Tuesday, 25 June 2024 (continued on Wednesday, 26 June 2024) - Volume 776 Sitting date: Tuesday 25 June 2024 TUESDAY, 25 JUNE 2024 (continued on Wednesday, 26 June 2024) … REPORTS SPEAKER: I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled A review of freshwater models used to support the regulation and management of water in New Zealand. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to rewrite the Sentencing Act to ensure that criminals face serious sentences for serious offending. We're making a raft of changes to prioritise victims over offenders: capping discounts, new aggravating factors for retail crime, and a new requirement that victims' interests must be taken into account when sentencing. After years of lawlessness, this Government is putting its foot down and saying "Enough." We said we would restore law and order, and today's announcement is part of that. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by the statement of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, "We're open to constructive changes on the fast-track regime to ameliorate some of the concerns that people have", and, if so, what changes will he make to address the concerns of over 20,000 people who marched on 8 June because they believe this bill is a threat to Aotearoa's environment and democracy? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I agree with the Minister who has quite generously said that he would go through the select committee process and if there's sensible changes, he would be happy to make them. Hon Marama Davidson: What constructive changes will he make to address the concerns of Ngāi Tahu that the infrastructure deficit should be corrected, but "it should not be used as an excuse to subvert Treaty settlements or environmental safeguards. … We cannot sacrifice the long-term sustainability of our natural resources for short-term economic gains."? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister, as I said before—I don't know how to express it any other way—if there's any sensible or constructive changes, he's very happy to take that on board. Hon Marama Davidson: What constructive changes will he make to address the concerns of the Ombudsman that unless the "beefing up of executive power … [is] matched by oversight and accountability, … I think democracy itself is the loser."? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don't know to explain it to the member, but it is before the committee, and as a result we are going through a process, and if there's sensible changes to be made, they will be made. But what I'd just say is that we are determined to get things built in this country. And we are not apologising for fast-track legislation, because we need modern, reliable infrastructure. We need to double the amount of renewable energy in this country so we can deliver on our climate change goals. And I'd just encourage the Green Party, if you believe in climate change, you'd support our fast-track provisions. [Interruption] Hon Marama Davidson: What— SPEAKER: Just wait—OK. Hon Marama Davidson: What constructive changes will he make to address the concerns of the Lake Horowhenua Trust, who say that the bill "places excessive powers in the hands of Ministers and unjustifiably removes public participation", given Christopher Luxon's description of centralisation as "a robbery of power and control from local communities"? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the bill is before the select committee. Sensible changes will be considered. But we are going to build things in this country. We need to get things done. We need to speed up our resource consenting; we need to be able to open up more financing and funding tools; and we need to be able to build things for New Zealanders so they get the economic, social, and environmental benefits. Hon Marama Davidson: Can he outline how the Cabinet Manual policies for managing real or perceived conflicts, which he mentioned in this House on 28 May, have been engaged in relation to the fast-track bill? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All Ministers are aware of the Cabinet Manual and conflicts are managed. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, will he heed the Green Party's response to the Hon David Parker's insightful legislation, setting 17 precedents for fast track; or is it a case that when that happened, from the Greens there wasn't a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a sound? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd just say we have taken a very good piece of legislation from David Parker. We have expanded and built upon it. We are determined to make sure we get things built and we do encourage the Green Party to support the legislation. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Mr Speaker, surely that question should have been stopped. The Prime Minister is absolutely not responsible for the Green Party's position on something David Parker said or has done. SPEAKER: No, but he's responsible for his own views. And if the member likes to check the Hansard, he'll find that's what was asked for. Question No. 2— Hon Rachel Brooking: Supplementary? SPEAKER: —in the name of Ryan Hamilton. Oh, sorry. My apologies, Mr Hamilton, we are still going. Hon Rachel Brooking: To the Prime Minister, does he know that the purpose section of the COVID legislation that he just referred to is significantly different to the purpose of his fast-track legislation, which does not mention the environment or sustainable management? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'll just say, when we see a good idea, we try and build upon it and improve it, and that's exactly what we're doing. Steve Abel: Point of order. I think that was a very specific and useful question as to whether the Prime Minister knows if the purpose section is different. He didn't actually directly answer that. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree they are different pieces of legislation, but the principle of actually fast-tracking so we can get things done and built is a good idea. And we've taken that as an idea, we're building upon it so we get a one-stop fast-track solution in place so we can get things done, including doubling renewable energy. SPEAKER: The House appreciates the Prime Minister's eagerness to answer questions, but just wait till you're called would be helpful. Question No. 2—Finance 2. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What was the final operating allowance in Budget 2024? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, the operating allowance is the amount of new operating funding allocated to new policy initiatives in each Budget— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And '25. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —it's good to see Willow-Jean Prime is so interested in this—calculated on average per year across the forecast period. I said in the Budget Policy Statement in March that the final operating allowance for Budget 2024 would be less than $3.5 billion, which was the allowance set by the previous Government. The final allowance in this year's Budget is, in fact, $3.2 billion. Ryan Hamilton: What does the operating allowance include? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Allowances are a net concept. They include savings initiatives as well as new spending and revenue increases as well as tax relief. So Budget 2024 contains $9.1 billion of spending and tax relief on average per year across the forecast period, and that includes significant investments in health, in education, in law and order. But it also contains $5.9 billion worth of savings and revenue raising initiatives. So to help members with the maths: $9.1 billion of spending minus $5.9 billion of savings equals $3.2 billion, which is how we could fit all the Budget 2024 initiatives, including those investments in key public services, into a $3.2 billion operating allowance. SPEAKER: Good. Brevity is a good idea. Ryan Hamilton: How does the $3.2 billion operating allowance in Budget 2024 compare to allowances in previous Budgets? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the operating allowance in Budget 2024 is the lowest allowance in nominal terms since Budget 2018. So, taking into account inflation, which is quite important given rampant inflation in previous years, this is the lowest allowance since Steven Joyce's Budget in 2017. So to give members something to compare with: the final operating allowances for the last two Labour Budgets were $5.9 billion in 2022 and $4.8 billion in 2023. This is a very fiscally responsible Budget. Ryan Hamilton: What operating allowances has the Government set for future Budgets? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has set the operating allowances for Budgets 2025, '26, and '27 at $2.4 billion per Budget. They are considerably lower than the allowances presented in the half-year update, which was set by the previous Government. Managing within future allowances of $2.4 billion will be very challenging. Savings and reprioritisation will be a feature of future Budgets, just as they were in Budget 2024 and just as New Zealanders expect from us. They will be a business-as-usual activity for this Government. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and in the context that they were given. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What support is the Government providing to local authorities in Gisborne and the Hawke's Bay, following today's extreme weather events? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I want to thank the member for his question. Minister Mitchell is actually down in the region. I've spoken to both mayors in Gisborne and also Wairoa, and immediately we've made available $100,000 to each of the mayoral relief funds. Obviously, the Minister will have an assessment on the ground today, and we stand by to do more. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government be taking into account the recommendations made by Sir Jerry Mataparae in his report into the last North Island weather events last year in the way that it responds to the situation unfolding on the East Coast at the moment? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. There have been two reports around our response to emergency events, and it's important that both of those reports are digested, taken on board, and put into standard operating procedure. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Government increased the capability and capacity in civil defence emergency management across New Zealand, as recommended in the report, and, if not, when does the Government expect to make decisions on that? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can't give the member a specific answer. I'm happy to give more detail around that. What I can say is that we have put $1 billion extra into the Budget this year to support the communities after the events of last year. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Have the policy settings criteria and process for the funding that's distributed in response to the costs associated with crises like this been updated, as the report recommended? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is that we have $7.5 billion of unallocated multi-year capital allowance that's been put to one side—or it is there, and it's available to be used in infrastructure in the region on an as-needed basis. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government be making allowance in its support package for the region for those homes and businesses who are still recovering from Cyclone Gabrielle—which was less than 18 months ago—recognising that for many of those homes and businesses, they haven't yet completed that recovery process? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I can say to the member that each week, I have been asking for a scorecard on all of the areas that have been affected by the North Island weather events to see what progress is being made around category 3 property assessments: people moving from category 2 to category 3, or back out of that. We'd need to see the assessment from the Minister, and we stand by, ready to help. Question No. 4—Justice 4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: How will the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill ensure consequences for repeat serious violent and sexual offenders while delivering justice for victims? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Yesterday, the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament and earlier today I delivered the bill's first reading speech. I've heard from many people that repeat serious sexual and violent offenders avoided the consequences of their actions under the old three-strikes regime. This Government is determined to hold offenders accountable for their actions. The sentencing principles included in the new three-strikes regime will require the judiciary to impose stricter sentences for repeat offenders and guides the judiciary to not take the implications of a strike into account when determining the length of a sentence. Under this Government, offenders will face the consequences of their actions and victims will receive the justice that they deserve. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What consequences will offenders face under the new and improved three-strikes regime? Hon NICOLE McKEE: The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill will ensure that offenders who do the crime will do the time. Upon receiving a sentence for a first strike, offenders will be warned of the consequences of further strikes. Second-strike offenders will be denied parole at their second strike, and offenders who receive their third strike will receive the maximum penalty for their sentence without parole. After six long years of a soft on crime approach, the victims of repeat violent and sexual offenders deserve justice, and this Government is going to make sure that they get it. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill ensure that offenders convicted for murder receive appropriate sentences? Hon NICOLE McKEE: The bill ensures that individuals convicted of a murder on their second strike receive a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years. If the offender pleads guilty, they will receive a minimum sentence of 15 years to incentivise the timely delivery of justice and expedite court proceedings. For offenders convicted of murder on their third strike, the bill mandates a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years. If they plead guilty, they will serve at least 18 years. Serious offenders deserve serious punishment. This Government will not be turning a blind eye. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is this three-strikes initiative value for money, given that it will cost up to $10 million per year and the advice is that there will be no impact on community safety, the number of victims, trust in the justice system, or reduced recidivism, and her own officials said in respect of the last three-strikes regime that there was no consistent pattern to changing crime? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Will this be value for money at a price of a maximum of $10 million at a 10-year period when we start locking up those very serious repeat violent offenders? To the victims in our community, absolutely it's value for money. For the people that are trying to run businesses and have retail crime on them, absolutely it's going to be just for them. It's not that we can put a monetary price on it; it's that we put a value on victims in our communities, their safety, and their security. Hon David Seymour: Has she considered the opposite approach of setting a target to reduce the prison population, saving money, letting the criminals out, and seeing victimisation rates go up 30 percent? Hon NICOLE McKEE: The last six years with the target of reducing the prison population has not been— SPEAKER: Tell you what—hang on. Start answering again without the reference to the past six years. The question was, had the member considered it? That doesn't need a history lesson. Answer the question as it's asked. Hon NICOLE McKEE: We want to make sure that for our victims of crime, those that are in the community, they see penalties, sentences, and very serious violent offenders being locked up and taken out of their communities so they are not re-victimising victims over and over again, and I think the value of that is a just one. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will offenders receive discounted sentences to compensate for any loss of parole, as occurred under the previous three-strikes regime? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Certainly not. The new bill clearly states that courts should not reduce sentences to avoid giving an offender a strike or to compensate for loss of parole eligibility if they do get a strike. This Government will not be wrapping repeat serious violent and sexual offenders in cotton wool. If they are willing to repeatedly make victims of innocent New Zealanders, then they will do the time in prison for it under this Government. Question No. 5—Regional Development 5. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made about investing in regional economic growth? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Recently, I attended an event near the Hauraki Gulf. Sadly, I was greeting by a small group of protesters, who I soon dismissed as speckled eco-squawkers. After that, the leader of the New Zealand First Party—the Deputy Prime Minister—and I announced the Kōpū Marine Precinct, which is going to expand and improve investment in the servicing of marine craft and broader maritime industries. An 80-metre wharf is the main feature, along with a floating pontoon. Aquaculture is a priority for this part of New Zealand, and that is why we are looking forward to the timely passing of the fast-track aquaculture consents bill. Andy Foster: Why is the Kōpū Marine Precinct critical for driving economic growth in the Coromandel region? Hon SHANE JONES: Economic growth in a number of our regions has faltered over the last three years. Our circumstances in regional New Zealand, in many respects, are dire, not only because of inflationary pressure but because of large degrees of red tape, regulatory dead-weight effects. For those reasons, we are continuing to support not only aquaculture— Chlöe Swarbrick: A long way to say, "New Zealand First". Hon SHANE JONES: Enough from the psychedelic crowd over there. Not only will the Regional Infrastructure Fund improve opportunities in regional New Zealand, which will be announced in the very near future in July; it will also ensure that infrastructure, where appropriate, is modernised and renewed for the inevitable growth of the mining sector. Andy Foster: Can the Minister tell us why infrastructure is so important for regional New Zealand? Hon SHANE JONES: That question requires a very judicious reply; I shall give my best shot at that. SPEAKER: Does that mean brief? Hon SHANE JONES: Within the audience, within the community groups that gathered with us, were the leaders of the Ngāti Maru tribe, including the elder Harry Mikaere, who has assumed the mantle of an earlier group of rangatira, not the least of which was Mr Shu Tukukino. They said this: without infrastructure, without clear direction, without a robust quality of regional leadership that goes over the top of the catastrophising, demonising effects of climate alarmists, we will never have growth in regional New Zealand. Andy Foster: What other announcements is he planning on investment in regional infrastructure? Hon SHANE JONES: It should be evident to those who have paid great attention to the recent Budget decisions: up to $100 million has been made available to various flood resilience projects. That will be rolled out. It is a response to the list of projects served up by the regional council leadership of New Zealand. They are wending their way through the approvals process, because we want to make sure that such announcements get the balance right between what the Crown can pay for exclusively and what costs can be shared with regional communities. We understand that this is a classic, practical response to the concerns associated with volatile weather, which is why climate adaptations time has well and truly arrived, and I will deliver it with appropriate professionalism. Question No. 6—Finance 6. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that her Budget will have "less verbiage, fewer pretty pictures, and a lot more substance"; if not, why not? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. When I said that, I was particularly thinking of this document called Wellbeing Budget 2023, which has a pretty picture on the front, a forward from the Prime Minister, a forward from the Minister of Finance, a highlights page, a chapter on spending—called "investments"—a chapter on wellbeing outlook and approach, all interspersed by multiple pretty pictures. I can assure members that none of this verbiage or pretty pictures are in Budget 2024. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does her Budget contain less verbiage because she cannot explain how the additional $12 billion in borrowing is not for her tax cuts? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Hon Dr Megan Woods: How does her Budget contain "a lot more substance" when her own chief economist could not point to any specific evidence that her Budget improves productivity? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The substance in our Budget that I would highlight for that member is the more than 240 savings initiatives, summarised in the summary of initiatives, wiping out low-value spending from the previous lot so that New Zealanders can keep more of their own money and we can make investments in things like schools, hospitals, and cancer drugs. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of the "fewer pretty pictures" international credit rating agency Fitch being unimpressed with New Zealand's worse than expected economic and Budget performance? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: One of the pretty pictures that isn't there is this cracker from 2019—remember that one? That was the one with the couple who left New Zealand soon after being featured on the front page of her Budget. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of the "fewer pretty pictures" our climate outlook, as the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research today said there has been a clear prioritisation of tax relief at the cost of climate outcomes? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The point of my statement has clearly completely escaped that member, which is this: we actually had six years of a Government that stamped "wellbeing" on every document that they could, who used hundreds and thousands of words to describe how pure and good their intentions were, but failed to deliver, and that is the point. That is what New Zealanders will judge this Government on. It's what they judged your Government on, and it's why you got voted out. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I think my point of order's clear—that whilst it was a political exchange, there was no place for a lecture on the previous Government's achievements. SPEAKER: With all due respect, when a question contains a word like "excessive verbiage", what would you expect? Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. SPEAKER: No, I'm sorry; I'm saying your point does not stand. It's a reasonable exchange that is going on. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Those were not the Opposition's words; they were the Government's words. SPEAKER: That's right, but they were in the Opposition's question today. Supplementary question, the Hon Dr Megan Woods—and we'll have quiet while the question is asked. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is one of her "fewer pretty pictures" the fact that her operating allowance for next year is $2.4 billion but cost pressures will be at least $2.5 billion, which can only mean even deeper cuts to the public services are still to come? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But wait there's more. We have the pictures of New Zealand from above—that didn't make any difference to New Zealand's inflation rate or productivity. We've got the picture apparently Grant Robertson spent his time taking—that didn't make any difference to waiting lists in the hospitals. We've got this pretty picture of a beautiful lake in New Zealand, and that didn't lift educational achievement. Our Government is focused on results. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, although my supplementary did contain a quote from my primary, which was a direct quote from the Minister, I asked a very clear question about the operating allowances for next Budget. While the Minister showed us some interesting images from Budgets gone by, she did not address the issue of the operating allowance for next year's Budget. SPEAKER: I can't agree with that, because the question was about the $100 million gap between the allowance and the projected expense pressures. The member pointed that out in her question. The answer came that pretty pictures don't make a difference when it comes to Government expenditure. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not those pretty pictures contained one of the Marsden Point refinery, which Megan Woods requested be closed down, much to the shock of the ownership of Marsden Point, not known until now? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: Sorry? Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: No, we've got to hear the answer. Hon Chris Bishop: She did. SPEAKER: Oh, did she? Well, there was so much noise, I couldn't hear it. Please answer again. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. SPEAKER: Ah, good. OK. That's clear. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—oh, sorry; the Hon Chris Bishop. Hon Chris Bishop: You're not right on that, either! SPEAKER: Well, you know, you want to watch that mirror-image stuff. Hon Chris Bishop: Was one of the pretty pictures referenced by the Hon Megan Woods in her original question a picture of the fantastical Auckland light rail project of which the previous Government published many? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, but I have it on good authority that that was from the same file which had the picture of Wellington light rail that was also contained in the same file— SPEAKER: That's OK Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —which had the picture of the Waitematā crossing— SPEAKER: All good. Thank you. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and other such fantasy projects. SPEAKER: Very good. Question No. 7—Justice 7. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about law and order? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Today I've announced a suite of sentencing reforms as part of the Government's commitment to restoring law and order and real consequences for crime. We are capping sentence discounts at 40 percent, limiting concurrent sentencing, preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse, and creating a sliding scale of guilty plea discounts. We're acknowledging the vulnerability of sole-charge workers like dairy owners by making it an aggravating factor in sentencing, and reforming the overall principles of the Sentencing Act to provide confidence to victims that their needs will be taken into account. Victims are the priority. Dan Bidois: How will these changes affect sentencing? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In recent years, we've seen the courts imposing fewer and shorter prison sentences despite the increasing seriousness of cases coming before the courts. A recent sample of sentences showed 18 percent of cases received a total discount greater than 40 percent; some as high as 69 percent. Large discounts tell victims that we are more concerned about the offenders than ensuring that they see justice. The suite of changes we've announced today will prevent discounts by capping discounts at 40 percent to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Dan Bidois: Why do we need to do this? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, everyone needs to know that there are real consequences for crime. In recent years those consequences have diminished. For example, we've seen the imprisonment rate for robbery offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years decrease from 74 percent to 58 percent. We campaigned on restoring real consequences for crime, and that is what we're going to. Dan Bidois: How will this announcement align with the coalition's priorities for law and order? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, this is a Government that is prioritising reducing the number of serious victims of crime and also reducing the number of serious repeat youth offenders. Part of that fits into a process of giving the police the extra powers they need to deal with gangs, having 500 extra police, restoring three strikes, and having the young serious offender category included, that Minister Chhour announced last week. Overall the goal is to restore law and order. Question No. 8—Prime Minister 8. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given. Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that amending the Residential Tenancies Act to allow no-cause evictions will increase housing insecurity and lead to more whānau being unable to put down roots in their communities? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to increase the supply of rental properties so we put downward pressure on rents. Part of that has been restoring interest deductibility, making sure we are backing off the brightline test, and, importantly, getting the balance right between tenants and landlords. Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware of the findings of the Growing Up in New Zealand study that found a quarter of children who had experienced involuntary moves went on to experience homelessness, and, if so, why is this Government changing the law so that landlords can kick out tenants without any reason at all? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our Government wants to make sure that vulnerable people get a chance to get a house. That's why we are expanding supply of houses being built, rental houses, and also social housing. We're very committed to solving and fixing the housing crisis the previous administration left behind. Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that the same study found 7 percent of young people in the cohort—that's one or two kids in each classroom—has experienced homelessness by age 12, and, if so, why isn't he concerned that his decision to cut funding for homelessness prevention will exacerbate this? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What's important is that we rebuild this economy so that we can actually make people wealthier and more prosperous. That's what we're working incredibly hard to do. We want to lower the cost of living. That means actually getting on top of Government spending, lowering inflation, lowering interest rates, growing the economy, and keeping people in work. Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to Māhera Maihi, who runs a charitable trust providing transitional housing for youth, who said in relation to these Budget cuts, "What is there for those young people? They've taken away $20 million intended for them and they've put it back into mainstream. That's not fair, that's not equitable and that doesn't solve the problem."? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We announced that there would be 1,500 extra social housing places for community housing providers. We are determined to get our economy working again so that people can actually do well when they work hard. Hon Shane Jones: Off the couch—off the couch. Chlöe Swarbrick: They don't have a couch—that's the point. SPEAKER: Question— Hon Marama Davidson: Go see Māhera, Shane. SPEAKER: That's enough—it's quite enough. Question No. 9—State Owned Enterprises 9. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by his answers to oral question No. 10 yesterday that the KiwiRail iReX contract with Hyundai has been "repudiated and ongoing discussions are continuing around the exit cost of that"; if so, was that repudiation a unilateral decision by KiwiRail or agreed by all parties? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Yes, I stand by my answer in full, which included the quote, "The ferries will not be coming because we are not going to spend $3 billion on an overall project." In response to the second part of the member's question, repudiation of a contract occurs when one party to a contract is unwilling or unable to fulfil its obligation to another. Tangi Utikere: Is KiwiRail currently undertaking a disputes resolution or arbitration process with Hyundai regarding their ship building contract? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, there are ongoing conversations, and it's not in the interests of the company or the Government to outline the details of that. But, yes, there are ongoing discussions. Tangi Utikere: Is there a cap on KiwiRail's exposure in this dispute; if not, what is the exposure of KiwiRail? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I'm not going to go into the details of that, but I can remind the member that the Government, when it came in, had a choice between two bad outcomes. One outcome was to risk paying for breaking the contract—for KiwiRail breaking the contract. The other risk was going ahead with a project that had got to $3 billion and rising. And so neither of those were very good options, but we had to go with one and we didn't want to spend $3 billion. Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interest of transparency, could the Minister advise as to which Government was in power when the iReX contract was signed, and is it also the case that of the contract, when it comes to the ferries, they only totalled less than 25 percent of the contract and the rest was for infrastructure that Labour had signed up to? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can advise the House that the Labour Government was in power, and that the initial estimate of the cost of the project for two ferries was $700 million, and it has crested $3 billion and was continuing to rise. And the primary driver of that cost was not the cost of the ferries; it was the cost of the fact that the ferries were bigger than the current ferries and rail-enabled, and it required an enormous amount of very expensive work at the ports at both ends. And that's what we're trying to avoid. Tangi Utikere: Was Cabinet advised prior to announcing the cancellation of the contract with Hyundai that there is no exit provision for KiwiRail in the contract? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I'm not going to go into the details of ongoing discussions, but Cabinet had a simple decision as to whether it was going to continue to fund the project to the tune of, all over, $3 billion, and we declined to make that decision. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not he's aware or not that his predecessor never saw the contract that he signed up to being raised now in terms of the provision of an exit clause? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can't tell the House what the previous Minister did or didn't see. But what I can tell— SPEAKER: Hold on. Hold on. I doubt that you'd be in a position, Minister, to say whether or not another Minister had seen something. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but he could. SPEAKER: Well, that might be the case, but he can't. So maybe ask the question again. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not he has been informed by Mr Hipkins as to that iReX contract, as to whether Mr Hipkins and his party over there saw the contract in the first place and (b) looked at the opt-out clause being in it or not? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I haven't been informed of such by Mr Hipkins, but I am shocked that they allowed a project like this to get to the extent that it might be costing $3 billion or excess. Tangi Utikere: Has Cabinet been advised that costs for exiting the contract could exceed $200 million? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, again, those discussions are ongoing, but Cabinet has been advised there may well be costs in exiting the contract. And, like I say, Cabinet was forced to choose between two bad outcomes: exiting a contract or continuing on with a ridiculously expensive project, and we had to make a decision and we did make a decision. Tangi Utikere: What advice, if any, has the Government received regarding the reputational risk to New Zealand and KiwiRail of exiting the contract, particularly if the Government had been warned that due to reputational damage of breaking the contract, it may not be able to procure new ships for decades and it could also impact other Government ship procurements? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the advice is it's never desirable to be breaking contracts, but it's also not desirable to spend $3 billion on two ferries. And so we have to be careful with the way that we spend our money. This is why this is a Government that's inherited a Budget which is in a state of disrepair that we're trying to put back together again by making some sensible decisions about spending. Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment 10. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent changes, if any, has the Government made to contribute to the target to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): On Monday, I announced the launch of the Ministry of Social Development's (MSD) new work check-in seminars that job seekers who don't have case managers will need to attend after six months of receiving their benefit, to assess how their job search is going. The point of these seminars is to provide greater support to a larger number of job seekers by ensuring they have more regular contact with MSD. This initiative builds on the new Kōrero Mahi - Let's Talk Work seminars that job seekers now attend within two weeks of their benefit starting, to plan their next steps for finding work. Katie Nimon: How many job seekers are in regular contact with MSD now? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: About 190,000 people currently receive the jobseeker support benefit, but only 53,000 have employment case managers assigned to them at any given time. The other 137,000 can go months without talking to MSD about their job search, with some not having to check back in until they reapply for their benefit after 12 months. Increasing the amount of contact these job seekers have with MSD is important to ensure they are taking the right steps to find work and are receiving the right support. Katie Nimon: What kind of support will these work check-ins provide to job seekers? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If a job seeker is ready to work, they could be helped to apply for a job straight away. If they need retraining or upskilling, they could be referred to a programme that can help, like getting a driver's licence. MSD will also make sure their job profiles and CVs are up to date, offer interview tips, and talk through what other support they may need to find work. Katie Nimon: Why is it important for job seekers to have regular contact with MSD? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The longer someone spends on welfare the harder it is for them to get back into the workforce, so it's important they stay active in their search for employment. Our Government is concerned about long-term benefit dependency and the number of people who have spent more than a year on jobseeker support, which grew by about 40,000 over the last six years. That's why we're making our welfare system much more proactive about checking in on job seekers, to help them get back on their feet quickly. Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety 11. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will she take steps to progress work on addressing modern slavery and exploitation in New Zealand's supply chain; if so, when? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The Government has not made any decisions on progressing work to address modern slavery and exploitation. Modern slavery is a concerning issue that should be appropriately punished where it has occurred. However, I would also stress that regulations are not required for businesses to review their supply chains and ensure that they are free from modern slavery. I'd also like to point out the many measures that are already in place to combat modern slavery practices under this Government. Dealing in slaves is a criminal offence. Trafficking in persons is a criminal offence. Exploitation of unlawful employees and temporary workers is a criminal offence. Coerced marriage or civil union is a criminal offence. Employment law, including breaches such as failing to retain employment records, denying leave, and underpayment of wages are offences, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has published a series of ethical and sustainable work practice resources to help businesses apply ethical and sustainable work practices both within their organisations and across business networks. Camilla Belich: Do the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement and the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement require New Zealand to have specific measures addressing modern slavery in our supply chain? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: We have agreements with both the EU and the UK about modern slavery; however, in my view, the Government's current practices meet these obligations. Camilla Belich: Given that answer and that the New Zealand - EU agreement has specific provisions for modern slavery in article 19.12 and the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement has a specific provision in relation to modern slavery in article 23.9, why has MBIE admitted it is doing no such work to implement such measures? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: I'll just refer to a few of my previous comments. There are a range of criminal offences and offences under New Zealand law that address modern slavery already in place under this Government. Under the UK and EU free-trade agreements, yes, there are requirements about labour laws. It is in my view that our current guidelines and laws meet these obligations. However, I'd also like to suggest that under the previous Government, there was no legislation and there was no work getting anywhere near what that member is suggesting. Camilla Belich: Is MBIE correct, then, when they said that they ended work on modern slavery that was initiated under the previous Government due to the Minister's priorities, and, if so, why is modern slavery not a priority for her? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: I haven't asked MBIE to stop work. Camilla Belich: So is MBIE incorrect when they stated to the Education and Workforce Committee that they were not working on modern slavery due to a decision made by her—that was incorrect? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: I'd like to suggest that the advice I received on MBIE's labour market session last week said, "work paused at the election", and that's a question, really, for the member of that member's party about why the work paused at the election. Since the election, I've asked MBIE to focus on my priorities, which it is doing. Camilla Belich: Does she agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, "There's something I feel very passionate about: is modern slavery for example. It's something that I've been really passionate about for a long time. That's something that I think we could do a better job … [on] and have modern slavery legislation and make sure that we're holding … ourselves to a standard. There are those things that I feel passionate about.", and if so, why is modern slavery not a priority for this Government? Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: I stand by the statement made by our Prime Minister, which he also said a few months ago, that at the moment it's not a priority for us. What is a priority for me is focusing on the issues that really, really matter to New Zealand businesses. If businesses aren't able to even uphold basic labour market standards such as making sure people have their correct entitlements for holidays pay, we have some serious issues. That Government did not finalise work on holidays pay, and that is one area that is my top priority. We have hundreds if not thousands of Kiwis that are being underpaid their correct entitlements. That is what that member should be focused on—rights for workers here in New Zealand, and that they actually get their correct entitlements paid for by business. Question No. 12—Building and Construction 12. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about making it easier to build granny flats? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The coalition Government is making it easier to build granny flats and other small structures up to 60 square metres without the need for resource or building consent. We want less red tape and more knitting wool. This announcement is part of the agreement between the National and New Zealand First coalition and fits within the Government's wider package of work to streamline the building consent system and address the housing crisis. Tim Costley: Why are these changes needed? Hon CHRIS PENK: Over a quarter of the households that do not own their own home spend 40 percent or more of their income on housing. High housing costs have a disproportionately high impact on Māori, Pacific, and people with disabilities, as well as seniors—including, of course, grannies. This Government is focused on making it easier to build so we can drive down building costs as part of our pledge to rebuild the economy. Tim Costley: Are these granny flats only for grannies? Hon CHRIS PENK: Good question. Anyone can live in a granny flat, including youth—think student flats; think those who are youth-adjacent, for example, workers on a farm or other rural setting; and those who are simply young at heart, including even yourself, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: That's enough of that question. Tim Costley: What are the next steps for granny flats? Hon CHRIS PENK: Because we want to make sure that we get the detail of the changes right, we have published a discussion document with submissions open until 12 August for the public to have their say. They can do that online or by emailing . Since Messrs Peters and Bishop announced the policy, already 1,000 Kiwis have provided feedback on this policy—overwhelmingly positive. SENTENCING (REINSTATING THREE STRIKES) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Debate resumed. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Well, this bill is about choices and values, and this Government chooses window dressing over substance. It chooses rhetoric over outcomes. We know that three strikes doesn't work. We absolutely agree that we want to see a reduction in offending and a reduction in the number of victims, and we want to see reoffending reduced as well. But this reheated policy flies in the face of all of the evidence. The Minister's own officials have said that there is no consistent pattern to changing crime from three-strikes regimes. The officials have made it absolutely clear that this proposal will do no good whatsoever—in fact, quite the reverse. Not only that, but every other jurisdiction in the world, more or less, where these regimes have been introduced have been rolling them back, have been watering them down, or getting rid of them entirely. This regime that will have no impact on reoffending, will not keep communities safer, will cost $10 million a year, and we'll see around 90 people in prison who wouldn't otherwise have been in prison. Well, look, the fact of the matter is that we do think that where there is serious offending, there should be a serious sentence. In fact, we think a rule that says that a judge "must impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence [where] the offending is within the most serious cases for which the penalty is prescribed, unless there are circumstances [which make it] inappropriate;"—we think that would be a good rule. It sounds a bit like this legislation, except it's not. It's actually section 8(c) of the Sentencing Act. So the fact of the matter is sitting there right now in the Sentencing Act is a provision which says a judge must give the most serious sentence to the most serious offending. This bill is simply taking New Zealand backwards. It will have an absolutely disproportionate effect on Māori as well. We know that under the last regime, of the people who were subject to a third strike, 81 percent of them were Māori. Let's be clear. The Minister has been clear here that this is intentionally disproportionate sentencing. The punishment by definition doesn't need to fit the crime. And that is extraordinary. The idea that we are in a modern First World country where the legislation itself says even if the sentence is disproportionate, that is not an extraordinary circumstance. It's true that this bill is not as terrible as the former legislation. It does things like raise the bar to make it a two-year imprisonment sentence as the triggering offence. And then we have a perverse section in there as well, a section that says to a judge, "Sentence as if you didn't know that was the case. Ignore that." Well, the way the justice system works is that people take into account all of those factors when they come to litigate a case. The prosecutor themselves will know what the consequences of a strike sentence will be. The prosecutor has a very significant role to play in what sentence is sought. It's often the prosecutor who undertakes plea negotiations and makes submissions on sentence indications. So those kinds of statements or provisions in the legislation which say "Don't take that into account when sentencing" are largely meaningless. And not only is this a vile piece of legislation in the sense that it's intentionally imposing disproportionate sentences; it's entirely unworkable. The provisions setting out how judges should impose sentences simply won't work. They take no real account of how the justice and sentencing system works, and they will have no impact on the safety of communities or the number of victims. Kia ora. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Well, welcome to an era of mass incarceration, which has been brought in by Minister McKee and their misguided, unimaginative approach to dealing with the very real harm that is happening in our communities. Let's be straight up about what we've got in front of us. We've got a concept of three strikes that we have imported from the United States, of all countries—the country with the most incarcerated people in the world. That is the country that our Government has chosen as an exemplar for our justice system. And where did they get that idea from? They got it from a game of baseball—a game of baseball—where it's three strikes and you're out. But this is not a game, and if the Government actually put some effort into basing their law and order policies on evidence, rather than a game where there are winners and losers, maybe our communities would get the safety and the peaceful way of life that they deserve. But we're playing games—we're playing games with people's lives—and it's not just the people that we're sentencing that suffer; it's their entire families and often their communities too, because children of people in prison are nine times more likely to go to prison. And now, thanks to the new young serious offenders category, they can go into prison even earlier! That's the approach of this Government to law and order. It's a game of how many prisons can we build and how many beds can we fill with poor, disabled, brown people before the public rejects this failed logic. Locking people up and punishing people does not lead to the safe communities that the public deserves. At the rate we're heading, we are going to need a new prison every few years. The billion dollars— Simon Court: Don't worry; we're building them. TAMATHA PAUL: And it's shameful. It's unimaginative. It's a waste of money when the Government could be putting that money into housing, into education, into job opportunities, into liveable benefits, into the public health system—but no, let's build more mega-prisons! That is the sum ambition of this Government. They've scrapped prison population reduction targets, they've removed Treaty provisions from the corrections bill, and they have made it easier to lock up children with the young serious offender category, because that is their ambition and they think they can just lock people up and that's going to solve the issue. Well, it won't, because it's a failure, just like three strikes was a failure. The concept of continuing to repeat failed experiments is the definition of insanity. Three strikes was a failed experiment. It's a policy that has, according to advisers, limited evidence that it reduces serious crime. Officials weren't even able to identify any quantifiable benefits for this bill. And that's because there is none. There are no benefits from reintroducing three strikes. The evidence also shows that judicial discretion is better than mandatory sentences, because it allows for the circumstances of each person to be taken into account. And that matters when you look at who's actually in prison: more than 90 percent of people in prison have a life-time diagnosable mental health or substance abuse issue; more than 75 percent of people in prison have been victims of violence. I know the Government loves to talk about victims of violence. How about that—that a majority of people in prisons are victims themselves? It's a false dichotomy to make it out like there's a difference. They are victims too. Around 71 percent of people in prison have significant literacy issues, and one in three people who were in State residential care between 1950 and 1999 ends up serving a prison sentence. Prisons should never be the only answer. Yet, they have become the only answer because that is the sum ambition of this Government and of the Minister. They choose to ignore the strong evidence about the failure of three strikes. They continue to restore failed policies. Until they wake up and realise it doesn't work, we will get no better outcomes in this country. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it snuck in there in the end, didn't it: the people getting locked up are the victims—that's what we heard—they're the victims, they're the ones we should be worried about. It's mean; it's mean to put serious offenders behind bars. Well actually I don't support that. I don't believe that, and that's why we're here; that's why we're passing this legislation. I hear the call that says this isn't the only way to deal with it, and that's why we have a social investment approach in this Government, targeting those resources early where they can make a difference. But where there is serious offending and where there are victims that are seriously impacted by this, there has to be consequence, and this bill does that. It brings backs consequence. There is still the out provision for where it's manifestly unjust, unless of course it's murder. It has to go to the senior courts for that third strike but there has to be guidance that ensures there will be serious consequences for serious offenders in the right circumstance. That's what this bill does; it just needs to be read, and I commend this bill to the House. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I am floored that we just heard a diatribe about using imagination. This is not about imagining: this is about fact; this is about looking in the eyes of victims and saying, "We hear you and we will make you safe." This is not about rhetoric and clever phrases; this is about practical actions to make our communities safer and ensure that serious offenders know there will be consequences. We will not continue down the path of taking mercy against an offender who has inflicted harm. This is not a programme that's in isolation; this is a wraparound social response. But at one end of the spectrum, there has to be an ability to make sure they will not create further victims. We will ensure that happens, we will ensure that they know there is a consequence, and I fully commend this bill to the House. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tatou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei, ā, e kaha whakahē ana i tēnei o ngā pire kua tae mai ki rō Pāremata i tēnei rangi. [Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party today, and we strongly oppose this bill that has arrived in Parliament today.] Te Pāti Māori is deeply concerned about this Government's decision to reinstate the three strikes regime. Our principal concern is this legislation will only worsen an inherently biased and racist criminal justice system. These issues have been well articulated and documented by the great minds, like Dr Moana Jackson in The Maori and the Criminal Justice System: A New Perspective — He Whaipaanga Hou, and more recently by movements and organisations like JustSpeak. Further still, in its own advice to Cabinet and through its regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Justice explained that "Reinstating a three strikes regime will exacerbate the over-representation of populations which are already disproportionately represented in the justice system. While there are options to modify the regime which would minimise the overall impact on Māori, Māori would continue to be disproportionately represented in the relative terms, perhaps even more so than under a broader regime." Public commentary, including by Criminal Bar Association vice president Annabel Creswell, also raised doubts about the legislation: "Criminal justice policy has to be based on evidence, and there's no evidence that three strikes either reduces crime or assists the rehabilitation,". Evidence briefs from the Ministry of Justice explained that there's no evidence of three strikes policy reducing crime or having a serious effect on crimes at all. What we do know about three strikes legislation is that during the time it was in place here in Aotearoa, Māori and Pasifika received over 50 percent of the strikes, and 63 percent of those with a second strike were Māori. Three strikes in its short term had unjustly perpetrated racism and caught Māori with no evidence of reducing crime. Our grave concern is that this legislation will result in unjust sentences which will only deliver mass imprisonment to Māori and Pasifika people nationwide, and that this House is setting into place a regime held up by a lack of evidence and racial bias that should shock all peoples who called this place their home. Te Pāti Māori insists on intelligent policy and rehabilitation. Rather, this legislation strengthens the race-based system of colonisation that continues to deliver race-based outcomes. The evidence shows that tangata whenua are more likely to be treated unjustly at one or all of these stages in the criminal justice process. The extent of the racial bias within the criminal justice system means that we must do everything we can to stop the pipeline to prison. Finally, advice put to the Ministers also notes that regarding the three strikes legislation, claims before the Waitangi Tribunal are possible, including the live and existing Waitangi Tribunal claim Te Rau o te Tika: the Justice System Kaupapa Inquiry, Wai 3060. Article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi means that until outstanding justice inequities between Māori and non-Māori are resolved meaningfully, no justice system in Aotearoa will ever be just, in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We encourage tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti allies everywhere to utilise every tool, pathway, and process available to advance the transformation of the criminal justice system here in Aotearoa. Nō reira koinei aku koha ki tēnei o ngā pire. E kaha whakahē ana Te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire. [And so that is my contribution to this bill. The Māori Party strongly opposes this bill.] We oppose this bill. Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): If New Zealanders weren't already on notice that this is a Government committed to restoring law and order in this country, well, they are now. Along with this excellent piece of legislation, the Government, today, also announced strengthening to our sentencing laws. On the weekend, the Prime Minister, along with the Minister for Children, Karen Chhour, announced new serious youth offender categories. And, of course, there are new cops hitting the beat as we speak. As chair of the busy and effective Justice Committee, we look forward to considering our 16th bill for this Parliament. We will look forward to the robust and strong exchanges amongst committee members. I commend the bill to the House. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that lengthy and detailed contribution from the Government! So this is an interesting bill. And one thing that strikes me is I often wonder why this Government keeps implementing legislation that has absolutely no evidence to back it. I mean, it's a sensible question. You can see that we might not see eye to eye on a lot of heartfelt issues, but you would think if you're going to do some decent analysis, check some facts and figures, to actually go through and look at history as to what works and what doesn't work, why is it that, particularly in the space of law and order, this Government continues to implement policy and decisions that have zero evidence to back them up? It's a legitimate question, and I think the answer is that they don't really care about the outcome. They want something that looks good, that ticks the box of getting a vote, that keeps people happy here and now and makes it sound OK, but they have zero vested interest in the long-term benefits to New Zealand. And that's what really bothers me. This legislation first came to New Zealand way back in 2010. It was a coalition agreement between ACT and National when Rodney Hide was a member of the ACT Party. At that point in time, I was working within New Zealand Police and what happened at that point was we were tasked to try and figure out how to implement this new system across three different computer systems in the justice sector. And so there was no consideration the first time this came in as to how it would be implemented. There was someone—namely me—who sat and had to watch three databases for when we got a striker. And when we got a striker who was eligible, we had to call up the courtroom and tell the person who was prosecuting in the courtroom that they had to call out to the judge and notify them that there was a strike. If that didn't happen, that person got away without a strike. We had to draw straws on a weekly basis over who fronted up and told Judith Collins how many strikes had got away that week and how many strikes had got away that month. So this goes to my point that there was no interest in how this was actually going to be implemented and monitored. There was no investment in the systems of how it was actually going to work because all that was wanted to be achieved—the only thing that was to be achieved—was that it looked good. And it looked good, and it ticked the box, and it did, and it is no different now. This is something that we saw during scrutiny week which was very interesting. In scrutiny week, when Nicole McKee, as the Associate Minister of Justice fronted up to the Justice Committee at scrutiny week and Nicole McKee openly stated that the first time three strikes was introduced, it didn't work. We had ACT on record in scrutiny week stating that the first bill didn't work because she had received advice from the Ministry of Justice that demonstrated the first time— Hon Nicole McKee: So why are you talking about it, we're on to the second version now. Time to move on Ginny. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We've got it on record Nicole; it's there, you said it had problems and it didn't work properly at all. So the reason why they had to peddle it back was because the advice came through from the Ministry of Justice officials that it had zero deterrent effect on criminal offending. It had no impact on reducing the number of victims and it had no impact on actually making a meaningful difference in our justice system. And that's what the advice is. So the bill we have now is a reheated version. It's actually slightly less worse than the first one they fronted up in 2010. But it goes to the point that there's no new ideas in the bucket. They're just reheating old, failed stuff that still doesn't work and rebranding it in some kind of sad attempt to look tough and look cool and I'm afraid that it just doesn't work and it's sad to see this implemented once again. I am pleased to see that they've made some changes, including the manifestly unjust provision, which will go some way to mitigating the damage that this will do. It shows no faith in our judiciary. It shows no faith in our justice system, and it will have zero impact on reducing victims, even though those members opposite will continue to sing its praises and say it will fix everything. Only time will tell. As we've seen in the past bill, this will do nothing to reduce victims. It's a waste of time. It's a waste of money. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a great day for law and order in this country. What a great day for Upper Harbour. Look, I stand in support—full support—of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill, and this Government is delivering on our commitment to introduce the revised three-strikes law as one of our key law and order priorities, after that lot repealed it in 2022. And did that help? No, no. What's happened since 2022? It's only got worse. This bill will help protect victims and communities by keeping violent criminals off the streets and delivering justice for the victims of serious violent and sexual offending. I commend this bill. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the chance to make a contribution, as one does, to the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. I'm surprised by the previous contribution daring to bring up the concept of law and order on the North Shore, when it was only a couple of days ago—didn't we learn?—that the harbour cops are being moved to the CBD to bolster the police presence there. But good on you for standing up for your communities! As has been previously said, and we don't need to go over it in too much detail, this bill simply isn't needed. It's not needed, because the law already says, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said earlier, a judge must impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which the penalty is prescribed, obviously unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate. That is part of the Sentencing Act. So this rhetoric that somehow this Government, who is very light on evidence and very big on big noting and rhetoric, is somehow reinventing and rewriting the Sentencing Act is just nonsense. This is simply another means by which to introduce something that, essentially, does nothing. But in this case not only does it not do what it says on the tin, it actually does harm. It's reintroducing a reheated policy that has already failed. I note, as my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen has just said now, that we acknowledge the fact that the first three-strike bill was terrible, and as was the Act. This is less rubbish, but it's not much less rubbish. Therefore it kind of feels like it's a little bit of a waste of our time. We know that there is absolutely no evidence that three strikes reduces reoffending, and that should be the Government's goal. If the Government's going to talk a big talk about being tough on crime, the only way you can be tough on crime is to reduce crime. Doing things that don't reduce crime is a waste of our time. It doesn't reduce reoffending. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that it actually makes rehabilitation worse. It certainly doesn't act as a deterrent. So if the goal in the long run is to not make things better, this is a step in the right direction. As has already previously been also discussed, it removes judicial discretion, which I think is a slippery slope and that is not something that we should be doing. Also, when I suggested that it does harm, we know that it does disproportionately impact on Māori, on people with cognitive diversity or people with cognitive impairments, they absolutely bear the brunt of these knee-jerk reactions so that the Government can appear tough on crime. Ultimately, it's just part of that ideology—which the Government always claims it doesn't have any, which is a misnomer in itself—that punishment leads to change. That doesn't happen. The regulatory impact statement and several other sources have explicitly stated through cost-benefit analyses and various other evidence-based methodologies that we haven't been able to see any significant quantifiable benefit in this policy. Importantly, the provision stating—this is the part that I find quite interesting—that the courts must not take into account the additional consequences of the three-strikes regime when determining the sentence therefore makes it unenforceable and meaningless. What I mean by that is that lawyers and judges can't unknow what they know. If they know there's going to be a loss of parole eligibility at strike two, it's going to change the way that they act. They will have that in their mind when considering sentences, and judges will as well. Judges will also know the impact of imposing a 24-month sentence as opposed to imposing a 23-month sentence. So, ultimately, it's going to change those thresholds and it's going to mean there's some perverse sort of outcomes as people skirt their way around this—not to mention the fact that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act obviously prohibits severely disproportionate sentences, and we know that this has the ability to do so. So, at the end of the day, it's a big price to pay, considering all the extra people in prison and all the extra costs that that incur for the National Government to talk about the fact that they're tough on crime. It has zero impact on crime. It has zero impact on reducing victims of crime. It's a cheap and nasty way of the Government trying to send a message out there for people who don't know any better. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Restoring three strikes is about restoring law and order. We on the Government benches make no apologies for taking action to crack down on crime, hold serious offenders to account, and make our towns and cities safer. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 52 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 55. SPEAKER: The question is, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Justice Committee. Instruction to Justice Committee Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 52 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3. Motion agreed to. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 55. CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE (EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME AGRICULTURAL OBLIGATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website. Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024. This bill will amend the Climate Change Response Act 2022 to keep agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme (ETS). It will pave the way for us to develop a fair and sustainable pricing system for agriculture that reduces emissions without sending that production offshore for farmers who are less efficient than they are here in New Zealand. This bill supports the Government coalition agreements and the National Party's manifesto. It delivers on action number 12 of the quarter two action plan to finalise policy to keep agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme. But not only that, it actually supports farmers. Agriculture is the backbone of the New Zealand economy. It contributes 81 percent of goods exported and New Zealand - grown produce feeds over 40 million people worldwide. This Government is committed to supporting our farmers and the sector to reduce its emissions in a way that does not put farmers out of business and shifts production offshore. Currently, under the Climate Change Response Act, agricultural processes will begin to pay for emissions associated with the fertiliser and livestock that they process from 1 January 2025. Animal farmers will begin reporting their on-farm emissions from 1 January 2026, and paying for those emissions from 1 January 2027. Modelling commissioned by officials suggests that requiring agricultural processes to pay for their emissions under the emissions trading scheme would have a negative impact on both farm production and farm revenue, particularly for the sheep and beef sector. In our current fiscal environment, we cannot let agricultural production be sent offshore. Additionally, if agricultural processes are required to pay for on-farm emissions, that may mean that they pass these costs directly on to farmers, regardless of whether the farmers' emissions efficiency rates are what they are. This means that there will be no incentive for farmers to reduce emissions and there will be no financial recognition for their individual effort. The obligations on animal farmers that start from 2026 would add additional problems. These obligations could require up to 100,000 animal farmers registered, reporting, and paying for their emissions in the ETS. This would be overly burdensome for small farmers and would significantly increase the number of participants in that scheme, which could disrupt the operation of the scheme. This is why this bill is necessary. In short, without it, the current system will present significant administrative, implementation, and compliance costs to our domestic agriculture sector. This Government is taking the steps necessary to support the development of the right tools and technology for farmers to reduce their emissions. We will invest $400 million over the next four years to accelerate the commercialisation of tools and technology to reduce on-farm emissions with on-farm measurement systems in place by 2025. This Government has commissioned a methane science and target review to consider the methane science and targets for consistency with no additional warming. These are only some of the actions that this Government is taking. More will be set out in the second emissions reduction plan, which we will begin consultation on soon. In my maiden speech I spoke about how challenging times will require us to work together in the interests of all New Zealanders, and that is what this coalition Government is doing. Minister McClay and I recently announced that the Government has disestablished the He Waka Eke Noa - Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership. Instead, we are setting up a pastural sector group to work directly with the sector in a way that's fit for purpose. The Government has committed to doubling the value of exports in the next 10 years to help rebuild our economy. We cannot allow production to move offshore to less carbon-efficient farmers. And that's why this is important work that we work with the sector, not against it, to ensure consumers' expectations of sustainability are met while maintaining profitability in the sector. As I outlined earlier, this bill is an initial step in this Government's plan to support farmers to reduce their emissions. The Government has signalled our commitment to introduce a fair and sustainable pricing system for on-farm emissions by 2030, and keeping agriculture out of the ETS is a key part of that commitment. I look forward to working with the sector, iwi Māori, and the public as we implement this plan and deliver on our climate change commitment. I am proud to commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wouldn't say it is my pleasure to take a call on this bill. Labour will not be supporting this legislation because this is a piece of legislation that is making a poor choice and it is a piece of legislation that is taking New Zealand backwards. If ever there was a can in New Zealand politics in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that has been continuously kicked down the road, it is that of agricultural emissions and where it fits in our emissions trading schemes (ETS), and, indeed, our emissions pricing schemes. This is something that it is time that we as a country had a clear plan for. Unfortunately, what we're seeing in this bill that has been brought to the House by the Government is clear evidence that there is no plan. The only plan is to further kick that can down the road and to delay the inevitable, which, for many decades, has been tumbling along. When we see the objectives of this bill are twofold—to keep agriculture out of the ETS by repealing all New Zealand's emission training schemes obligations for agricultural activities from the Climate Change Response Act of 2002; and also ensuring that agricultural emissions are not subject to surrender obligations under the New Zealand ETS, and all the languages about removal and prevention—once again, we are seeing not a glimmer of what the vision of this Government might be, what the plan might be, and where they may be going. Farm-related emissions—biogenic emissions—make up 49 percent of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. Of those, methane makes up the majority of those. It is agreed across this House, and there is multipartisan support, that we need to reach net zero by 2050. That is an area that we have agreement on, but what we have to have is this Government start to front up and tell us how they plan to do this. They don't plan to do it in the same way that we as a Government plan to do it, and that was by having a plan, that was by actually cutting emissions. The Minister of Climate Change continually telling us "Wait till you say see emissions reduction plan 2." is not good enough. We need to have transparency around what those plans are and we need to be debating them across this House. When the zero carbon Act was passed in 2019, it was a watershed moment for New Zealand. It was a moment when we could come together, put politics aside, and agree on a direction of travel as a country in this House. We are a better country for having done that. But it is disappointing that we're not seeing us grasp the most difficult of nettles by having a plan. It is vital that we have a plan to reduce our agricultural emissions, to meet our various obligations, not at least of all our agreed target to be net zero by 2050, to meet our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement and various other international obligations. But I would also point to the economic necessity for New Zealand to meet these obligations. I would like to acknowledge the work and the huge amount of work that was done in our Government by my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor—not only as the Minister of Agriculture but as a man who went and negotiated successful trade deals in both the EU and the UK, and understood that market access into these most lucrative of markets was actually contingent on us having some ambition in climate action—that includes agriculture. If we want to continue to sell our high value agricultural products into certain markets, us being an international laggard is simply not going to cut it. We have within those trade agreements clauses that speak to the necessity for both parties of those agreements to fulfil their international climate obligations, and time and time and time again we are seeing from this Government a walking back of what action is being taken to fulfil those obligations. In this case, in this piece of legislation that we're debating here today, that is around agricultural emissions. We're seeing it in transport, we're seeing it in industrial and process heat, we're seeing it in every part of the New Zealand economy—a walking back of the actions that we were taking to get us there. What we have is a Government, in doing this, that is putting New Zealanders' future at risk—not only our ability to get our agricultural products into high value markets and to fulfil our trade obligations but the jobs of the future as well. Thank you. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It'll come as no surprise that the Greens will be opposing the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill today, so I'd like to walk through some of the rationale for it. Firstly, I just wanted to acknowledge my forebears, particularly in the Green Party, the likes of whom the Hon Dr Megan Woods did, particularly the Hon James Shaw for the work that he has done, because, funnily enough, with the new path that this Government has decided to embark on, with yet another working group, they may indeed find that He Waka Eke Noa was "He Waka Eke Nowhere". Once again, we are seeing the can kicked down the road when it comes to climate action. This Government also tells us that they want to see pricing on agricultural emissions by 2030. Let's just unpack why agricultural emissions should be priced in the first place, because I think that's kind of a foundational argument, which has kind of been avoided thus far in the debate. Agriculture is currently the only sector within our economy that does not carry with it a price, in terms of the emissions trading scheme. It is the only sector which currently is excluded from the emissions trading scheme. Its inclusion is a debate that we have been having in this place, in Parliament and across politics in this country, for approximately 20-odd years, and we have not yet found any meaningful conclusion where farmers across the board, or rather the peak bodies that represent them, will say, "Hey, guess what! We actually want to be priced." As it turns out, that would happen to be the role of Government, to make those necessary, bold decisions to say that we are going to treat industries across our economy equitably. Let's talk about that equity. Well, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Climate Change, particularly speaking about export numbers, we should provide a little bit more context here. Agriculture is responsible for 5 percent of the GDP in this country—5 percent of GDP in this country. Those aren't my figures; those figures are from Infometrics. Mike Butterick: 82 percent of export income. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: And, to those speakers presently heckling me, or rather those members in the National Party presently heckling me, 5 percent of our GDP is responsible for more than half of our emissions profile. Mike Butterick: Different gas. CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yet, it is the only sector that's currently not priced for those emissions within our emissions trading scheme. What that means, to that National member presently heckling, is that every other part of the economy that this Government professes to care so much about carries the burden for the sector presently not priced. Interestingly, as was canvassed at scrutiny week with the climate Minister, and, actually, the Minister of Finance as well, this Government is also saying that they are still committed to what is currently baked into the legislation, for a 10 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2030. Yet, we have no idea of the pathway to get there, because they're kicking the can down the road on this pricing issue. More so than that, something which is very deserving of interrogation, is the fact that this bill also takes us back to the future on reporting requirements for processors' emissions. This is a really, really important point, because, actually, it wasn't until 2020 that there was publicity given to processor-level emissions, but it was actually in 2011 when processors were required to report that information to Government bodies. The Government, in this bill, with the swipe of a pen, is taking away those reporting requirements. The only conclusion that we can come to as a result of that is that they just don't want to know, so, therefore, they don't have to deal with the issue. This is really something that I'd like to hear from the Hon Todd McClay about. Why, the Hon Todd McClay, is your Government removing requirements for reporting on emissions, because you have committed in your coalition agreements to making decisions based on data and evidence? Further, the climate Minister was crowing about the fact that there is a new working group when it comes to the idea of no additional warming. Here, I would implore all members to look at the evidence and the data that is already there amply. The Climate Change Commission released three draft pieces of advice at the beginning of this year, two of which referred explicitly—and they haven't done this before—to the agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party, and said that if we were to pursue that no-additional-warming framing that they are putting out there, we would see a far higher burden on every other household and sector of the economy in this country. But, more so than that, to purse such a policy position would obscure the bigger question of whether we should pull our weight and reach our targets internationally. Now, those targets are often spoken about as though they're some kind of abstract numbers on a page, but those targets are actually the scientific reality, the scientific fundamentals, for life on Earth as we know it—actually, for food-growing capacity, which this Government says they care about. It also is the case that those nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement put us on the hook, by 2030, for anywhere between $3.6 billion and $24 billion, and the difference is whether we get our act together and do something domestically. The Greens oppose this legislation. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a great joy to be here today giving benefit to this bill and ensuring that it passes. This bill, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill, this ag emissions trading scheme (ETS) backstop, has been hanging like the sword of Damocles over the farming sector for the last six years. One of the best things, or perhaps the only good thing, that came out of the whole He Waka Eke Noa process was the Government report in October 2022 which laid out the costs of He Waka Eke Noa, but it also laid out the costs of agriculture going into the ETS. Chlöe Swarbrick: How much does your group cost, Andrew? We don't know. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, let me give you some numbers on what this will cost rural New Zealand. No, I'll give you the cost from the figures. Chlöe Swarbrick: No, but give us the costs on your working group. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: No, no, no, calm it. SPEAKER: I'd ask two things: one is I don't need to know the numbers, nor does an interjector in your speech. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: OK. Milk production will be down by 8 percent under the ETS; lamb by 19 percent; beef, 44 percent; wool, 18 percent; venison, 37 percent. We introduced the ag into the ETS. Those are the reductions you will see. Based off the latest situation for primary industries, what does that equal? From the dairy industry, $2.4 billion; from the lamb, $600 million; beef, $2.1 billion; wool, $68 million; venison, $81 million. All up, that's around $5.3 billion gone from regional New Zealand. When you think about the economic multipliers—somewhere between 1.8 to 2.7—that's going to feel like $10 to $15 billion to regional New Zealand. We heard before, "Oh, this will take New Zealand backwards." Implementing this will take New Zealand backwards. These are costs rural New Zealand, regional New Zealand, and New Zealand cannot afford. You know, we've heard about "What about the market access?" Well, no offence, but we didn't get a hell of a lot of market access for dairy or beef in the EU trade deal. So, I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's relevant to this situation. And we're the best in the world. We have the lowest footprint. If they're going to say, "Oh, you can't export your food here, because of your emissions.", well, our emissions are lower than theirs. We've heard about this whole thing around, "Oh, the Climate Change Commission says it's going to cost some people more." Well, the problem there is because we have a very silly nationally determined contribution that was put in place by the previous Government. It didn't take into account split gas. So, internationally, we have a non - split gas approach. Nationally, we have a split-gas approach. We're charging ourselves too much, and that's why they came out with that report. But I think it's important we've just got to go back to the whole point: methane is a short-lived gas. No additional warming makes sense. That is what the basis of the Paris accord is—limit warming to an additional 1.5 to 2 degrees. We are aiming to ensure that New Zealand agriculture doesn't add anything to that. That is a sensible and smart goal to work for, not reducing agriculture by $5 billion and making New Zealand poorer. These are sensible, smart decisions that New Zealand needs to take into account. So I commend this bill to the House, and well done. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill. What I'd like to say first is that we have world-class farmers that are probably the most efficient farmers in the world. They're also facing some unique challenges and those unique challenges at the moment are affecting the agricultural sector. This bill here actually provides some support to them. So New Zealand First supports this bill because it aligns with the party's principle of safeguarding the interest of farmers and ensuring that climate policies are pragmatic and effective. By removing the agricultural obligations from the New Zealand emissions trading scheme, the bill removes unnecessary compliance costs and administrative burdens on farmers. It recognises the impracticality of a one-size-fits-all approach to emission pricing and supports the split-gas approach that is more suitable to the New Zealand agricultural context. New Zealand First believes that this bill is a step towards achieving a balanced and a fair climate policy that supports both environmental sustainability and the agricultural economy. I commend this bill to the House. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātau e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei, ā, e kaha whakahē ana i tēnei o ngā pire e takahi ana i tō mātou nei taiao, ō mātou nei pepeha, ki tōku iwi ake, ki tōku rohe ake o Hauraki/Waikato, ki te awa o ōku tūpuna, arā ko Waikato. Ka tiki ake au i tētehi o ngā tongikura a Kīngi Tāwhiao i a ia e noho ana ki te riu o Waikato: "wai hōpuapua ka mimiti noa, nei ko Waiarona; he manawa whenua e kore e mimiti." [Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party today, and we strongly oppose this bill that abuses our environment, our expressions of identity, to my very own iwi, my very own electorate of Hauraki/Waikato, to the river of my ancestors—i.e., the Waikato. I recall the proverbial saying of King Tāwhiao while he was in residence in the Waikato basin: "ponds of water will diminish, like Waiarona; a deep water spring will never diminish."] Just as the waters of the Waikato spring deep from beneath the earth, Waikato people, like the river we take our name from, we will never go dry. Te Pāti Māori is deeply concerned about the changes to climate change legislation that is not mokopuna focused. What this bill does: this bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to remove pakihi ahuwhenua—agriculture—from the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. This bill does away with He Waka Eke Noa, a partnership effort between Government, iwi, and the primary sector to address climate change in pakihi ahuwhenua. Te Pāti Māori is concerned that the words "iwi" and "Maōri do not appear once in this new legislation. Why Te Pāti Maōri opposes this bill: we oppose this bill in the name of mana motuhake. These changes are being proposed without consultation or input from te iwi Maōri, whereas He Waka Eke Noa was at least particularly developed in consultation with Maōri. We are not included at all in the pastoral sector group that will replace He Waka Eke Noa or Māori whakaaro. We oppose this bill in the name of mana ōrite. Māori have been locked out of the conversation around climate change in agriculture. Māori farmers who want to transition into sustainable farming will not be supported to do so. We oppose this bill in the name of mana mokopuna. This bill was a part of a suite of policies that will allocate climate change and ensure our biggest polluters are let off the hook. The polluters should pay; instead, it will be our mokopuna. Hei whakakapi ake i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori i tēnei rangi: ko te toto o te tangata he kai; ko te oranga o te tangata he whenua: While food provides for the blood in our veins, our health is drawn from the land. Nō reira koinā aku koha ki tēnei o ngā pire; e kaha whakahē ana Te Pāti Māori. [To conclude the statements of the Māori Party today: while food provides for the blood in our veins, our health is drawn from the land. And so these are my contributions to this bill; the Māori Party strongly opposes it.] Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We, of course, are supporting this legislation. It's extremely important so we can lay the foundations and groundwork to actually find an enduring solution to agricultural emissions reduction. Because, sadly, after six years of the last Government, that wasn't achieved; the only thing that was achieved was "Do what we say or else we're going to tax you, and for some of you farmers, we will tax you out of existence." Now, if we were the worst carbon-emitting food producers in the world, that would be an argument with merit. However, we're not. We're some of the best—if not the best—most efficient food producers with the lowest carbon footprint. And all that happens if you put a tax upon agriculture—which is what the last Government legislated for by putting agriculture into the emissions trading scheme (ETS) next year; of course, it's not in at the moment, it comes into effect on 1 January without this change—is that jobs and production goes overseas. What that means is that in the European Union and the United Kingdom and America, where their farmers produce food with a greater carbon footprint and more emissions than New Zealand farmers have, they will produce the food, the climate will be worse off, New Zealand will be poorer if farmers go out of business, and we won't do that. But we are absolutely committed to meeting New Zealand's international obligations when it comes to reducing emissions. The members opposite are right: the agriculture rural sector must play its part. But it must play its part in a way that doesn't put them out of business and merely makes New Zealand feel like it's done the right thing but sends those jobs and production overseas. Speakers from the Opposition have said, "Well, what's the Government's plan?" It's really clear: we campaigned on it, we were elected, and we are putting it through. Number one, we will commit to having an independent review of the science and targets of methane against additional warming this year so we can set the target of what agriculture has to do. You see, the last Government said by 2050 agriculture must reduce its methane emissions by between 24 and 47 percent. That's not a business plan, that's not a target; it's a hope that they can sort it out later on. How about we come up with exactly what agriculture needs to do and then work with them, not tax them, but work with them to achieve that? Number two, we said next year we'll stand up a system for on-farm measurement of methane. So the Labour Government previously said "From 1 January we will tax you, but we haven't even set up the system to know how much methane you are producing to measure so we can work out what the tax would be. So we'll just chuck you into the ETS." Well, we won't do that; we'll deliver on it next year. We've said a pricing system set up by 2030, and a pricing system, a price of tax is used for one of two things: it's used so that you will change behaviour. The problem is, with what the Labour Government did, the behaviour they want to change is there's no farming as a consequence because they're not the tools, and their systems are not there to allow farmers to reduce emissions without reducing production—i.e., closing down farms—then that tax is actually just putting people out of business. What we're also doing is saying we're going to invest much, much more in the research and development. And if you go and talk to our scientists in New Zealand, they are developing the solutions that New Zealand farmers and the world's farmers will use to reduce emissions, reduce methane, produce the same amount or less—i.e., becoming much more efficient. And we announced $400 million and will continue with a lot more focus on that. The final thing I guess I want to say is, yes, we have disbanded He Waka Eke Noa—because it was dead; there was no partnership. The farming sector worked tirelessly over many years to come up with solutions, and the previous Government, in part with Labour, but largely the Green Party that come to this Parliament and lecture everybody and said, "Well, we don't accept that, we've got a better idea."—and, therefore, it's that point that they drove a great big diesel tractor through the middle of the so-called partnership and destroyed it. And so, yes, it's gone, because it doesn't exist anymore. In part, though, in its replacement, we've established a pasture sector group with just those that represent methane—i.e., pasture farmers, to find enduring solutions. Number one, they're committed to reducing emissions; number two, they're committed to doing it without reducing production; and, number three, the Opposition is right—we are going to work with them to achieve that because it is important for New Zealand and also it's important for our economy. At the Fieldays a week or so ago, the Labour Party turned up and said, "We are creating the red band group. And what we're going to do is going to work with farmers, we're going to cooperate with farmers, and we're going to listen to you because we care about you, farmers."—the Labour Party in Opposition. And the first thing they've done, they left their Red Bands that were shining at the door and they walked in here and said they are voting against this because farmers are bad people and they want to tax them. And I can say to members of the Labour Party, you shouldn't have spent your own money on those Red Bands because you wasted that money. If you actually support agriculture, you would be supporting this in first reading so the committee can have a full discussion and debate against it, but, oh no, you want to tax them out of existence. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker—a lot to respond to from that last speech. But I want to acknowledge the role of my parents in my thinking about both the rural economy and the environment. Because I have a mother who grew up in many rural areas throughout both islands—sorry to Stewart Island; both the main islands—and tells me all the time, "Rachel, make sure you're not being mean to farmers." That is one side of my growing up. The other side, I have my father who is a historian, and a rural historian, who gets very excited about different types of grass that have grown over many years in this country and the type of sheep that feed on that grass and where we export to on refrigerated boats. So I am not from a rural upbringing at all, but I do come from this place. And, of course, most people in the House will know that I care very deeply about the environment and the very privileged position to be Labour's environmental spokesperson. Also, I care very deeply about our climate. Because, of course, if we have all of the terrible things that we know can happen with climate change, if we do not reduce our emissions, we know that we get more of the storm events, but we also know there comes sea-level rise, there comes changes to our climate of where different crops and the like can grow as well—so it's extraordinarily important. It's also extraordinarily important for our biodiversity. If we have a climate that changes too drastically, then our native indigenous species will go extinct, and that is not something that I want to happen. So, in that context, why is that relevant to talking about this bill removing the backstop for agricultural emissions? It's very clear. This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act, and that Climate Change Response Act happened before I was a member of this House, and parties agreed that we need to reduce our climate emissions. Not only do we have to adapt but we also have to decrease emissions. That is decarbonisation, and those emissions are across gases. So we say "decarbonisation" but we are not just talking about carbon; we are also talking about methane and nitrous oxide and some fluorides and other gases as well. So we've all agreed that that has to happen. There's a difference in opinion of how half of those emissions, being agricultural emissions, are reduced. We know that the last Government worked very hard—and I'm sitting next to the Hon Damien O'Connor, who worked very hard with the rural sector to try and work out a way through so that we can reduce those agricultural emissions. What happened is that there was a backstop in the Act, so that if that hard work and progress did not result in an agreement for a change, then there was a backstop so that the emissions were in the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Now, what this bill does, of course, is remove that backstop. And we've heard from the members opposite that they have a plan. They have a plan to revise methane science. That is not a plan. They have a plan that maybe they're going to have a pricing system by 2030. And, if that is the case—that there is going to be work towards a pricing system—then what is the problem with including a backstop in this ETS? They could amend the backstop, they could change the date, but that's not here. And this is all in the context of the $3 billion of cuts to climate emission reducing projects. This is in the context of the CERF being gone, the Climate Emergency Reduction Fund. This is in the context of the Spatial Planning Act being repealed and the Natural and Built Environments Act being repealed—all pieces of legislation that try to do much better planning to reduce those emissions. But that's not happening, and agricultural emissions are not being reduced either. This is a shameful thing to be happening. This Government has no plan and I condemn this bill. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As chair of the Environment Committee, I'm looking forward to having a full select committee process around this piece of legislation. As the previous member, the Hon Rachel Brooking, has just said, there are differing views. But on this side of the House, we trust our farmers. We take our commitments to climate change both domestically and internationally very seriously. I'm looking forward to hearing what submitters have to say in the select committee and I commend the bill to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill which takes New Zealand backwards, back to a time when we had no leadership on the Government meeting its obligations internationally to climate change and no pride in the role that New Zealand plays on the international stage of leadership as a small island nation in the Pacific and doing our bit for our Pacific neighbours to stop the effects of climate change, which are affecting us and our closest partners. This is a disappointing and embarrassing piece of legislation, which takes us back to a time when it was not the role of Ministers of Cabinet to lead our agricultural sector to do the best they can possibly do, where it was not the role of Ministers of Cabinet to get out and have those conversations with our great farmers to do better and to plan for the future and to act in a way where their responsibility and the responsibility that they take to care for the environment, which we are so proud of, is well rewarded. No, they've gone for the lowest common denominator here. They've gone for a solution, in this bill, which represents stepping back into the worst players in the market getting rewarded and those who have done their best, those who we are most proud of in our agricultural sector, are being punished. I say it takes leadership, because I have watched the Hon Damien O'Connor do exactly that—get out and have those hard conversations with the sector and earn their respect for that, and have a partnership that actually was getting us somewhere where great agricultural sector players were doing really well out of working closely with Government and making those arrangements happen, because they know that in 10 years from now and 20 years from now and 30 years from now, our agricultural sector depends on us honouring those commitments that New Zealand has internationally to our climate change goals and being the greenest, best performing sector that we can possibly be. I've seen Ministers on this side of the House making hard decisions about the way that the Government prioritises our impact on climate change. I've seen things like the Climate Emergency Reduction Fund that the Hon Rachel Brooking talked about being used to make targeted investments in those sectors to help them improve their performance in emissions and make sure that we are planning for the future, because it does have to be Government alongside industry in this. We all want Government to be partnering with those people in the industry making decisions about our total emissions profile, and we know we can't do that as Government alone. That's the kind of leadership I'm talking about, and that's not what we are seeing here in this bill. So what is this bill? Well, it's a clear indication to anyone watching today that the Government has no plan to address the impacts of agricultural emissions on climate. On one hand, they want us to believe that they will use the emissions trading scheme, which is a great scheme, to improve our emissions, but, on the other hand, they won't do anything to help the agricultural sector become a part of that. So we have this tool now which is a dead duck in the water, because, really, it doesn't apply to some sectors and it doesn't apply to the sectors it needs to most. We have a tool here which was world-leading. The emissions trading scheme is something we can all be proud of and is something which has been borrowed by a number of other jurisdictions and used to great effect overseas. But there's always been this outstanding question of how agricultural emissions are going to be included in that or included in another market mechanism similar to that. We have now taken this away in this bill. There is no further forward momentum for those leaders in the sector to be able to draw on and bring people with them. Instead, we go back to a system where those people who do not see it as their obligation to care for the environment and do not see it as their obligation to do their part for the rest of the sector are the winners here. And that is bad decision making by this Government. The Government are leaving farmers in the dark when they desperately need something clear about the road ahead. We need a proper policy which outlines where we are going with this and that allows us a cross-partisan way of having this conversation. They are doing everything they can to delay taking action on climate change with this kind of move, and it's the wrong side of the debate to be on, because when we look back at this, we will see this legislation for what it is, which is hurting New Zealand's reputation on the world stage, which is hurting New Zealand's agricultural sector, which is hurting our exports, and which is hurting those farmers who are doing a great job now. I'm disappointed about this bill, I'm sad to see it progressing in the House, and I do not commend it. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is great news to New Zealand farmers, to the 360,000 New Zealanders that are employed in the sector, to the 70,000 businesses that are associated with it. New Zealand farmers are already the most carbon-efficient producers per unit of product in the world. Why would you penalise them by putting them in the emissions trading scheme when there's no viable mitigations? That's what the other side of the House would have had happen—reduce production here, resulting in that same production being driven overseas. Net result: increased global emissions and a poorer New Zealand. Our commitment is to keep our farmers farming, keep them doing what they do best, which is growing food, providing jobs, earning over 80 percent of our export income. That's how we pay our bills. Our commitment is to also work with the sector, to provide the tools that are viable, to allow them to reduce their emissions while allowing them to keep the lights on. We back our farmers—we always have and we always will. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 52 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 55. SPEAKER: The question is, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee. Instruction to Primary Production Committee Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024. Motion agreed to. FORESTS (LOG TRADERS AND FORESTRY ADVISERS REPEAL) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): I present a legislative statement on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website. Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It's my privilege to bring this bill to the House. This bill supports the Government's goal of getting New Zealand back on track through removing unwanted regulatory burden and making it easier for people to just get on with running their businesses. The Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill will ensure that the sector is not bogged down with unnecessary red tape. Forestry, including wood processing, is the country's fourth largest exporter. Over the past few years, forestry has been hit by a perfect storm of falling sales to China, extreme weather, a collapse in carbon prices, and a weak economy and further regulatory burden. Passing these amendments into law as fast as possible has been an early policy priority for the forestry portfolio. A mandatory registration system for log traders and forestry advisers adds unnecessary compliance costs on to forest operators, has no purpose, and delivers no meaningful improvement in outcomes. Progressing this bill is one part of a wider forestry work programme that will restore confidence and certainty to forestry, support further investment, and contribute towards rebuilding the economy and getting it working for all New Zealanders. The bill that originally brought in the registration system in 2020 has not achieved its intended outcome. These changes were brought in at a time when there was a perceived need to ensure greater professionalism and give more transparency to support equitable trading of logs, however, requiring a mandatory registration system is no longer needed and has only added cost to the sector. The New Zealand Institute of Forestry operates a voluntary system of registration for individuals providing forestry services. This voluntary system enables a professional industry standard without the need for regulation, and I consider this to be a good pathway for forestry advisers to be registered. The bill acknowledges the extensive work of the industry to create best practice guides and to update practices where knowledge evolves. There are some key parts to the bill that I want to draw the House's attention to: firstly, the removal of the mandatory registration system or reporting requirements that have been put on our forestry sector. This removal of the system and associated fees and levies means the sector will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money, driving growth into forestry and wood processing. I'm also proposing, through the bill, to refund all fees and levies that were paid by log traders and forestry advisers to the Ministry for Primary Industries to become registered. Registered log traders and forestry advisers gain nothing from the system, and I want to signal that this Government values the work they do and that we trust them to continue driving investment in growth in the forestry and wood processing sector. As for the legal harvest assurance scheme, this has full Government support. This system will provide market assurance and signals to the world that New Zealand supports setting international standards for timber legality. This legislation aligns with our ambitions of doubling export value in the forestry sector over the next decade. The legal harvest legislation was passed just a year ago but will only commence once it has been enabled through secondary legislation, given that it relies on the definition of a log trader located in the part of the Act proposed to be repealed. I have made a technical change in the bill before us to ensure that the requirement to register for legal harvest is retained. It's essential that the development of the legal harvest assurance scheme is fit for purpose and does not add unnecessary compliance costs to forestry businesses. To ensure this, and that the system meets market access requirement, full engagement with the sector and trading partners is needed. I'm therefore proposing in the bill that the commencement date for the legal harvest assurance system be amended to August 2027. Whilst the system is being implemented, I'll ensure that the export of wood products to markets is supported through existing interim solutions, and I anticipate that these solutions will remain acceptable to the markets they have been negotiated with throughout this time. Amending this commencement date also does not prevent the system from being brought into effect sooner by Order in Council. This is only a small bill in the context of the House, and I've touched on the key components. However, for the forestry sector, this bill will be important for bringing back autonomy to those providing essential services for the forestry sector, as well as having important cost savings for forest businesses. As I've said, this is only the beginning of a wider forestry work programme that will boost sector confidence and continue to grow investment in the forestry and wood processing sector. Can I thank my colleagues in the coalition Government from New Zealand First and ACT for their support, and also the Labour Party for working with us to ensure that we're able to bring this into place as quickly as possible, so that more people don't need to register on 1 July this year. I commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I also endorse the words of the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, when we think about the forestry sector and the impact it's taken and absorbed over a number of years, certainly in my time in Parliament, and my mind right now casts to the East Coast and the Hawke's Bay, and the East Coast, knowing full well of the long forestry history, the long forestry growth that happens on the East Coast and the impact that this devastating weather event will have on them. I do want to support the words of the Minister and say that, in order for the forestry sector to continue to thrive into the future, this particular bill is important. It is important that, as we look towards the support of the sector moving forward, we make sure that the right levers are in place to ensure the forestry sector will continue to grow. It is a big part of our economy. It is a big part of making sure, in small places and rural places around the country, places like where I'm from in Te Tai Tokerau, where forestry does play a large part, that, one, we can continue to support the endeavours of those who are in forestry, and, two, we can also look towards incentivising those who want to get into forestry, by removing some of the burdens and some of the bureaucracy that might come with the forestry sector and is inhibiting those who wish to get into forestry. We also must make sure that there are a number of protections in place, and I want to acknowledge the Minister for reaching out over the past one or two months—four to eight weeks—to discuss this particular matter. It would be remiss of me if we didn't go and contact the local forestry councils, those who are key stakeholders in the sector, to make sure that this is exactly how we can support them to make sure that the forestry sector thrives. It's important to remember that this particular bill was put in place, initially led by the Hon Shane Jones, when the Labour coalition Government came to power in 2017. He did a lot of work with the sector to make sure that, as more forests were coming online to be harvested and those logs ultimately exported, we could make sure there were safeguards in place to ensure that cowboys didn't take advantage of those who didn't have the skill level or didn't have the experience to be able to trade their logs offshore. There was a number of so-called cowboys in the industry at the time, which is why the Hon Shane Jones brought this particular bill to the House. The Minister after the Hon Shane Jones, the Hon Stuart Nash, ushered this bill through, and, ultimately, it landed with me as the last forestry Minister in the Labour Government of the last term. During that entire time, we continued to work with the sector to ask whether or not the changes that were implemented under the Hon Shane Jones met what they were intended for, and despite the good intentions—and why I want to be very clear here, though—that onus was put back on the sector to come to us about what might work for them. That was the predecessor to this bill. That's what we're repealing here today, because, after a number of years with that particular regime in place, as the Minister has already described, it didn't meet its intention. So, with the support from the Minister and the sector, we want to, on this side of the House, as part of the Labour Party, make sure that we can continue to support the forestry sector into the future. However, I will be very clear and put on the record here today that we still look towards continuing a strong forestry sector, one that will continue to respect the growers, respect the harvesters, respect the workers, and respect those that process wood locally. What we can't keep having is thousands and thousands of logs just sitting at the ports here in Wellington, Tauranga, and Auckland. What we had endeavoured to do was to make sure we could process locally, and that was part of the solution to support those who were harvesting their forests who didn't want to send their logs offshore—that we could process those locally, providing local economies local jobs, making sure that we could stop having logs traveling up and down the country on the roads and they could be processed locally and even manufactured and sold locally. So we want to make sure that we put on the record that Labour still believes in that: making sure that we can process our logs locally and that we're not exporting all of the logs that are grown here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Why? Because we believe it supports our economies, we believe it supports rural towns up and down this country, and we want to make sure that forestry continues to thrive into the future. We'll make sure we put that on the record through the length of this debate. We support this bill. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Well, I'm hearing a serious flip-flop—a flip-flop of the coalition Government and of my Labour colleagues—because this repeal right here undermines the good work of my Matua Shane Jones and the work of the officials of Te Uru Rākau. Almost four years since this legislation was put in place, we now have a coalition Government that undermines the good work of Matua Shane, who knew that there were cowboys, who knew that we had vulnerable land owners—those forest owners who were being taken advantage of by advisers who didn't adhere to a registration. That's why the register was set up. Moumou ngā mahi o Matua Shane. Moumou ngā mahi o Matua Shane, and while Minister McClay laughs, it's really disappointing, because it would be good to know what evaluation took place in the repeal of this legislation. We attended the meeting as forest owners, we attended the meeting as stakeholders and those in industry, and as I sat in the consultation in Kerikeri, it was a good, robust discussion between the advisers, us as forest owners, and the administrators, coming together to agree that, "Actually, yes, we do need a register. We do need regulation.". It was only four years ago that Matua Shane stood in this House to shepherd in this legislation that provided informed and transparent means for us, as the land owners and the foresters, to be able to engage with professionals who were impartial in order to give us good advice, because at that time, as my whanaunga colleague Peeni Henare has shared, there were cowboys in the sector, and we were vulnerable. So in July 2020, in the third reading, Matua Shane Jones stood in the House and he said that "Not all log-mongers historically have been rascals, but far too many have enjoyed, to the detriment of the good name of our industry," a laissez-faire approach to the way with which they had engaged with us. So this Government is anti-transparency and anti-regulation, because our Matua Shane—the Minister—brought this legislation through the Whare in order to support us so that we could access good, solid advice at the time. Now, the regulation is straightforward. It's only four years in place. I can't see an evaluation, apart from some opinions where there have been no further hui. I can't see any hui with Māori land owners on this. Has the Minister engaged with te iwi Māori? Regulation was required for the industry to ensure that we were being given the quality advice that we needed, and Matua Shane shared in 2020 that real estate agents have a register, so why can't the forestry advisers have a register? That's what Matua Shane shared in this Whare. Give it a chance—give it a chance. So now that we've got this flip-flop going back on the work of Matua Shane, we're going to lose the opportunity in the sector and in the industry to continue that mahi tahi to ensure that we are getting the quality advice that we needed, because, to be fair, we have had some whānau who have been used to the detriment through the poor advice that they garnered before these regulations came into place. That was the benefit. As a land owner, when you're seeking to harvest or you're wanting to plan your forest, you can check that the adviser coming to your table is registered. Now, at the time when this was a voluntary scheme, only 10 to 12 percent of forestry advisers were registered—10 to 12 percent—because when it was voluntary, nobody cared. They didn't adhere to standards, and, in fact, there was so much work done in that space to bring the sector on board, the submission process was not rushed. We had meetings, we had webinar, we had a Māori land owners' wananga, and a full committee sat and heard submissions. This is going to be a rushed process. As I can see, we have the coalition Government and my Labour colleagues going to usher this through quickly, and yet we won't even get a select committee process so that we can hear from the sector and we can hear from the forest owners. It would be good to hear from the voice of our people, but we're getting this pushed through under urgency. I think that's part of the moumou for Matua Shane, and the moumou of coming from Tai Tokerau and only spending last night with forest owners who shared, "Well, why are they doing this?", and I said, "I don't know." DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. Please just finish the sentence, as then we can move on. HŪHANA LYNDON: Kia ora. The Green Party oppose this legislation and will pursue a full process. Kia ora. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party, and we are supporting the first reading of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I was listening to the previous contributor, Hūhana Lyndon, and I can see that the member is saying that something was done at one point and it was considered that that was the right thing to do so now we cannot change our position. That is not right. We have to assess things on an ongoing basis. At any point, if you realise that something is not working, we must change that, and that is what this bill about. Yes, the original bill, which this bill is repealing, was passed in 2020, and some of the regulations commenced in August 2022, but we know that over-burdening businesses with regulations doesn't work, and the forestry sector is no different from other businesses. As we know, the forestry sector brings huge revenue for us. It's the fourth-largest export sector for us, and this Government wants to increase our export revenue—we actually want to double it by 2030. So we can double that only by supporting businesses. We want to see that businesses are able to do the things that they are supposed to do rather than just ticking some boxes and complying with unnecessary requirements. That is what this bill does. It gets rid of some of the compliances that we have enforced on the forestry sector and also forestry advisers. We want them to be able to do the work and produce the revenue for New Zealand and to support the lifestyle that we enjoy here. What this bill does is it gets rid of the requirement of the register. That is, under the previous legislation, a registration system was set up where registered people were required to provide information, including their personal information. So this bill will actually revoke all that requirement once it has gone through Parliament. That information that has been collected will be archived and will be secured from further use, which is important to note. Also, the levies and fees that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has been collecting, that will be refunded. Once the bill commences, if anything is due at that date, that will be waived by MPI. So these are some of the changes that are really important to support the forestry sector. On this side, we really want to get rid of all the red tape and unnecessary burden on businesses. We even have the new Minister for Regulation, the Hon David Seymour. So the ACT Party is really keen to get rid of unnecessary regulations and unnecessary burdens that the previous Government has imposed on businesses. We want to see that businesses are able to thrive, businesses are able to support the economy, and that is what the ACT Party wants to do. That's why the ACT Party supports this bill and commends this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak this afternoon, and, particularly, it is a pleasure to hear from Hūhana Lyndon, my whanaunga from across the House, from Ngātiwai, for those words that were unexpected to hear of support of matua Shane—unexpected but delightfully received. It would just be a wonderful thing if you could also share that support on the fast-track bill. In terms of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, I commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's important to remember, for members, to stand and call, otherwise we might miss something. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Ngā mihi e te Pīka, he nui ngā pire i te rangi nei. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei, ā, e kaha whakahē ana i tēnei o ngā pire kua tae mai i rō Pāremata i te rangi nei. [Thank you, Madam Speaker, there are many bills today. I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party today, and we strongly oppose this bill that has arrived in the House today.] The Forestry (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill provides for the disestablishment of the registration system and all associated requirements for log traders and forestry advisers and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to refund any fees or levies paid to MPI under the scheme and waive any fees or levies that are due to not be paid on time. Alignment with Te Pāti Māori tikanga: we oppose this bill to our mana motuhake. According to the departmental disclosure statement, Māori were not consulted and there is no information available on the impacts of this repeal on Māori. When it comes to our whenua, Māori should always be partners in the decision-making process. We oppose this bill due to our mana ōrite. The registration system was put in place to allow equity of access to timber for both domestic processors and exporters. Its repeal will be inequitable for timber processors in Aotearoa. We oppose this bill for mana mokopuna. This bill will remove the requirement for forestry advisers, log traders, and exporters to work to nationally agreed practice standards. Less standards means less protections for our whenua and our tangata whenua. The regulations that are being removed will be detrimental to oranga tāngata and oranga whenua. Māori should at least be consulted on all matters relating to our whenua. Koinā taku takoha ki tēnei o ngā pire. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. [This is my contribution to this bill. I acknowledge all of us in the House.] TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): This is a great bill, isn't it? I love this, and I do want to acknowledge the support across the House from my colleague on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as we should, because you know, forestry is our fourth largest exporter in New Zealand. We have to be supporting them to power them up to get the best competitive advantage that we can. This bill is about getting rid of red tape for our forestry sector. Whatever the intentions may have been a few years ago when it first came in, ultimately, the end result was more red tape for forestry. We are a Government, as this Parliament should be, that listens, that learns, and that can improve and ultimately will get rid of the red tape to get New Zealanders ahead. It's about restoring autonomy to those that provide essential services to our forestry. It is signalling, I think, the wider intent of this Government to support our forestry sector, to grow investment in forestry, in fact, to grow our economy, and, for good measure, to get New Zealand back on track. I commend it to the House. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): A couple of questions I have: firstly, where's Matua Shane? Where's Shane? DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not appropriate to refer— Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, no, sorry—he's in the House, but I hope he's on the speaking list, because, actually, I was an enthusiastic supporter of this piece of legislation when it was brought in. A ute and a laptop was literally all you needed to trade logs. We had small forests owners, we had small investors, and we had small processors who were getting ripped off by people who would come and make an offer, people didn't have good advice, and Matua Shane rightfully knew that we had to bring in a registration system so that people who were advising people new to the sector had some kind of credibility. In fact, for the fourth-largest export sector in our country, it is absolutely essential that we have credible systems in place. So we are going to support this. But the question is, can we get guarantees from the Government that they will ensure that logs that are harvested come from areas free of disease? Because if that disease is identified offshore by any of our markets—say, India, for example—the risks are that those logs and our log trade will be shut down overnight. The second thing is that we are now seeing increasing obligations around deforestation. There are countries around the world that simply cut down their forests, do not replant, and there's growing concern about biodiversity, about carbon sequestration, all the rest of it. So there's an obligation to ensure that the sustainably managed and harvested forests that produce the vast majority of radiata in our country, just what we're talking about here, are actually replanted and run in a sustainable manner. If we can't prove that and we don't know that the logs that are going on the ship or they're going to a processing system have come from a sustainably harvested forest, then we too could be shut out of international markets. Then there's the one of ensuring confidence for those who invest in or own small forests that they can be protected against road traders, someone with a ute and a laptop, because that's what we'll be going back to now. One of the primary drivers for the Hon Shane Jones—I guess, the obligation to place on these traders some credibility, some systems that offered some certification—was to ensure that the processing sector in our country, if they were signed up to a contract for supply, indeed had that supply delivered. These are companies—small, some of them are larger—that are employing New Zealanders up and down our country to produce the high-quality timber that we all rely on for our housing market. The Government says it wants to build more houses; it will need more timber. When the log price goes up—and, at the moment, it's low; the export log prices. So there's lots of timber available for local processing. When the log price goes back up, which we hope it does, then the ability for those sawmills to compete for logs gets constrained and the traders will simply shift the logs to the highest place. If there's no comeback on them, if there's no registration, no certification, no proof of integrity or credibility, then the risk is that those rogue traders, as they did in the past, will just shift the logs to the highest market and leave our local sawmills at risk. So the question to the Government in passing this—and the costs are actually relative to this being the fourth biggest export sector in our country. The cost for individual traders was not that great. These are people dealing with millions of dollars, coming and going in terms of logs and supply. So the money that the Government has decided it will hand back—like it is to landlords, it is now handing it back to some log traders—probably won't be that great, but it will leave a gap in terms of Ministry for Primary Industries' ability to provide oversight in this crucial area. This is a really important area out of our economy. It's a growing one. People are looking to invest in the forestry sector. The Government needs to give them an assurance, those small forest owners, that they will be protected, given that the passage of this legislation will remove one of the obligations around registration that provided that protection. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, and I commend it to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. This is a bill which Labour supports, but it's moving through the House's urgency now through all stages so it's really important for parliamentarians around this House to be able to appreciate the decisions that are being made here and also for the Minister to take full responsibility for those concerns, which my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor has raised. Because this is an incredibly important sector for New Zealand. We want our foresters to do well. I came to this House from a role in a large corporate group which owns the Woodhill Forest, and that forest was an important strategic asset not only for that group and its intergenerational commitments to those people who are shareholders in it, but also to the wider Auckland region. The economic impact of that forest, the way that it is used—it also has a big tourism element in the forest—is all really important as part of the economic engine room of that region. So we want these businesses to absolutely thrive and it's important that they aren't burdened with unnecessary regulations. However, when we have a piece of legislation like this going through all stages, we need to know from the Minister that he's got the right kind of safeguards, the right kind of checks in place to make sure that those businesses that will be now operating without the oversight of something like the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are fully equipped to take into account those considerations that the Hon Damien O'Connor has raised. I think it's going to be really useful for us in the committee stage to hear from the Minister on his intentions around the conduct of those businesses and to make sure, particularly around those questions of rogue trading, that we're not going to see that in our market. Although I think it is really important to acknowledge here that the sector has changed since that legislation was brought in, and so we have some comfort there around the kind of operators that we're seeing in New Zealand forests. I also want to make sure that the House knows of Labour's intention here to always be scrutinising the forestry industry in relation to those interests of Māori forest owners. We know that forestry is a big part of the $40 billion Māori economy. Māori are very over-invested in forestry and so anything that would damage the performance of that sector and the ability of that sector to return gains to the shareholders who are actually iwi members—many of whom have benefited from settlements which involved Crown forest which has been returned to their iwi—that is of utmost importance to the Labour Party and is something we will watch closely. We know that the Māori forestry sector is also poised to do incredibly well in the next two decades, and so we want to make sure that this House is enabling legislation which gives a real framework for that. We want to see a forestry sector that changes; that delivers good jobs, highly skilled jobs, in our regions and in places like North Auckland for the Woodhill Forest. We need to make sure that— Hon Member: Safe jobs. ARENA WILLIAMS: —exactly: safe jobs that have the right kind of checks and safeguards around them and the right kind of oversight from something like MPI and from a health and safety perspective where everyone in the sector is empowered to sort of unlock the economic potential of that asset. Māori as investors in that—whether it's through the post-settlement governance entities that have received Crown forestry assets through the settlements, or whether it's through their own investments in rural forests like, say, the Mangatu Blocks that have had, since the 1930s, a policy of buying back forestry land out of private hands to restore their tino rangatiratanga over the realm of kaitiakitanga. In both of those scenarios, we want to make sure that they are not only able to realise the economic gains out of their forestry but also to realise the gains for future generations of owning the whenua, of having a relationship with it, and tying up into commercial agreements which are not advantageous to those iwi is something we would be concerned about. Because iwi members need to be able to not only realise the commercial gains that forestry allows for but also the access to their land, the access to their hunting rights, access to their wāhi tapu [sacred sites] which are often in these forestry areas. So working with good foresters who also know those obligations and who are interested in their obligations in New Zealand—when, of course, Madam Speaker, you will know that many foresters are overseas-based, many of them are US operating here in the New Zealand market. We need to make sure that our provisions in here that we decide on are the kind of empowering legislation that Māori need to realise the benefits of their forestry asset. With that, and with no notes, I commend this bill to the House. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): With no notes, I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 18 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 102, Noes 21. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately. Second Reading Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): I move, That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to again acknowledge the forestry sector and the amount of change they've experienced over the past six years. There have been, you know, different messages that have come from Government in the form of the emissions trading scheme reviews, and the piling on of additional rules and regulations have affected them. It's made the investment environment very uncertain for foresters. Forestry has a very long investment time frame. From planting to harvest, it can take over 30 years for individuals and businesses to capitalise on their investment. I want to send a clear signal that it is worth investing in forestry, and the Government supports afforestation to boost exports, grow, and to help meet our emissions reduction and adaptation objectives. The problem we've had in New Zealand in recent years is that when we have a problem, even a perceived problem, we've often attempted to fix it through more rules or regulations. This is probably a case that is no different than that. Through the repeal of the bill, and the passing of other bills since the Government took office, we're sending a very clear signal to the wider Government agencies and the general public that, actually, what we want is fewer rules but better ones, and to work with the private sector, where they're able to achieve what Government tries to sometimes—they are often better placed to do so. The introduction of a regulation system was not the only part of these regulations. On top of the regulation system, additional regulations came into force on 1 July 2024, which add yet more obligations on registered forestry advisors to record their activities and submit annual reports of those activities to the Government. Additionally, on the same date, a new levy year will commence and another annual levy will be required to be paid by the registrants. I don't see that any value has been created as a result of the log traders or forest advisers, through the system, and, therefore, these levies are not justified, nor is there a fee that they should be paid in registration. Given the new regulations would add further compliance costs on to the sector in July, we're seeking to repeal this legislation as quickly as possible so that the sector avoids this duplication, additional cost, and, of course, more compliance. We are repealing this legislation as effectively and efficiently as possible to avoid these initial costs on the sector but also on the Crown. This legislation has been supported by a very large majority in the House and by all of the coalition partners, including the Hon Shane Jones, who I've worked very, very closely with to ensure that we get the balance right, to be in the protection but not over-regulated and burdening. I just wanted to point out, in the previous debate, the member from the Green Party asked what engagement we've had from Māori, as I think the member of the Māori Party did. I'd just like to read, and can perhaps table if necessary, a letter and email that we received from Ngā Pou a Tāne, the National Māori Forestry Association, that said, "Tēnā koe, Minita McClay. A short note from Ngā Pou a Tāne in thanks for making the practical decision to repeal this unnecessary legislation. We're pleased our voice and that of the industry has prevailed. Long may this continue." That was from the chair of that organisation. So there has been ongoing engagement and discussion, and this is something that is widely supported by the forestry sector. I commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, just can I clarify, the Minister was saying that you would table that document if requested. Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I said what I've said: if necessary. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so if requested—you're not asking to table it. Hon TODD McCLAY: No. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. Hūhana Lyndon: Point of order. Could I seek for the letter to be tabled. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, you can make a point of order and you can request that the Minister tables that. Hūhana Lyndon: I did. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. You need to seek leave for—just a moment, I'll just get the words right. I've just clarified that—I can't seek leave for someone else to do something; the Minister will have to do that voluntarily. So thank you. Hūhana Lyndon: Thank you. Hon TODD McCLAY: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I will just tidy it up so there's not information that shouldn't be in the public domain, in as far as contact details, and then I'll table it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before we all join hands and pat each other on the back about support breaking out across the House, I sat here and listened to a number of the speeches, and I thought it interesting when, over the last six years, the ACT Party took a very clear stance—pro farmer—to say no more farmland will be put into forestry. And I remember my matua Shane Jones saying, "More forestry is good." And so I wonder if later on in the debate, as we progress this bill through the House, we might get a far more honest view—or a far more open view, I apologise, Madam Chair—and a far more transparent view on whether or not— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good choice of words. Hon PEENI HENARE: —the relations between the coalition partners certainly indicate the words, or support the words, that were uttered by the Minister. We will be supporting this bill. There are a number of things in the bill that the Minister spoke to that, of course, we'll continue to look for safeguards on, and he mentioned the date August 2027. And I take his point that it is a long period of time when we look to the forestry sector for those that do the planning, those that do the planting, the growing, and, of course, the harvesting. Of course, we're putting a lot of trust into the sector to ensure that those safeguards will continue to be there for those that are small operators in the system, but also those who might wish to come into the system. And I think that's an important thing to support the sector to make sure that they've got that system right. What we did find—and I speak as a former forestry Minister here—was that there was a lot of frustration with the burden that was placed on those particular forest owners, forest growers, and wood harvesters with respect to some of the legislation that was put in place to make sure that we have those safeguards. But I want to be very clear that those safeguards, with respect to international trade, looked to do a number of things. One of them was to protect indigenous species so that for those who might be selling indigenous species offshore illegally, we can keep a track of these things. We can make sure that through clear registration, knowing who's who in the field, knowing who is brokering these deals as we export logs from New Zealand offshore, that they weren't breaking the rules with respect to indigenous species, which are a very lucrative market right across the world in indigenous species. In fact, I know of a number of traders from the Far North who have entered into swamp kauri or harvesting swamp kauri and have made a heck of a lot of money as they've exported that particular timber offshore. What we don't want to see, though, is people going out and trying to raid paddocks or raid areas or raid land that they might think have those indigenous species like swamp kauri and look towards profiting offshore. That's why it was important that we have checks and balances. We're not simply saying, "Yes, we tried something, and it didn't work in its entirety."; we're saying, "Yes, this is why we did it." And it was to do a number of things, like I've already mentioned, about protecting indigenous species. One of the other things, too, that what we tried to do with the legislation that this bill is repealing was to make sure that—we've heard the term "cowboys" in the sector here—there was a code of ethics in the way that they were operating in the field. Now, not only did we want to see that with respect to the trade and trade brokers that might be involved in the forestry sector; we want to continue to see a strong code of ethics across the entire forestry sector. The Labour Party most certainly have always been very staunch about workers' rights, certainly staunch about the way that we can continue to protect workers in the field of forestry. We know that in forestry workers, the death rate is just far too high. In fact, I think it's the highest in working professions in this country. So we were trying to do far more than just specifically what this bill is repealing. It was about trying to set a good tone across the entire sector so that we have it from growth to harvest to export. And every single part of that machinery needs to be cognisant that these rules were in place for a reason. But I take the Minister and his word in our discussions that we had, and in the discussions that I too had with the wood councils, a number of them across the country who do have Māori representation on those wood councils. Recently, we were in Gisborne at the Te Tairāwhiti Wood Council Awards, where a number of traders, a number of growers and harvesters, had the opportunity to speak to my colleagues, and the following day, I caught up with them where they expressed an opportunity to do things better. And what we're doing here is repealing a bill, repealing a piece of legislation, with the hope that they will get it right moving forward. The Minister has offered some safeguards. We will continue to look towards supporting and making sure that those safeguards are adhered to. We acknowledge the time that it takes in order to make sure that these filter out across the sector. So, from my perspective, I think the Minister has the timing about right with respect to August 2027, which is the amendment that he's made to his bill. And it's the support of that sector that I think is going to make it even stronger for the future. Why I say that is because, as my colleague had already mentioned, at the moment, log prices are stable and low. As they rise, the market changes. And we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity here to still be able to trade in what will be and has proven in the past to be a very lucrative export for our country. And, in order to do that, what we don't want to see is simply large owners taking over a small player in the field—in particular in places on Māori land, and it's already been made clear by members across the House that Māori land under the stewardship of the stewardship of the former forestry Minister, the Hon Shane Jones, who went around to look towards land that was—I can't remember the word exactly, but it was land that couldn't be used for much more. And they were used to plant and to grow trees in order to create carbon sinks as well as make sure that there was opportunity for Māori land owners, trust-land owners to be involved in forestry exports into the future. And they look for those safeguards, which is why we put in place the legislation that we did. The bill now is going to repeal that. The Minister has made clear some of the safeguards—and we've already expressed that, through the committee of the whole House, that will continue to seek those assurances to make sure that, as we go through the debate on the bill, we can come to a consensus certainly for the support that we offer as the Labour Party to this particular bill and make sure that it can be the best base for the forestry sector to grow. In conclusion, I want to just continue to reiterate, though, that the Labour Party has always stood for manufacturing and processing wood locally. Well, I want to make that point clear. We want to, yes, support exporters—of course. We want to make sure that the regime is in place to support exporters, but, as my colleague had already mentioned, when we look to build in this country, when we want to build ourselves out of a housing crisis, when we want to build more schools, it just makes more sense to have the timber locally. I always found it odd, and most members in the House will come across members in the community who will say, "I find it odd we export our logs and then we purchase back processed timber." I'm not the only one who says that in the House. I'm sure members have experienced their constituents or the sector saying the same thing. So I want to make it very clear: we, in our time as Government, invested in that particular sector, and those are more of the opportunities that will look towards this Government in hoping that they're true to their word in order to support the forestry sector moving forward. So, on this side of the House, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill, but we will continue to look towards the safeguards that the Minister outlined in the first reading of this bill. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Now, I'm reflecting on the purpose of this legislation that is to be repealed. It was to ensure that logs grown in New Zealand and bought and sold were handled in a way that was transparent and professional. So since 6 August 2023, it's been an offence to operate as a log trader or provide forestry advice without being registered. Now, if I can share some personal experience around the benefit as a small forest owner and administer on behalf of our shareholders, this scheme has been very beneficial for us, because we had the opportunity to engage with registered professionals to advise us on how to manage our forests, and then who to engage to finally execute the thinning that we need on our whenua. Now, we may not be big players, we may not be members of Ngā Pou a Tāne, but our voice matters and we are worried. Because, certainly, we have seen others who have spent far too much in gaining advice and then seeking services which actually didn't work out for them anyhow. In Tai Tokerau last night and yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit with forest owners and other hui and talk to them about, "Hey, have you engaged with any forest advisers lately? Or where are you at with your thinning programme?" They said, "Yep, it's good because we know tūturu that the person that we're engaging has the right credentials and experience to engage to support our trust." And we aren't big players—no, no—but we are important in terms of the building blocks of the economy of New Zealand. And, as Māori landowners, our voice does matter. So, in terms of the original intention of this legislation, it was to strengthen integrity; it was to provide continuous, predictable, and long-term supply of timber; and then to provide, of course, as I've spoken to, transparency and professionalism. But also it helps us to have confidence with those that we engage. And I was thinking about the consultation meeting that I did engage with when the Minister was making the rounds in establishing this legislation, and it was robust, because we had whenua Māori, we had members of our wood council, we had advisers, and we had some whanaunga who were in the sector. And some of our whanaunga in the sector raised concerns around registration and compliance and "This is just another added burden". But, actually, in engaging with them recently, the professional learning and development that the advisers are required to engage with to keep up their registration has meant that we had confidence in the advisers, whether it be for log trading or whether it be for forestry advice in general meant that we knew tūturu that these people had the credentials and experience that we needed. Now, in the process of consultation that Minister Jones at the time undertook with Te Uru Rākau, the wānanga, the webinars, the online hui, and also the face-to-face like I participated in saw submissions come back because we had a full process. This is really fast what's happening here. But in that process we had the select committee, and the submitters came back and supported the need for continuous professional development for our advisers. In fact, 87 percent said that the records from this continuous professional development should be held centrally. And 93 percent thought that they needed to be lodged and held so that we could check the credentials of our advisers. So I mihi to the submitters who supported the need for somewhere central—a bank—so we could check the credentials of these people, because there's nothing worse than engaging a cowboy—nothing worse than engaging a cowboy—that turns up with their laptop on their truck, and then next minute it's costing you more and more in the pocket. And when it comes to your annual general meeting (AGM), when you need to stand before your people, you're held to account. I have seen many AGMs where we have been burnt as trustees who are inexperienced in the market, and we're just doing our best to make a good decision for the use of our whenua, but we had confidence because of this legislation. So, yes, I do support my matua—Matua Shane—for this. And I do thank him for persevering in this space. Now, if we recall the need for this legislation, and thinking about the speeches we had that took place in the House by Eugenie Sage, she stood up and she shared that there's a social licence that the industry really needs to gain back that trust within our communities. And we don't have to think too far back to our whānau in Te Tai Rāwhiti, and then also for myself in the back blocks Ngāti Hine when our logs fall into the waterways or clog up our roads when they fall over and we have to figure out a plan because, actually, our planting plan wasn't great. So, critical to this is good advice. Now, I appreciate that the Minister's going to share the letter he's received from Ngā Pou a Tāne—great; kia ora. As a stakeholder, that's great to see that you engaged with someone, because in the official records there was "No consultation has been undertaken on the policies within this bill." So the more we learn around the consultation undertaken by the Minister and his officials for this legislation, the more we will learn in terms of what the product is that will be produced, because if we have to rely on the sector and we have to trust that they will come up with something, we know they didn't before. There was only 10 to 12 of those forest advisers, those loggers, that registered—10 to 12 percent. So, Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu—we're going to have to trust that they're going to come up with something. Kia ora tātou. We know that forestry is a massive player within our economy. We know that our people benefit from the work and also there is always risk within this space. And I've spoken to my own experience in land administration and having to face the wrath of our people at an AGM. But ultimately what I understood back in the day four years ago when the sales pitch came into our kāinga was that this was about retaining the value back in our communities so that we could build our own homes from wood produced in our kāinga to support our local processors. I say this because that's what I clearly heard on the day, and that's what I saw from our local processors standing up and saying "Āe, tautoko, āe." They were there. And I appreciated the way that the industry and us as landowners came together. That was the vision that Matua Shane presented: keeping the value in our communities and building up our own industry. He said the short-term issue is how we manage slowing down the volume of logs getting harvested in Northland and we need to protect the jobs of our local people. Now, with this I keep thinking about building more homes, so I do welcome the discussion around what is the plan beyond here. Through this process, can the Minister present what is the vision, because from a whenua Māori perspective, we might be small players, but if we can keep our logs in Tai Tokerau or in Te Tai Rāwhiti, and then we can put them through local processing and build local homes for our people because we know we have a shortage of homes in our kāinga, then that would be a win. So I welcome the wānanga that we might have today, but continue to raise concerns around the exclusion of the people of New Zealand and the exclusion of our voice, whether we be large or small forest owners, whether we be just a subbie. Sometimes you're only small harvesters, the loggers, or even I think of some of our matua who are around who try their best, and they put in tono all the time for jobbies for our people, and they got registered so that they could have a chance with our landowners to be able to demonstrate that they could harvest or they could thin. So my tono to our Minister is to present the vision. What is the plan? Because the people of New Zealand deserve that, forest owners deserve that, whether we're big or small. And for those that have made the effort to become registered and who have complied with the need for continuous professional development, I think they need to be celebrated. And by celebrating them, they're important to the sector. And if they've been through the rigour of registration, let's maintain that movement of getting the rest of everyone on board. So what is the solution? What is the plan? Because we can't see it right now. Kia ora tātou. LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, acknowledging the Hon Peeni Henare's comments about forestry and ACT's position on turning productive land into forest. Unfortunately, I'm unable to comment on my colleague's positions on that, but maybe throughout this process you will get your answers. Look, the ACT Party's all about cutting red tape and making it easier to do business in New Zealand. So I think that this bill strikes a good balance between eco-activity and providing employment, and I think it's a really sensible bill and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find myself in a rather invidious position of getting up to support a bill that I was part of a party that helped bring into being. So that is politics for you. But I recall back in those, maybe, 2018-19 years when this piece of legislation came into being—it was, as the previous Green speaker alluded to, a sense of tidying up the industry, taking out some cowboys. But, also, there was concern and continues to be concern about the massive opportunity costs of seeing raw logs go out from the ports without the value being captured by further processing onshore. It was thought that some of these mechanisms could help to make sure that at least the local processors got a shot at some of that supply. I guess the long and the short of it is that it's a solution that didn't necessarily deal with the problem. That seems to be the outcome of this. I think, sometimes in politics, you've got to be able to accept that you don't always get it right, and if you haven't got it right and you can try another way, then that's what you should do. So we've taken on some wisdom from the Minister here—Minister McClay—who does not support this. We've been prepared to go with him on this and accept his worldview, I guess, in terms of cutting the red tape, getting out of the way, and letting industry take care of itself a bit. So we'll see how that goes. But, I think, sometimes in politics, there's some things you're not going to die in a ditch for, and New Zealand First is not going to die in a ditch for this bill. It's a bill that hasn't probably reached its potential in terms of outcomes that we would have liked when we brought it in. So we will accept that. We will support the bill and we'll commend it through to this next stage. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call Hana Maipi—Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Hana-Rawhiti. Ngā mihi ki a koe, otirā tēnā rā tātau e te Whare. E tū ana ahau hei taima tuarua i roto i tēnei Whare hei kōrero ki tēnei o ngā pire e kaha tāmi ana i ngā āhuatanga, i ngā uri o te wao nui a Tāne. E kaha tautokotia ana e au ngā kōrero a taku tuakana nei, a Hūhana, otirā i Te Pāti Kākāriki me ō rātou wheakoranga nui i roto i tēnei o ngā rōpū, i roto i tēnei o ngā mahi e hono ana ki tō rātou ake nei iwi o Ngāpuhi, i roto i ēnei wheakoranga i roto i ngā take ahuwhenua, i ngā take e hono ana ki ngā rākau, ngā uri o Tāne Mahuta. E tāruaruatia ana e au ēnei kōrero nā runga anō i te mea kāore anō kia panoni ōku whakaaro, ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori. E kaha whakahē ana mātou i tēnei pire nā runga anō i te mea e tūhono ana tēnei pire ki tō mātou mana motuhake. E rongo kōrero ana i te Minita kua whakawhiti kōrero ia i te taha i te rōpū o Ngā Pou a Tāne. E mihi ana ki tērā. E tatari ana mātou mō te reta kia whakawhārikihia ki runga i te tēpu rā. E tatari ana mātou mō tēnā. Heoi anō, ehake i te mea ko tētehi rōpū anahe. E kaha rangona ana e mātou ko wai ngā rōpū, ko wai ngā iwi, ko wai ngā tāngata kua kōrerotia e tēnei Kāwana, e tēnei Minita ki ngā tāngata whenua, ngā tāngata Māori ki roto i tēnei o ngā wāhi o ngā take e tūhono ana ki a Tāne Mahuta. E kaha whakahē ana mātou i tēnei pire e hono ana ki te mana ōrite, nā runga anō i te mea ka whai mana ngā exporters, ngā domestic processors, ngā tāngata e whai mana ana i roto i te ao o te timber. Waihoki e kaha whakahē ana mātou i tēnei o ngā pire e hono ana ki tō mātou mana mokopuna nā runga anō i te mea ko tēnei o ngā pire e tāmi ana, e takahi ana i te nuku o te whenua, i tō mātou nei pepeha, i te oranga whenua. Nā runga anō i tēnā, e whakahē ana mātou, Te Pāti Māori. E kaha tautokotia ana e mātou ngā wheakoranga o Hūhana Lyndon i tēnei o ngā wāhi. Nō reira koinā aku takoha ki tēnei o ngā pire. [Thank you, and, indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. I stand for a second time in this House to speak to this bill that strongly oppresses the circumstances and the descendants of the great forest of Tāne. I strongly support the comments of my senior here, Hūhana, indeed the Green Party and their many experiences within this one of the organisations, within this particular activity that is connected to our own iwi of Ngāpuhi, within these experiences in horticultural issues, and the issues related to forestry, the descendants of Tāne Mahuta. I am repeating these statements because my opinions have not changed, the opinions of the Māori Party. We strongly oppose this bill because this bill is connected to our self-determination. We hear statements from the Minister that he has communicated with the organisation of Ngā Pou a Tāne. We commend that. We are waiting for the letter to be tabled here. We are waiting for that. However, it is not as if there is only one organisation. We are hearing a lot about who are the organisations, who are the iwi, who are the people that have been engaged by this Government, and by this Minister with the people of the land, the Māori people within this area of the issues that are related to Tāne Mahuta. We strongly oppose this bill that is connected to equality, because authority is afforded to the exporters, the domestic processors, and people with power within the timber sector. Furthermore, we strongly oppose this bill as it relates to the authority of our grandchildren because this bill oppresses and mistreats the breadth of the land, our expressions of identity, and the health of the land. And due to that, we, the Māori Party, strongly oppose it. We strongly support the experiences of Hūhana Lyndon in this space. And so these are my contributions to this bill.] Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Kia ora, thank you so much, Madam Speaker. When we're looking at this particular bill, there are multiple parts to this. So there are two major elements we're looking at. The first of them is the repeal of the log traders and forest advisers, and the second part is to do with the legal harvesting assurance. Before we talk about some of these, I just want to kind of give the broader picture that when we're looking at something like forestry, we're looking at an ecosystem, at multiple perspectives, and, in the context of this House, multiple portfolios that come into play. We have also already heard from our forestry spokesperson, Hūhana Lyndon, but also in this context we are going to be looking for engagement from the agriculture perspective, from the environment perspective, and, in this context, from me in a trade perspective when we are looking at the bigger picture of forestry. The first thing that we were looking at—the intention that was introduced a few years ago around the log traders and forestry advisers is around the standardisation and the transparency that it will provide. We have already heard from my colleague Hūhana Lyndon that when we are looking at this, it is to provide small entities and small groups with the best opportunity to benefit from something like this; having that availability and the genuine personal stories that we have heard, that ability to hear and having that access and the confidence to the forestry advisers, and this is something that this particular bill will be removing. So that level of transparency is absolutely crucial. The second thing, you know, I want to raise—and this is something that I'm sure we'll tease out again in the committee stage in lieu of a select committee—is around this idea, as we heard before, of thinning and harvesting. This is where the environmental component comes in really handy, and it's incredibly crucial because we have seen the danger and the harm both to our environment but also to people and to livelihoods when things are not harvested and when timber is not thinned correctly. Our heart goes out and we acknowledge every single person today who is currently suffering in the East Coast, and we also acknowledge the work that our colleagues in this House are currently doing within their respective electorates that are affected as a result of the state of emergency in the East Coast. For some of those, forestry is so important and the way that we harvest is so important for those regions, to ensure that healthy environment, that people across the board, that ecosystem we're looking at isn't going to be ruined. So this is, again, something that's going to be really, really important, and to tie it into my portfolio around trade, and also in this particular case the Hon Todd McClay's other hat, other than forestry, is looking at how this system, when we are looking at the transparency and the protection and everything that this particular bill that we are repealing has in terms of our current trade agreements and particularly some of our most recent trade agreements with the EU and UK—granted, these are not areas that potentially we are exporting some of those woods and we're looking at other forms of exports, but within those agreements there are specific requirements for environmental standards, specific requirements to environmental and labour protection. This is something that is also going to be really crucial, and I am really looking forward to the opportunity to get some clarification from the Minister during the committee stage of how, without something like this, do we ensure that the same level of protection is in place and the same level of equity for our small forestry operators will continue to be in place? So this is something that I am looking forward to continuing discussing during the committee stage, but, unfortunately, at this stage, with the lack of information, we cannot support this bill. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I was reading through some of the debate notes in preparation for this speech, and one of the things I came across was some comments actually made by the relevant Minister, the Hon Todd McClay—and I quote—"The current system fails to deliver outcomes and places unnecessary costs on forest businesses. The repeal will be delivered at speed, with changes coming into effect before 1 July." Therefore, I'd like to get out of the way and get it all enforced. I commend it to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. What an unusual treat it is to have a speech on this bill, because I was the lucky chair of the Environment Committee when the original Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill was passed. I particularly enjoyed Mr Patterson's speech tonight because it was New Zealand First who pressed with utmost urgency that this was a critical piece of legislation to ensure that we had a robust domestic industry. And it's interesting, because my own background is in professional regulation and this regime landed on the select committee table with a fully fledged complaints and dispute resolution framework at incredible pace, and with urgency because of the importance of it. We worked through all kinds of details of standards committees and what kind of code of conduct there would be and how we deal with commercial disputes. To be fair, at the time, this was very much a New Zealand First initiative. In fact, it was of critical importance to them. It was a "do or die" situation. And here we have it. They've flip-flopped. Someone in their coalition said, "We don't like that." And Shane Jones said, "Well, you know, maybe, you know"—Mr Patterson said we tried it; it was a bad idea. Let's be clear, it's not even properly enforced yet. It hasn't actually been fully implemented. So we don't know whether it was going to be a good idea or not. But, even at the time, certainly it was there because New Zealand First desperately wanted it. There was a sense from New Zealand First that some log traders would not be doing the decent thing with domestic growers and providers of foresters, so there was this framework put into place. We do support this bill, because we do have concerns that you can't go around and, just because you don't like the way some people are behaving or you'd like to see a different approach—and one of the questions here was the mix between logs that were being exported and logs that were being made available for domestic milling. And, look, the last thing we want is to be importing milled timber from overseas. But, at the same time, we don't want to be creating an entirely kind of false regime where local mills have some kind of preferential treatment, and people who are buying logs for export are doing it on an other than commercial basis. And that's, kind of through the back door, essentially what this this regime was at least targeted at. So it, in effect, had an element of trying to interfere in the market in a way in which some would say was anti-competitive. So, in so far as it's not landed well, that's not entirely surprising. Log traders—the name pretty much says it all. I've heard a number of people who didn't know about this, but talk about a guy with a ute, or a person with a ute and a laptop. But that's what log traders do. They purchase logs and they broker them and they then supply them to third parties—a perfectly legitimate role. And, as in any business, there's going to be some rogues and scallywags out there, but there's a whole system of commercial law for that. I think we've got to be cautious about imposing onerous systems and kind of fully-fledged regulatory systems like we do on lawyers, for example, where you've simply got two commercial parties with bargaining positions. I think the trigger for a kind of conduct system, which is what this was and is at the moment, but won't be for long—a conduct system really is only appropriate where you've got some kind of vulnerability or significant imbalance of power. A kind of historic origins of those were doctors, lawyers, and those traditional professions, if you like, who had a kind of special position and knowledge, and, therefore, in respect of their clients, they had to have these special conduct rules. Over time, it's been expanded into kind of the consumer area. So we see the banking code of conduct. We see the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act regime and the financial market conduct regime, all of which are good because of the imbalance of knowledge and power between, essentially, a seller and a buyer. Log traders don't quite fit into that. This is not a consumer contract. It's not some kind of fiduciary relationship. So, in fact, it was heavy-handed and that was always the concern. It is with somewhat of a wry smile when being pressed heavily by New Zealand First as to the critical importance and the fact that our local log industry depended for its life on this. So I think Mr Shane Jones is now hiding in the ditch he was about to die in before. So, you know, there you go. But it is good that we can look at this. You know, the ACT Party has got this bee in its bonnet about regulation, as if, on this side of the House, we just love regulation. Well, it's not the case. We want appropriate regulation in appropriate places. And, certainly, in the forestry industry, there is some appropriate regulation needed. I'm sure my colleague our spokesperson for workplace safety will have something to say about that. But in terms of regulating the relationship between buyers and sellers of logs, it seemed a very odd place to do that. So, yes, we want responsible capitalism, but we actually want capitalism that works. And we agree that where there is an unnecessary fetter on people making agreements and engaging in effective business, then we want to get rid of them. I would say come over and have a yarn, because we're very interested in this. As our position on this bill shows, we're really interested in having a fruitful discussion, but we think the kind of regulation bonfire approach is just a little unsophisticated and doesn't really serve us well. So, in respect of this piece of legislation, we think that the code of conduct framework was unnecessary. Of course, the additional fees and levies, that does have to be borne somewhere, whether it's in the traders' profits or the price of the timber that ultimately gets milled, and we don't want to see that. The commercial disputes resolution framework—you know, there was something in that. I'm actually a real advocate of keeping disputes out of the courts as far as we can, and providing people with a forum and a framework which is non-court - based is a good thing. But you don't actually need to do that by imposition in commercial situations. You can generally provide a framework and let people pick it up if they choose to do so. So, once again, that's a really good example of how you can provide the tools but not necessarily go down the road of compulsion. A lot of these disputes can be solved by mediation or by arbitration, which was, essentially, the framework that was set out in this log traders framework here. But the fact of the matter is that a non-litigious approach is by far and away better. But, at the end of the day, what we're all interested in is a robust, thriving, and competitive forestry industry and one which has both a good export aspect to it. We do want to see our timber go overseas. Ideally, it would be milled before it goes over—but we know that's not always the case—but also a robust domestic industry. We don't think we need regulation to achieve that. We think that the industry's actually in good health. It's going to have its ups and downs—industries, and primary industries in particular, always do. So, once again, good on you, Matua Jones. You come to this House one day, say something is absolutely important, and the next day slink away with your tail between your legs saying, "Well, maybe it wasn't that important after all. Maybe it was all just a bit of a mistake." Kia ora, Madam Speaker. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I think there's widespread agreement across the House that this Act is unnecessary. I do have to take a little bit of issue with the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I think it's a big person who is someone who can accept that they put something in that is not actually fit for purpose, with new information, and I think it's really big of them to come forward and take it on the chin and move on. With that, I commend the bill to the House. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to make a contribution to this Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I have to say it was a bill that I wasn't that involved with. I wasn't in the Parliament when my colleague Duncan Webb was involved on the select committee, so I had to look into the history of this bill. And to start with, I was thinking, well, this actually looks quite good, the fact that we have some constraints on one of our most dangerous work areas, which is forestry. But then when I looked at the content of the bill, I realised, obviously, that's not the purpose of this bill. It was very much to do with regulating the sale and the trade of logs, which is not the biggest issue in my mind for regulation. And I thought a bit more widely about this and looked at the existing framework in relation to some of the health and safety provisions that we have in forestry. And the reason that this comes to mind in forestry is, as Peeni Henare indicated before, forestry is our most dangerous profession by quite some magnitude. So if you look at the number of people who are injured and the number of fatalities that occur, these are much, much greater in relation to forestry than they are in almost any other industry. So there is in the explanatory note an explanation of why this bill has been brought to the House. It's to do with the National Party's position in relation to the election. Fair enough. You win the election; you get to implement the policies that you campaign on. And I know that this was an important thing that the National Party has had a long history opposing. I didn't agree with the focus, though, on lack of regulation. So that's why it was really important to me, when I read this bill and we were considering our support for this bill, to go through the types of regulations which were actually included in this particular bill and just to assure myself that they aren't ones that could be associated with having a safer regime for forest. I am interested to hear and participate in the committee stage where we'll have the opportunity to question the Minister more on the regulatory framework and just to tease out a little bit what was meant in the original legislation that this repeals, which actually talks about professionalising forestry. And, you know, I have a degree of sympathy with the idea that because it is such a hugely dangerous trade and a necessary one—obviously, we do need logs to be able to build, and it's important for our trade. There's lots of important things associated with forestry, and my contribution is not at all meant to cast any doubt on a lot of people within that sector who do want to have a robust regime in place, but the original bill did say that they wanted to kind of look at making sure they got rid of cowboys. And that's something that I would agree with. So that was something that I was concerned about. But when I actually looked at this particular bill, there's obviously the repeal of the traders and forestry advisers. I have listened to the points that have been raised in the House, and it appears that the objectives that were meant to be achieved by that particular part of the bill, perhaps haven't served the purpose or they're not as necessary from the proponents in support of this bill. So I can accept that. And I did note that, also, there is still an aspect of this legislative change which will go ahead in terms of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act. And so this bill, as I understand it, takes the commencement date out to, I think, 1 August 2027. So there is a component still, and I'm sure the Minister will be able to go through this in subsequent readings and also on the committee stage, that is still maintained. But, overall, I agree with my colleagues that we should support the repeal of this legislation, but also to note the concerning rate of injury and workplace deaths that occur in the forestry industry and not to accept wholeheartedly some of the language in this bill around the need for lack of regulation, because I think regulations that keep people safe, regulations that save lives, and regulations that mean that people come home at night to their families are really important. For all too many forestry families, that hasn't happened. So this particular bill doesn't go very far at all towards that objective, but I would encourage the House and the Minister to make sure that they are aware of those issues and work towards them. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy to rise and take a call in the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I think the case has been traversed quite well—the Minister put forward and outlined the clear reasons we need this. Ultimately, one of the biggest frustrations I hear from my constituents in the Waikato is the over-regulation; the burdensome red tape and compliance that just makes it hard to get stuff done. On this side of the House, we are focused on unlocking New Zealand's potential, on driving that economic growth, rebuilding the economy, and getting the country back on track. So I absolutely support this bill and look forward to the progressions of the next few stages this evening. Thank you. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, part of a suite of different measures that have been designed to reduce regulation. The changes that were brought in, led by Shane Jones in this space, are being wound back. I think it's important to note that while we are supporting the bill, it is really important that the safeguards that have been undertaken to industry to make sure that those forestry exporters and forestry growers—that those safeguards are in place. That is the main caveat that we are placing upon the support of this bill today. As it has already been noted, not only is forestry a significant part of our export market—fourth-largest, I believe—but it's also an area where there has been a large number of workplace casualties and also fatalities. It has been a hugely unregulated place where workers are operating in incredibly dangerous situations. It is important to note that the way we do our business in New Zealand directly reflects upon our international reputation and our ability to continue and grow our trade market. So if we are serious about growing trade, if we are serious about growing our economy, we need to look after our workers. I would just like to acknowledge the work of Helen Kelly in this space. She worked for a long time and fought for many families who had lost loved ones. She fought WorkSafe hard and long for poor-quality investigation where workers had been killed and did not come home, because of poor-quality safety practices right here in New Zealand—young men operating with dangerous instruments, and felling trees in areas that were just plain unsafe. So, with pulling back regulation, we need to be cautious that we don't kill and hurt the very people that we are expecting to drive our economy further. That word of warning comes with taking away any form of regulation. We need to be doing that in a measured sense. One of the things that's always struck me living in the Wellington area is how many logs sit on our ports when you drive past. It always strikes me that we should be doing a little bit more of that processing here in New Zealand. We support local processing of those trees that we fell. It would be far better for our own economy to have value-add to be making more of those products here in New Zealand that we're able to export at a higher price. There's some really smart stuff going on in that sector in terms of composites and how we can do that in the building sector. I think this is an area that we could continue to work upon. Instead, we do send a lot of it offshore and then we bring it back in as finished goods from other countries. I think there's some opportunities there for us to make more out of the produce that we grow right here in New Zealand. I think it's important to note, in terms of this winding back regulation, that we always take a good look at our supply chains—where are they starting off and where are they finishing and what are the industries involved along that process of supply chains? Regulation can be really effective at lining up our industries so that we get maximum bang for buck. Sometimes, just cutting staff and saying "Red tape sucks and we're going to get rid of it." loses sight of some of the bigger scope of how we plan and, for a small country, make the most of our resources, make the most of our skills, and grow our GDP as much as we possibly can. So I really hope that there's further work going on with this Government to understand the bigger picture of our forestry sector and how we make the most of the opportunities that we have right here. I'd like to also note that this bill defers the commencement date so we see it makes those amendments to the bill that was enacted in 2023. It's to ensure that there are no regulatory gaps and that full engagement is effected with people and trading partners, that that can be delivered. It's important to keep that in place. It also ensures that the secondary legislation for the legal harvest system is developed and implemented in a way that appropriately manages risk and does not add unnecessary compliance costs. That's an important balance to strike—between making sure we manage risk but also managing compliance. It's important to listen to the sector, and we believe, in Labour, that we want to work with our local sector and understand their concerns, to not only make sure their job is easier but also that they balance those risks that have been outlaid. This is a bill that New Zealand First pushed forward and I see that they're still OK with it now as it's wound back and to reduce some of that regulation. Overall, I think it is an interesting time and I look forward to seeing not only how the Government but also the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) sees how we make sure this operates well. The bill specifically provides for MPI to refund any of those levies or any of those fees under the system and also to waive those levies or fees that are due but not yet paid as part of when this was meant to commence. It also stipulates here that all unresolved complaints and reviews will be extinguished and commercial disputes discontinued. Those consequential amendments made will make sure that when it commences, the Act does not include any of the provisions that relate to that primary piece of legislation. For a sector that means a lot to New Zealand's economy, for a sector that does a lot of good for New Zealand, a big part of our export market, but also a lot of workers out there, I really hope that this Government gets it right and I really hope that they strike that balance appropriately between reducing regulation but managing risk. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Another great bill that removes red tape—unnecessary red tape—and removes costs for the forestry sector, which, like the rest of the primary sector, are doing it pretty tough at the moment. I'm sure they'll appreciate a reduction in cost. The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." certainly applies. The cost of the red tape is now a solution that has turned out to be a solution looking for a problem that didn't actually eventuate. So, red tape—unnecessary red tape—bye, bye. I commend the bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 14 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. In Committee Part 1 "Amendments to Forests Act 1949" and the Schedule CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, "Amendments to Forests Act 1949", and the Schedule. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Ricardo Menéndez March: Objection. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Part 1 Amendments to Forests Act 1949 Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. As we look towards Part 1, it might be really good just to elaborate for the members across the Chamber what are the parts that are being repealed here is, which is the code of ethics. A code of ethics is really important, and if you look at the short list of the code of ethics that is there, one will see "professional responsibility", "responsibility to clients", "professional work standards by registered forestry adviser" and "maintaining professional competency". I think these are all things we'd all look towards in the sector, especially in a sector such as forestry, which is important to our people. The Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, in the first and second readings of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, talked about some of the safeguards. I think, when we think about the code of ethics and what is happening here with its repeal, there are going to be some assurances sought not just from the Minister—because I appreciate the Minister is the Minister of the sector. But the sector itself will need to make sure that they do act ethically and that they do engage the sector broadly and don't take it upon themselves alone, in some of the organised bodies, to make the decisions on behalf of others, who might not get to be fully represented there. The question I have for the Minister, with respect to Part 1, about those safeguards, which he did refer to in his speech—things that will give this side of the House assurance that those codes of ethics, in particular with trade, can be upheld; or a code of ethics can be upheld, given that we are repealing in this particular bill. I wonder—and I'm going to take just a small licence here—if that might also extend to some of the other matters that were raised through the speeches by my colleagues in the first and second reading of the bill, about making sure that there is a good code of ethics right across the sector. I think, if we're going to do it, we want to make sure that we can have it right for exporters. We want to give confidence to the whole sector, as the international markets look toward New Zealand for the exporting of timber. That's my first question for the Minister, and I appreciate he's got the advisers there and he's writing some notes. So I'm going to shift to my second question, and that is with respect to the forestry practice standards. Work safety is paramount for our party. We want to know that forestry practice standards with respect to trade will continue—same thing: to look towards the safeguards for the sector, so the forestry practice standards—the practical application of what would be a code of ethics. So those sort of go hand in hand, and I'll leave those as my first two opening salvos for the Minister as we go through this bill. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about this piece of legislation. I guess, really, how he is going to ensure that there is a kind of respectable, cowboy-free log trade in relation to specifically Part 1, which amends the Forests Act 1949? Obviously, a lot has changed in New Zealand since 1949, but this piece of legislation remains on our statute books. I just did a quick google, and I think Sid Holland was the Prime Minister in 1949, and I imagine that the forestry trade was also possibly flourishing at that time, but with not the same level of workplace regulations or rules to keep people safe as we had then. So this particular part—and I appreciate there are other parts that amend different pieces of legislation, but this is a Forests Act 1949. And so, if the Minister could just, kind of, let us know how we can be assured, with the repeal of this legislation, of a continued professional practice in relation to forestry and trade in logs. I also want to emphasise a question by my colleague Peeni Henare, which was also touched on by my colleague Ginny Andersen as well. Professionalism does entail, even though this is not the purpose of this bill, a level of care for the community that the forestry is being undertaken on, the land, the environmental concerns, the workers' safety. The original Act that this amendment to the Forests Act repeals was allegedly going to increase professionalism and get rid of cowboys, so how are we assured with the repeal of this code of ethics in this part—specifically, in clause 4—that that will occur? That's all. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. We're looking at Part 1. I would like to take a couple of calls on this, but the first one is actually to do with clause 4, and again, later on, it is my understanding that the Schedule is also part of Part 1, which we're going to be discussing—so please correct me if I'm wrong. When we're looking at clause 4 of this, there are a couple of concerns that I would like to raise in terms of the repeal of some of the definitions. I think we've already heard about this in terms of the definition when it comes to the code of ethics, but also some of these—you know, I understand, considering we're repealing it, I say to the Minister, because I can see we're repealing the log traders and the forestry advisers bit, so I understand the removal of some of these. Again, I want to express some concerns around the repeal of, specifically, the code of ethics and the forestry practice standards, and maybe just see if we can get some reassurance from the Minister that the removal of these means that we'll still be able to continue to maintain the same level of quality that has come with the introduction of the log traders and forestry advisers legislation. I think that in this particular case, as we've heard in the first and second readings—and I was really appreciative of the Minister talking in terms of the tabled amendments, in terms of some of the consultation that has been undertaken. I think that one of the things we've stressed in the first and second readings, because we haven't been able to hear from small forestry operators—other than the speakers in this House—during those readings, is that it would be really good to know that what we are looking at doing in this will be to maintain that same level of equity. I understand, when the Minister and other people are talking about that, that we want forestry to be an area that flourishes and thrives, but there is this latent concern that when we are removing some of the definitions as part of this repeal, we are seeing a further imbalance and not that level of diversification of the forestry operators that we could be seeing here in Aotearoa. Again, this is something we've heard before. These are locally owned, locally producing operators, and it would be a huge shame that by removing some of these definitions, what we would be starting to see is more centralisation and more conglomeration when it comes to the forestry industry. I would like to draw attention in this case to the supplementary analysis report, at paragraph 23, and also paragraph 26, where it says, "The main beneficiaries of repealing the RTFA regime will be the forest practitioners, the logging companies, and trade entities, including wood processers and log exporters." Although this particular point is something we might come back to because it might affect other parts of this legislation, I would like to draw attention to that in the context of the definition. The other part is that in paragraph 26, it says, "The main cost of repealing the RTFA regime would likely fall on small-forest owners.", and, again, that is really concerning. So I ask if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying whether the repeal of any of these definitions would have unintended consequences as a result. The second part is more looking at clause 4(2), in terms of the definition of "registered". In this particular clause, it is to repeal paragraph (c) of that definition. I would also be curious—and this is a very minor point—in terms of the drafting over here, where I see inconsistency of the drafting, because it is my understanding that the paragraph (c) here is to do with the register of the log traders and forestry advisers. The main bulk of the questions I am looking at, to the Minister, is if the Minister could just provide some reassurance to the committee and to us that we're not going to be seeing inequity as a result of the repeal of the definitions and that we are still going to be seeing the maintenance of the same standard. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question for the Minister of Forestry is probably relatively short. I see that under Part 1, clause 10 of New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA of the Forests Act 1949 says that in respect of commercial disputes, parties to a dispute don't have to continue to comply with the dispute resolution procedure. It seems a little odd. It may be—and the Minister, no doubt, can take advice on this—that there are no disputes because it's new, so in fact it's just a kind of belt and braces approach. But if parties have entered into a dispute resolution procedure on a set of rules that both parties know and have been imposed, it seems very unusual, just as a basic principle, but also having an element of retrospectivity—that something has started and in fact you're now retrospectively changing it because you've got into a set of rules. So it is a very short question, but it's kind of a natural justice question about when you enter into a dispute resolution arrangement, and then you legislate to change the rights that have crystallised. That's a concern to me because the rights of the parties to have a particular process seem to have kind of fallen into place and those rights now exist—because it does say "parties to an existing dispute do not need to comply". Now, the fact is the rules about the dispute resolution process will have benefits and burdens, and one party will like them and the other party won't like them. So I'm very interested to hear from the Minister whether there are any disputes, and, if so, has he taken advice on that retrospectivity point—if there is. If there's none, then I don't think we even need the clause and it's not an issue. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me my first call on this bill. I just had a few questions that I wanted to ask around it, but I wanted to preface it a little bit with some context. Forestry, as we all know, is an over $6 billion industry, and I had a look at what the actual costs of the registration were. So I had a look and the cost for the application was $510.60, with the annual levy set at $320 and the renewal being set at $444. There's been an assertion that the rationale for this bill is that there have been undue costs and undue regulatory burden on business, but that fee doesn't seem to be set all that high to me. Considering that we've seen what the catastrophic impacts of under-regulation are, with the impacts of forestry slash in the aftermath of the extreme weather events in Cyclone Gabrielle and the sad stuff that happened in the North Island, it would seem to me that the forestry sector—and, you know, considering that some of the contributions that the Labour members have made are rightly pointing out that we do need to make sure that the forestry sector is safe, particularly for workers, particularly for owners, and particularly for communities that are around forestry, it doesn't strike me that there's under-regulation at the moment. So I guess my first question to the Minister is: what evidence, I guess, have you had in terms of over-regulation? I appreciate that this bill isn't going to go through a select committee process, so we sadly will miss out on the chance to hear from submitters, but, yeah, I would really be interested in what evidence there has been on over-regulation. Particularly since I think there's been an assertion that voluntary regulation and some sort of code of practice will kind of fill the gap that the withdrawal of regulation can have, but the supplementary analysis paper says that before the regulation was introduced there were 90 registered members under the voluntary scheme and that after the regulation was introduced there were 527 members. So it just strikes me that if less than one in five of the forestry advisers and of the forestry owners were members of the voluntary kind of regime that existed, won't it just go back to that same old kind of cowboy country of under-regulation, as my colleague Hūhana Lyndon rightly pointed out? It's particularly important as well, I think, because I'm coming at this from a climate angle as well as the kind of regulation angle. Forestry will play an important role in meeting our kind of domestic targets and also potentially our international targets, so I would also be interested in hearing from the Minister whether there has been any analysis done on the impact of repealing regulations on the extent of forestry coverage. I think it's kind of like the basics of supply and demand. I think members on the Government benches have asserted that if we withdraw regulation, it will lead to the forestry sector expanding, so what is the extent of that expansion that will happen and what can we expect from that? This leads on to my final question, that obviously there's an interaction between the forestry sector and the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. We've seen, in the past, carbon market auctions fail because they have failed to meet the reserve price, so is there a concern that—and this is the logic that I'm following—if the Government benches have asserted that withdrawing regulation will lead to a growth in the forestry sector, and a growth in the forestry sector means that there'll be an expansion of potential providers of emissions returns and carbon units (NZUs) in their carbon market scheme, does that mean that there'll be a flood of NZUs in the scheme? What will that do to the reserve price, and not only the reserve price but the overall price in the secondary markets in the emissions trading scheme? We do need a carbon price that actually incentivises companies to avoid making pollution, and we've heard assertions from the Government benches that they're relying on market-based mechanisms. So if you're actually flooding the markets with forestry credits, what does that do to the incentives to actually reduce pollution? So I'm really curious to hear the Minister after the dinner break, perhaps. Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): Whilst there's a very short amount of time, I thought I'd address some of these comments, and of course we're back after the dinner break. Firstly, to most colleagues, the legislation is very, very narrow. So in as far as the emissions trading scheme is concerned or environmental standards or what people can do in forest health and safety, it's outside the scope of this legislation, and it is governed with many other parts of legislation, and that doesn't change. In fact, I think we'll see over the next three years in this House us having conversations about how we strengthen requirements on the environment, in the way we plant trees, and certainly health and safety, but doing so in such a way that doesn't add additional burden. In as far as the retrospective nature of saying any dispute would be dismissed, there aren't any disputes we're aware of at the moment. But more broadly, when we say, "Do we need this regulation?" Well, the member's right that the cost is about $500 per year, but that's the cost to run the system of registration on the part of the Government, it's not the cost to those who have entered into it or the obligation, the cost that they have on a daily basis to collect information, report, and do other things. That's just the cost that we take off them to run the system. We're giving that money back because we won't have a system, but actually that's not the cost to the sector. The actual cost is the things that the legislation imposed upon them and requires them to do. I would say the New Zealand Institute of Forestry wasn't in the space that they are today when the legislation first went through. They have a regulatory system they set up themselves. They are being very, very responsible. It is growing. Indeed, there are examples that I've been made aware of where they go and help people where there has been a dispute between a trader or somebody that has been registered or not registered, even though they may not be a member, and they've gone to work that out with them because actually they and many other parts of the sector have stepped up and are showing greater responsibility for themselves, and actually we've got to find ways to work with them. With that in mind, I can stop here and can go into greater detail, but again, in many of the areas that members have raised questions, they fall outside of the scope of the legislation of what we're changing. They are important, and therefore the requirements that are in place from the forestry sector to meet those obligations don't alter at all as a result of the repeal of this legislation. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come to suspend for the dinner break. We will resume again at 7 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7 p.m. …