protect our environment is taken from the order paper just the day after the Minister for Regional Development mentioned that there are manganese nodules in the Kermadec Islands. And Trans-Tasman Resources, this very day, also withdrew from the Environmental Protection Agency, because I am certain that they have been given the nod that they'll be on the fast-track legislation. So, whilst we can celebrate the protection of international oceans from illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, we cannot celebrate what is happening here. We are the last country in the South Pacific to still undertake destructive bottom trawling. And, in that international realm of responsibility at the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, New Zealand had previously committed to bringing a proposal for protection of the most vulnerable ocean ecosystems, and we reneged on that with the change of Government to the present Government. In fact, Australia had to make that submission, and then we voted against it. So this Government has a long way to go before it is equal and authentic in terms of its expression of support for protection of our fisheries and our ocean ecosystems. This particular effort in protecting global oceans from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing is a good thing, and it is carried over from previous efforts, and I do commend it to the House. But, in all authenticity, the oceans are vital for the survival of all of us. They are a commons. The bounty of the oceans should be protected and maintained in a way that gives us the abilities to sustain human populations for generations to come. They should not simply be illegally accessed—or legally accessed—in a way that is highly destructive. And I would urge this Government and this Minister to do all in their power to actually act in the common interest and broaden this bill to include everything within our ambit, including the way that fishing and oceans management is done within our exclusive economic zone in the waters of Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a brief call on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Just a couple of points to clarify, given this opportunity, to enlighten the members of this House as to the overall cost in terms of tonnage and weight of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing—and I just want to mention the former member for bringing it to the House, the former Minister for fisheries—but throw some figures at the House to actually try to understand the enormity of the problem. Estimates from the World Economic Forum suggest that illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing in international waters equates to anywhere between the vicinity of $26 billion to $50 billion. The World Wildlife Fund estimates $36.4 billion. I know there's some vagaries between those two numbers, but nonetheless it is enormous, with the UN sustainable goals suggesting it equates to about 8 million to 14 million tonnes. We all accept that it has a profound effect, especially on poorer economies, poorer countries. For one recent example that I would like to share for the sake of the House, it was noted in the Pacific alone illegal tuna fishing between the years of 2017-2019 equated to approximately 192,000 tonnes, estimated value of some $335 million. This bill, which was put in front of the House last August, seeks to address this very issue. The bill will strengthen the rules around international fishing practices, especially around unreported, unregulated fishing and vessels whilst in international waters. It will strengthen New Zealand's international reputation, being an export-focused economy, and I think we would all agree that is a very salient part of this conversation when it comes to adhering to international rules-based order; and continue—and I think this is the point: we can continue to offer New Zealand on a world stage and that we maintain our high-value seafood markets not only currently but going into our future. These markets are paralleled by the United States, the EU, and Japan, who have already implemented this type of regime. The bill will allow for "monitoring and regulation of New Zealand-flagged vessels [whilst] operating outside New Zealand waters", and I would imagine everyone here would appreciate the size of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in New Zealand, let alone in what you would say open water fleet by practice. The powers include fisheries inspectors to board vessels if necessary to ascertain serious violations and whether they have occurred, and direct to port; also potentially be able to search and detain vessels. I think it is incumbent upon all trading nations that adhere with this kind of legislation that they would do the same thing. It brings us in line with them. Offences would also include obstacles to high-sea fisheries inspectors going about their wares, going about their business, to ascertain whether vessels are adhering to the international rules or not. Fines could include, for those said vessels with connections to IUU, being fined up to $250,000 and potential seizure of the vessel. New Zealand, for context, in terms of our exclusive economic zone, is over 4 million square kilometres, spanning between Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau. It is a significant challenge, but it warrants—and I think we would all agree with this—our ongoing commitment. 2020 estimates: 45 percent of the high seas is outside any—and I stress this point—jurisdictional boundary, and this is where most of the illegal fishing occurs. Very quickly, New Zealand—given that I'm running out of time—must continue to play our part on the international stage, protect New Zealand's EEZ but international waters outside our EEZ, and play our part to nullify the illegal fishing practices that are known to be going on in international waters. ACT supports this bill. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Oh, Madam Speaker, it's a great privilege to stand and speak on the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, first reading. The purpose and objective of this bill is to enable New Zealand to better meet its international fisheries management and compliance obligations in relation to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, including those flowing from the international arrangements that New Zealand is party to, and to improve the efficiency and clarity of the statutory provisions and associated decision-making processes related to international fisheries for Government and stakeholders. Building this framework is vital to protecting not only an incredibly important industry to our New Zealand economy but matching other nations in their efforts to block imports from those seeking to undermine the market and undercut our operators. This is all part of making sure we can sustain access to important fisheries in the Pacific and Southern Oceans. This bill updates the permitting regime to make it clearer, more reasonable, and more efficient. It also raises the benchmark for effective sanctions for violations of international fishing rules. There will be a new offence which will prohibit operating or engaging with any vessel that has been listed internationally as having engaged in illegal fishing. This step is global best practice approach. Actions like this, showcase our commitment to being world leaders in fighting illegal fishing as we are in so many different areas. Illegal fishing can take place in several ways that make it difficult to monitor and police. In some instances, it is as simple as fishing without a proper permit or licence, but there are also cases of misreported catch numbers, illegal fishing gear, or having false identification adorning a vessel. The changes in this bill tie in with the comments from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee inquiry around the severity that illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing poses to our interests, and takes action on their recommendation to have strong illegal fishing measures throughout the bill. Last year, Pew Research stated that illegal fishing is one of the biggest threats to global ocean sustainability, with researchers estimating that one in five fish caught globally are caught illegally. One in five is no small drop in the ocean; it's a whale of a problem, especially to our $2-billion-a-year seafood export industry. Kiwi sustainability is a priority for our primary industries regardless of the sector. Consider the requirements we put in place in our red meat sector to ensure its quality and export integrity, and the value it brings to our country's exports in the global market. When it comes to the high seas, the lack of strength that authorities have to properly combat illegal fishing and poor fishing practice is detrimental to both the industry and our environment. So, it's important to find the right balance between encouraging economic growth across the industry, but also making sure we have a strong, efficient framework for those who blatantly skirt the rules or try to take advantage of a flawed system and disadvantage these industries' major contribution. I have read through the wonderful departmental disclosure statement, but in my five-minute contribution, there's no way I could get through it, so I say to the House, "Thank cod we are doing it." I commend this bill to the House. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Whilst we acknowledge the commercial imperative, we also acknowledge and would like to remind the House of the mana moana, mana tangata, and tangata whenua imperative. When it comes to rights and fishing, Māori are the principal rights holders; the principal rights holders in the customary rights—the rights that existed before the emergence of any commercial rights, the rights that existed before the emergence of any recreational rights—and they must be respected. They must be respected and endure. And, for sure, the precedent was set in 1992 at the conclusion of the first Treaty of Waitangi settlement process and the conclusion of the fisheries settlement. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] So whilst Te Pāti Māori stands in support of the broad intention of the bill to enable Aotearoa to better meet its international fisheries management and compliance obligations in relation to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and although this bill is largely focused on activities that occur out on the high sea, I am reminded of a whakataukī from te Iwi Māori, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And inasmuch as that relates to things that happen out on the open ocean eventually have an impact on the inshore waters and, indeed, the people who reside in the coastal areas. We acknowledge that the amendments will improve our capacity and ability to protect our fish stocks, and we understand that these fish stocks are important and that international fishing is a danger to our people. Also, to be cognisant of owning our own place in behaving and conducting ourselves well in fishing practice as well, we are not above or beyond the laws. Te Pāti Māori also sees that there is some alignment with our own policies, our mana motuhake policy, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And consider that all changes—all and any changes—to fisheries legislation should have the active consent of tangata whenua, given our customary, proprietary, governance, and Tiriti-based rights. Mana ōrite in negotiation and mana whakahaere must be maintained, and the protection of our whakapapa connections with the fisheries should be respected and upheld in fisheries legislation. We acknowledge that Te Ohu Kaimoana was extensively involved in the drafting of the bill, and we urge this Government to continue that open and clear dialogue with Te Ohu Kaimoana moving forward and, more importantly, so that the iwi, hapū, marae, and whānau who reside in those coastal locations—those coastal hapū, those coastal marae—are afforded the same opportunity to participate, [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] We also support this proposal that will enable greater powers to the fisheries officers and, indeed, our enforcement agencies in the protection of our fish stocks, be they international or domestic threats. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And inasmuch as the concerns of Te Ohu Kaimoana have been addressed through the drafting process, we do proceed with some level of caution. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Recent actions by the Government would lead us to believe that a pattern of behaviour of not bothering to be concerned with what the ramifications for the Treaty partner may contain, so we move forward with caution to the Government to actively and continually respect Māori rights, Māori Tiriti rights in fishing, be they on the high sea or in the inshore waters. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): I rise in support of the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill is about getting New Zealand back on track and firmly establishing New Zealand as a world leader in combatting illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. It's about protecting our deepwater fisheries industry, which contributes $2.7 billion a year to the New Zealand economy, $1.6 billion to GDP, and employs almost 8,500 people. And it's about being a good neighbour and a trusted and responsible global trading partner. This bill updates our permitting regime and ensures New Zealand vessels can continue to access valuable international fisheries. It also ensures we meet our international obligations, which have evolved since our international fisheries management and compliance regime was established in 1999, especially in relation to the prevention of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This bill strengthens the powers of high-seas fishing inspectors to investigate offending by foreign-flagged and even Stateless vessels, and it makes it an offence to operate, engage with, or assist a vessel recorded as having engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing. This bill protects our access to lucrative fisheries in the Pacific and Southern Ocean by making sure we comply with our obligations. As a country, we're committed to being a world leader in the sustainable management of fisheries, and that includes in our neighbouring international waters. It's worth noting that the Ministry for Primary Industries reported, in September 2023, that as part of the special annual mission called Operation Nasse, fisheries compliance officers from New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, France, and the United States detected nearly 40 alleged breaches of high-seas rules during a major South Pacific patrol. Operation Nasse covered a vast area from the Tasman Sea eastwards to the south of the Cook Islands. It involved three weeks of sea and air surveillance, with the main aim being to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing throughout the South Pacific Ocean. Illegal fishing practices seriously undermine sustainable fisheries management and are estimated to cost the Pacific region millions of dollars in lost revenue every year. They threaten food security and create an unfair playing field for legitimate commercial fishers. As part of Operation Nasse, an international team boarded and inspected more than 20 vessels at sea, along with monitoring the movements of 120 other vessels during their air surveillance work. Fiji participated for the first time last year. Together, they found 38 breaches from non-compliant seabird mitigation gear being deployed, to incorrect flags being displayed, failure to provide vessel monitoring data, maritime pollution, and poor handling of sharks and stingrays. Operation Nasse was also significant as it was the first time the Royal New Zealand Air Force's new Poseidon P-8A aircraft had been deployed, and it was from Ōhākea in the mighty Rangitīkei. The crew were able to provide valuable information on the activities of fishing vessels during their patrols. It is an uncomfortable truth: illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing destroys livelihoods, and it decimates the sustainability of our fishing resources. More broadly, it undermines regional security. It is critical we continue to protect marine resources from those who believe the rules don't apply to them. Bringing Pacific Island nations to the forefront of these patrols to gain experience is something we want to continue. Pacific Island nations and their communities stand to lose economically because of illegal fishing on the high seas, and we're behind them all the way. This bill is all about protecting our fishing industry and our international reputation. It's about getting New Zealand back on track. It's about being good neighbours to our friends across the Pacific, whose lives and heritage are intrinsically linked to the sea, just like us. We're farmers, we're traders, and we're fishers. We need this bill to help us futureproof our industry. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm grateful for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2023. As the Labour spokesperson for communication and digital technology, I usually spell fishing with a "ph", but this is a bill about the original fishing—on the sea, not the internet. So it's fishing with an "f". Helen White: Finally, a good pun. REUBEN DAVIDSON: More seriously—I've got a list of puns here. I could go all day. More seriously, the comedy is over. As global citizens, we need to take our responsibilities seriously when it comes to IUU, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. And why is that? Because not doing so is a threat to sustainability of regional and global fisheries. New Zealand has one of the largest economic exclusion zones in the world, and we fish in several international fisheries. We need to make sure international fisheries are well managed. If we don't do that, we'll fall short of our international obligations, and we'll put at risk our reputation as a responsible fishing nation. Now we earnt this reputation by developing international and regional frameworks, standards, and rules to support sustainable use of fisheries, to support the protection of the marine environment, to support building bilateral and regional fisheries relationships, to support trade and access to overseas markets, and by working together to manage fisheries in other countries—especially with our Pacific Island neighbours—ultimately, by aiming to get the most economic, and other, benefits for New Zealand from international fisheries whilst still managing the effects of fishing on the environment, ensuring that it is sustainable, and meeting our international obligations. The great thing about this bill is that it deepens that commitment. It strengthens and clarifies the permitting regime for New Zealand flag vessels fishing outside New Zealand's waters, and it does that by amending the provisions related to the high-seas fishing permitting scope. It increases New Zealand's capacity to control its vessels operating outside New Zealand waters and to clarify the decision-making process for that. And it gives some teeth to the issuing, suspending, and revoking of permits—teeth to the issuing, suspending, and revoking of permits. And that is very important, because those teeth, that strength, comes from the adjustment of administrative penalties. This bill lifts those penalties. It adjusts the administrative penalty regime for breaches of international fishing permit conditions for greater effectiveness and proportionality. It does this by increasing the maximum amounts for administrative penalties and by broadening the scope of the activities to which they apply. This seeks to improve the administrative penalties regime to disincentivise offending and reserve prosecutions for serious fisheries violations. It provides for a broader range of offences to be covered to improve the proportionality of administrative penalties to the relevant offending. The chief executive will be able to impose those penalties to a broader range of offences that do not necessarily warrant a prosecution—mid-level as well as minor offending. The combined amendments will better incentivise compliance with the rules of regional fisheries management organisations and better align with member states' expectations in those organisations, and it preserves the right of offending to be dealt with by a court. It also requires administrative decisions to be published to ensure the transparency of the offending, and preserves the right of the person to require that offence to be dealt with by a court. Those three functions will ensure that the bill's objectives can be achieved and that operators realise there are enforceable ramifications to poor conduct or illegal actions. This bill effectively strengthens our commitment to being a responsible fishing nation. Now a member referred earlier to it also being able to manage impacts on sharks and stingrays, and I'd suggest, potentially, some notes be included on that one in the Cabinet Manual as well. As global citizens, we need to take our responsibilities seriously when it comes to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This bill does that. I commend this bill to the House. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I speak in support of the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill as we need to protect our $2 billion seafood export industry in New Zealand. In my home, Hawke's Bay, we have a significant seafood industry, so I know how important it is to protect this valuable industry. Like the Minister earlier said, on this side of the House, we are pro industry. The Government is committed to a strong domestic framework against illegal fishing, because illegal fishing threatens New Zealand's interests in the Southern and Pacific oceans, and disadvantages our $2 billion seafood industry. This bill will help us meet international obligations, protect our access to valuable markets and fisheries, and maintain our international reputation. New Zealand is committed to being a world leader in the sustainable management of fisheries, including our neighbouring international waters. This reputation is beneficial and essential for our export industry. This bill protects New Zealand's continuing access to lucrative fisheries in the Pacific and Southern Oceans by ensuring we comply with our obligations. Illegal fishing undercuts our operators, reduces their profitability, distorts market competition, and challenges the future availability of fishery resources. This bill makes sure our fisheries continue to thrive, and that they remain able to provide food and economic opportunities for all New Zealanders. This bill will strengthen New Zealand's capacity to combat illegal fishing outside our waters, and bolster our fishing interests. Updating our permitting regime ensures that New Zealand vessels can continue to access valuable international fisheries, and reduces the risk that they may not comply with all relevant obligations. We must protect "New Zealand Inc." when it comes to our exports. As part of my previous roles in the export industry, I've spent time in China promoting our exports on the global stage, and the New Zealand reputation is strong. I worked closely with New Zealand Trade & Enterprise to promote our premium produce on the global stage in Asia. I know how important our New Zealand story is for ensuring that we can add value to our products. Our seafood is sold for a premium in China because of our really strong reputation. You walk into the high-end supermarkets in China, in Shanghai, Bejing, Shenzhen, and you see our seafood on display. If New Zealand fails to take effective action against violations, this could be damaging to our reputation as a sustainable primary producer, and it could be negatively impacted. This could increase scrutiny on exports, on valuable export markets like China. This bill will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our fishing industry, and preserve transparency. Updating the Fisheries Act 1996 strengthens our ability to hold offenders to account. We need to ensure that our high-sea fisheries officers on the front lines have the right tools. New Zealand needs to be a world leader in combatting illegal fishing. Amending the Act to address these developments will strengthen New Zealand's ability to access high-value seafood markets and its reputation as a responsible seafood export nation. On this side of the House, we are driven to double the value of our exports in the next 10 years. The seafood export revenue is forecast to increase 8 percent this year. It has been on an uphill trajectory, and we need to protect that very, very valuable seafood export market. We need to support growth in our export industries. There is no place here in New Zealand for illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activity. It is really important that we support this bill here today. So I commend it to the House. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this excellent bill—probably only the second call that I've been able to take in my time in Parliament on something which addresses the law of the sea, which I know is particularly an area of interest to some of my legal colleagues. This is an excellent bill. I want to commend the Minister that first bought this to the House and the Minister who's now progressing it. It's fantastic to have a bill which looks to protect our seas, protect against illegal activity, and also has such an abundance of information as to the effectiveness of the bill: an amazing regulatory impact statement, 48 pages long, going through all of the aspects that the parliamentarian could want to know around this particular bill; also a departmental disclosure statement; a legislative statement—all of the things that we have got used to not seeing on the Table. So excellent to have those in the House to help us with our deliberations on this first reading. I also wanted to—I won't go over everything that the bill does, as that's been widely canvassed by many members of this House so far, but just to emphasise the fact that it is good to see New Zealand passing legislation which is not directly because we have to because of our international obligations, but to help us better align with our international obligations, and also keep our fisheries regime, which was established in the 1990s, up to date with the latest regulations that need to be in place in order to keep our seas and our precious kaimoana and fish and biodiversity in the seas safe. So I'd just like to end there, and just note that it is slightly ironic for people who come from Catholic families like myself that we're spending the last minutes of this House talking about two fisheries bills just before Good Friday. I'd like to take the opportunity to wish everyone in the House a happy Easter. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and be the last speaker of this reading to round out the debate today in support of the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge Matua Shane for bringing this bill to the House and continuing this bill from the previous Government. I also would like to acknowledge Rachel Brooking, the original author of this bill. It's actually rare that I get to speak on bills that have unanimous agreement in the House, and so it is with pride that I get up and acknowledge that we all have, I think, a very rare moment of unanimity behind protecting our fishery sector by upholding and strengthening the seafood sector and also upholding New Zealand's reputation as a country that values sustainable fisheries and that has world-leading regulations and laws as a result. Look, this law—we've traversed the various aspects of it. It is updating legislation that has come into force 25 years ago and does a lot to crack down on what is a very big problem globally, actually. And I did value the contribution from Mark Cameron, and others, that tried to quantify the problem, because it is quite large. And, for those of you at home that are asking yourselves, "Actually, is this a big issue for New Zealand and for the world?" Well, yes, it is. Anywhere between 18 and 14 million tonnes annually are alleged to be from illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. That has a street value of anywhere from US$9 to US$16 billion. But what about closer to home? Well, closer to home, we've heard that actually in our own backyard in the Pacific, illegal and unregulated and unreported fishing is in the estimated range of around $300 million per annum—that's US dollars. So it is a significant problem, and this bill tries to actually resolve that problem, and it tries to by a number of ways: by increasing the penalties for those who are engaged in IUU activities in our international waters but also by broadening the scope for such illegal activities as well. There is a whole range of other things that it does in terms of controlling the permits for New Zealand vessels, but also for other vessels from overseas, and more tightly controlling those permits for regulated markets and fishing in our international waters. But I've also heard some great contributions from my own side here around, I think, the value of our fisheries sector. And I think the honourable member from Tukituki, Catherine Wedd, was very proud in articulating that it was a $2 billion contribution to our sector and our exports annually. And having lived overseas—I've lived in Europe and Asia and in America—you can see New Zealand fish in supermarkets, and, yes, it is at a premium, but it's also at a premium in restaurants overseas. And having dined in some restaurants in a lot of countries, it made me very proud to eat New Zealand fish and dine on New Zealand fish. It is actually at a premium, and you'll be surprised. You know, sometimes I have to pay 40-odd euros for a nice, fresh New Zealand fish in the streets of Paris. So, it's a hugely important sector for this country, a hugely important sector for workers. There's about 16,000 workers in our fisheries sector, so we want to protect that. We want to uphold New Zealand's reputation, and it is my privilege and pleasure to commend this bill to the House and also to wish you all a very safe and happy Easter break. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee. MĀORI FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I present a legislative statement on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon MARK PATTERSON: I move, That the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In the spirit of bipartisanship that seems to have broken out on the eve of Easter, I would like to start by congratulating the former chair, Arena Williams, and the previous Māori Affairs Committee members for the bipartisan support and constructive participation taken in considering this bill. I appreciate the time and effort the committee has taken to understand this bill and the complexities of the Māori fisheries framework. I also want to acknowledge all the submitters who took time to express their views on this bill. Finally, I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Inland Revenue Department, and the Ministry for Primary Industries officials that contributed to this bill. The changes in this bill are a result of extensive input from iwi. This conversation began in 2015 with an independent review of the Māori Fisheries Act. Iwi were consulted with from across the country to understand the desirable pathway forward for Māori. Te Ohu Kaimoana then engaged further with iwi in 2016 and 2017 and iwi voted on a suite of resolutions. This bill gives effect to the resolutions iwi voted for. Broadly, the bill provides for mandated iwi organisations to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kaimoana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. Changing Government arrangements of the settlement entities and to make them consistent with each other and standard governance practices. Cancellation of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd voting shares, conversion of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd income shares to ordinary shares. Those shares will be allocated to mandated iwi organisations and it will simplify the process for trading within the Māori share pool. Together, these changes give iwi more control over their fishery assets, improve benefits for all Māori, and improve efficiency. Ten submissions were received on the bill from iwi, the settlement trustee Te Ohu Kaimoana, and individuals. Six submitters presented their views in person. Almost all submitters supported the bill but recommended minor and technical changes. These changes have been taken on board and a total of 21 changes were recommended by officials that were all accepted by the select committee. The bill proposes to remove the current electoral college system for appointing and removing directives of Te Ohu Kaimoana. Instead, iwi will directly appoint and remove directors on a one vote per iwi basis. Some submitters expressed concern that the proposed changes would diminish the role of representative Māori organisations, or RMOs. Select committee responded to these concerns and updated the bill to provide RMOs with voting rights. However, the settlement trustees considered that this goes against what iwi voted for through the review of the Act. Given the lack of consensus on this matter, I intend to consult with affected groups before proceeding to the committee of the whole House stage. I have discussed it with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, who agrees with this approach. I also intend to make minor amendments to the bill to extend the framework policing the annual catch entitlements from five to 10 years. This change, alongside what already is in the bill, will help ensure that Māori fishers are able to access capital to improve their fleets and have greater autonomy over the fisheries asset and business decisions. The bill provides for further review of the Act to take place within seven to 10 years of this bill being enacted if a special resolution is passed by iwi. Some submitters considered they should be undertaken by default. Independent reviews are important to ensure the governance arrangements remain fit for purpose and continue to deliver benefits to Māori. Given their importance, a change has been made to make independent reviews mandatory unless iwi pass a special resolution not to hold a review. Submitters also commented on the slow time frame for implementing the review recommendations, which were presented to the then Minister in 2017. Submitters recommended including a provision for the bill to ensure future reviews are not this drawn out. On this basis, a change has been made to require the Crown to take all reasonable steps within its authority to introduce a bill to the House within three years of Te Ohu Kaimoana presenting iwi recommendations to the Minister. The bill also proposes to implement a compulsory levy for Te Ohu Kaimoana that can be triggered in the future if required. Mandated iwi organisations, or MIOs, can request a levy for any reason or Te Ohu Kaimoana can request a levy if they are satisfied it is needed for them to carry out their duties. MIOs would need to approve a levy request by a simple majority vote. The Regulations Review Committee submitted that a delegated power to set levies is generally considered to be legislative and should, therefore, create secondary legislation. This is so that the safeguards that apply to secondary legislation would apply to the levy. On the committee's recommendation, the bill has been amended to specify that the resolution to adopt a levy would be secondary legislation for the purpose of the Legislation Act 2019. I want to conclude by again thanking those who contributed to the development of this bill. It is great to see this important kaupapa progressed to this stage. I look forward to debating the bill in more detail during the committee of the whole House. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. That speech started out so well, where he acknowledged the work that has gone in at the select committee stage, with the Māori Affairs Committee coming together to work on a long overdue piece of legislation, because the Associate Minister of Agriculture is right when he says this is a long time coming. In fact, the independent review started in March 2015, and has not been resolved until now. And who are the people that that hurts? That hurts people who need these resources, which are passed on to them through the fisheries settlement, which they are entitled to. It hurts the organisations and the businesses that are trying to get ahead in New Zealand's agriculture industry and make something of the plentiful natural resources that we have. And so it's important that this is resolved. It could be resolved now, but, instead, unfortunately, we've heard in the speech today that there will probably be an amendment moved at the committee of the whole House stage, which the select committee has not seen and cannot be a part of forming the right kind of legislation, going forward. That is a real shame because, I think, where we got to in the select committee stage was the right balance between the role of representative Māori organisations (RMOs), the role of iwi organisations within the structure that has been created by the legislation that sits underneath it, and what is pretty heavy duty corporate structuring and took the committee a number of weeks to really grapple with about the implications of changing at the legislative level. So now we're back to the drawing board, essentially, and I am disappointed by that because I think we had really struck the right policy considerations. But that doesn't stop members in the Opposition from supporting it at this stage, because this is much needed. There are powers in here, like clarifying the levy-making powers, which are really overdue and need to be made immediately if the organisations are able to continue in the way that we need them to, to be able to realize the value of not only the original fisheries settlement but a number of other settlements which have occurred in the time since. This bill also makes a number of changes to the statute which then empower the underlying documents. These are—you know, there's trust documents. There is also the limited partnership, which manages Aotearoa Fisheries assets within the different iwi structures that have bought into it, which need this empowering legislation to be updated so that it can maintain its business in the way that it has already organised it. There is this matter that we will be traversing in the committee stage with the Minister, which we weren't prepared to traverse today because we have only just heard about it in the previous contribution. It is about clauses 37 and 25, which enable representatives from Māori organisations, or RMOs, to vote, appoint, remove, and determine the number of Ko Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. That is really key to what I think the Minister was setting out for us, and so we will need to understand that. I would invite the Minister to work collaboratively with myself and with my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking on how he might arrive at something which is long term, which is something that all sides of the House can live with, to ensure that there is adequate representation around the table. I welcome his promise that he will be working with stakeholder settlement trusts, when that had, in fact, been done by the Government before introduction at the first reading of this bill. But, nevertheless, more consultation is good consultation in this kind of area, where people's assets and investments that have already been made are committed. With that, I tentatively commend this bill to the House. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora. I, like my Labour colleague, am a little bit flustered because it's certainly a change of news and approach that I was going to take with this kauwhau tonight, because we have been on a long journey—we've been on a really long journey—and reflecting on the works of our ancestors, our tūpuna, and confirming the Māori fisheries settlement in 1992, then looking to amend and consult, and since 2015, we are now at a standstill again. In 2015, the consultation on these amendments commenced. And I reflect on the then chair of Te Ohu Kaimoana, Jamie Tuuta, who as Te Ohu Kaimoana chair came to this Government and said, in 2017, "We're nearly ready to go"—because we had undertaken extensive consultation, extensive consultation, to get to a point where they were ready to submit to this House these amendments. And the Māori Affairs Committee did the work. The Māori Affairs Committee did the work and heard the submissions. Now, as a former CEO of a mandated iwi organisation, I appreciate what the Māori fisheries settlement has done for te Iwi Māori and know the transformation that it's provided in an asset base that we are able to grow and sustain our people. So these amendments here, I believed, we believed, at its first reading last year—the Green Party stood in support, seeking for it to go to the select committee and receive further submissions. We supported this amendment because it was an opportunity for us to show support for iwi rangatiratanga. That's the basis of these changes: to enable iwi to appoint and govern this fisheries asset together, according to their own tikanga. I am frustrated because we're 32 years on since the settlement in 1992, and we are nearing a space whereby the Government engaged with Te Ohu Kaimoana, and Te Ohu Kaimoana went out to the Mandated Iwi Organisations (MIOs) and the Representative Māori Organisations (RMOs) and consulted on how to give effect to rangatiratanga, how to improve governance arrangements, how to empower Te Ohu Kaimoana, and how they can better work together to achieve the benefit back to our people. And now we are hearing we are being stalled. We are being stalled again at this very late stage, considering the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, who heard the voices of iwi, they heard the voices of the RMOs, and they said, "Yes, we take on board your whakaaro and we provisionally accept what you're saying, and we'll amend and give recommendations back to this House." So I was ready to come in and say, "Tautoko, tautoko mārika, tautoko this amendment to the Māori fisheries bill." Because, as an uri of the fisheries assets, I look to support the way with which the dollar can come back to our people and empower our people in the way that it can sustain our future generations. Simon Court: Are you supporting it? HŪHANA LYNDON: I am absolutely supporting what we were doing today, but now that we are pausing to go out and consult further, I worry about the pause that it will have for te Iwi Māori again. Simon Court: It's called democracy. HŪHANA LYNDON: This is te Iwi Māori's opportunity to put forward something that was agreed to. They agreed and they came forward after many years of consultation— Simon Court: You've still got to make the law. HŪHANA LYNDON: If I could get my words out—because I'm getting heckled by my colleague. I'm not even here to debate with my colleagues of the House; I'm here to support te Iwi Māori, because they did the work and they came back through the Māori Affairs Committee and Māori Affairs Committee came to this House and gave clear recommendations. And we're here to tautoko that. We are not here to put the handbrake on Māori aspirations and Māori desires to manage the fish asset better. So this was to improve governance arrangements. This was to empower rangatiratanga and also empower Te Ohu Kai Moana through the levy to do the good work that they do, because of course they've grown in the way that they do their mahi. They are key advocates and protectors of the fishery settlement, but they're also leaders in submitting and providing iwi voice into this House. And when we think about what we have coming forward into the future, we need to listen to the voice of iwi. Iwi have told us clearly that they support this. Te Ohu Kai Moana is the vehicle to do this. And, you know, I think about some of the challenges, because when you're out at sea, it's not always smooth sailing. There are rough seas ahead. While those rough seas have been many years, 2015 through to 2024, and still we can't tutuki, still we can't get this through in a timely, te Iwi manner, which is what the chair of Te Ohu Kai Moana of his generation, Jamie Tuuta, said to the Minister of the time, "Get this waka moving. Let's get this legislation through fast so that we can get on with the business. But, hang on, taihoa, wait a minute. We're going to pause again, and we're going to go out, and we're going to consult some more, because we know better." Well, moumou. Moumou e hoa ma. Moumou wā. I look forward to telling my iwi when I go home to see them next week. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] We do support this amendment as it stands and the recommendations that came through the Māori Affairs Committee. I don't want to belabour the point, because, actually, it's all changed, and I voice the disappointment that we are not able to move this forward at pace as per the request of our iwi and Te Ohu Kai Moana to get the waka moving. In closing—because I'm not going to waste my 10 minutes on this now—I need to regather my thoughts and talk to my people about how to consider what's just happened. A Ngāti Awa whakataukī to close: [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And that talks about even though when the waters get challenging and the rough seas come, ngāti wai will persevere. And on behalf of people of the moana, I express my deep worry that we're going to put a handbrake on this really important piece of legislation that te Iwi Māori and our iwi mandated authorities, which you won't know about—you won't know about te Iwi Māori; you don't know the work that our tūpuna put in. Simon Court: I do. HŪHANA LYNDON: No you don't. No you don't. No, no, no, no, no. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] And I will not—I will not—put up with that type of heckling. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill. We have heard that the Māori Affairs Committee examined the bill post its first reading. There was almost universal agreement by that committee for those permanent members. The bill, they said, should proceed based on submitted feedback. There were, however, a few areas where clauses were pointed out as areas of concern. Some of the committee members noted clauses 37 and 25, which they said both raised alarm, and there were suggested amendments to those, made by, obviously, the committee members. As it stands, the bill amends the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. The bill, by its virtue, would be implemented in full and final as a settlement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for all related Māori settlement commercial fishing rights. The Act sets out a governance framework to administer and manage settlement assets on behalf and for the benefits to iwi Māori. As part of the 2004 Act, several entities were set up for this task, not over-litigating, but Te Ohu Kai Moana trust, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. This was a corporate trustee company, by the way, where iwi are the stakeholders. Te Wai Māori Trustee Ltd., in its enhanced Māori interest, was also part of the freshwater interests. The original Act in 2004 had required that there be a genuine review of this process, and it was to be undertaken independently by March 2025. This review, upon its commencement and finalisation, recommended major changes, which this bill now seeks to address. Changes were suggested with both governance and administration arrangements. Te Ohu Kai Moana consulted with iwi on the review of the findings, and this amendment bill seeks to implement those changes. The changes include changes to the entities and governance arrangements, to encourage mandated iwi organisations to take more direct control of Te Ohu Kai Moana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, simplify the process of trading and settlement quota assets. As part of the select committee process, concerns were raised in relation to certain parts of the legislation that I've previously mentioned, namely clause 37 of the bill, which would change certain parts of section 44(2) of the original Act. Concerns were raised by some submitters about those proposed changes and how they would change the overall effect and representation of the legislation to represent the interests of Māori organisations. The committee made note of amending clause 37 and also making consequential changes to clause 25 to ensure that representative Māori organisations, most importantly, retain their role of appointing the Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. I believe these changes better reflect the concerns of submitters by determining when a vote was required or determining the number of Te Ohu Kai Moana directors. Other changes included changes to clause 42 of the original bill, inserting new sections—sections 54A and 54H—relating to levy-making. Clarifications were also made in relation to clause 48 and 49 in relation to shares of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. This amendment changed the structure of how income shares would be converted into ordinary shares. Some other changes also included changes to the statutory review time frames so that they could occur within five years unless other time frames were suggested. This would be on the back of a 75 percent agreed resolution by way of a vote. I did note the National Party earlier on had a differing view earlier on and objected to some of the suggested changes by virtue of clauses 37 and 25. They noted that the Act's purpose was to "implement agreements in the Deed of Settlement dated 23 September 1992 as [was] negotiated when National was in Government"; also, to "provide for the development of the collective and individual interest of Iwi in fisheries, fishing and [fishing]-related activities". The National Party noted there was no specific reference to the original Act or in the bill as introduced to the seven RMOs "having a right to hold settlement assets [for which] the basis of the settlement of commercial fishing claims which led to the relevant legislation." in its formation. However, I note that the ACT Party, as we sit here today, we agree with the ascension of this bill through its natural process. We support it in its second reading so that the bill can go to the committee stage and the House can determine, by way of democratic process, whether it should proceed as it's currently presented. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): It's not lost on me and, I hope, anyone here that as we consider this bill, we're considering it having just put through the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Act, an Act and a free-trade agreement that brings great benefit for fisheries and, in particular, for Māori fisheries. In fact, we heard during the select committee process for that Act from a number of organisations, and I'll quote one of them, who said, "Speaking on behalf of Māori, we own half the fisheries". It's a huge industry—a free-trade agreement that, in effect, benefited Māori proportionately more than others. They were very proud of that, and not just the savings in millions but the growth that that industry could expect. It's important that alongside that we make these changes to ensure good governance, because we know that through good governance comes better outputs, comes better outcomes. That's how we grow this industry and, indeed, how we provide a stronger economy. A strong economy is at the heart of what will drive, not just to improve the lives and livelihoods at a financial level but if we want to provide the quality infrastructure we need in this country, if we want good healthcare, if we want good education, then we need a strong economy. Our fisheries in New Zealand, more than many other countries around the world, are a key part of that, and that's why it's important that this House would consider a matter like this—a bill like this. These amendments and changes in the bill are about giving iwi a greater degree of rangatiratanga over their fishery assets, intended that it will improve benefits to all Māori and contribute to reduced costs and improved efficiency. As I've said, in light of the really exciting, I think, future that our fisheries have in New Zealand, it's important that it's done well, not just so that it's good in the short term but so that it's sustainable in the long term and will be a key driver of our nation's economy—our productive economy if you will—in a way, for years to come. The changes in this bill give effect to the recommendations, as we know, from Te Ohu Kaimoana, which conducted the review of many settlement entities. For example, Te Ohu Kaimoana, we know, was established to advance the interests of Māori in fishing and fisheries-related activities to return valuable fisheries assets and funds from settlements to iwi organisations. The trust is managed by a corporate trustee, Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd, which is central to administering, protecting, and enhancing fisheries settlements to ensure that funds are delivered to iwi and, ultimately, to all Māori. There is a strong and exciting future, as I've said, for this, so it's important that we do this well. Good governance is at the core of what this bill is wanting and trying to achieve so that we have a clear vision and purpose and strategy and culture that considers tikanga, kawa, and values that take into account the aspirations of whānau, hapū, and iwi across New Zealand. The Ministry of Māori Development is clear that in Māori organisations, the objectives of governance will take into account the way in which Māori relate to assets and what they are used for. In some instances, although the organisation operates commercially, commercial objectives can be balanced with the need to safeguard assets for future organisations, and that is, I feel, really important. Tikanga principles can also be put into practice in the board of a Māori organisation, alongside governance principles. It's not one or the other, but it's bringing in a balance of those—tikanga, kawa, and values that meet the aspirations of iwi, hapū, whānau—often giving direction to the way that that board will work. Ultimately, this is about protecting and enhancing our ability to earn good export income, and particularly for those—well, obviously, in this case, it's for Māori. But, as we heard, it's 50 percent of fisheries in New Zealand. So with that, I want to finish with one final comment. The export income that this earns and that we have heard about is so important to Māori but, indeed, to all in New Zealand. We all benefit from these organisations doing well, from them growing, and core governance principles must be at the heart of what we're doing. If we do this well, everyone is going to go well, and I think about the people in my electorate, the great electorate of Ōtaki—you know, on the Coast there, there is hundreds of years of history of people relying on fisheries. I look at the electorates represented, all the regional electorates—which, admittedly, have National Party MPs. But there are electorates around the country— Hon Scott Simpson: OK—enough. TIM COSTLEY: —that benefit—thank you, sir—from this, and it will be great to see our Māori fishing industries thrive and to see them growing with good governance and a strong future. So with that, can I just finish by wishing everyone here, and you, Mr Speaker, a happy Easter, and can I commend this bill to the House. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. May I wish all members the best this Easter break. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 April 2024. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.