Tuesday, 25 June 2024 (continued on Thursday, 27 June 2024) - Volume 776 Sitting date: Tuesday 25 June 2024 TUESDAY, 25 JUNE 2024 (continued on Thursday, 27 June 2024) … House resumed. BUSINESS STATEMENT SPEAKER: I understand the Leader of the House wishes to make a Business Statement. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Yes, indeed—thank you, Mr Speaker. Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 23 July. In that week, the House will consider the second reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, and the Customer and Product Data Bill. The House will also complete the remainder of the Budget debate. On Wednesday, following the general debate, the House will debate the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Is the Government intending to take urgency on any of those bills, including the Customer and Product Data Bill, given recent statements by Ministers on the need to work on scams and fraud, and the ability of that bill to enhance protections for consumers from those scams and frauds? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, ultimately, the question of urgency is a matter for the House. The Government doesn't have any intention at this time. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: I present the 2024/25 annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Children 1. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, especially my statement that my goal is to ensure that Oranga Tamariki is a truly child-centric care and protection agency where the safety of children is at the forefront of social work practice and decision making. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the Children's Commissioner, who said, about bootcamps, that "International and domestic evidence is clear these types of approaches don't work in the long-term", or does she completely disagree, like the Prime Minister? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst that isn't a statement that I myself made, I do agree that we do need to have an holistic approach when it comes to our young people, but I disagree with part of that statement, as well. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement in respect of the 6.5 percent savings that "There will be no financial impact and there has been no impact on the front-line services. This is a guarantee."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes. When we were doing the restructure, 6.5 percent was aimed at back-office staff. Front-line staff were out of scope within this restructure, and I stand by that. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the Oranga Tamariki chief executive, Chappie Te Kani, when he said, "There is not enough money to meet the needs that we see every day. There just isn't.", and if so, why did she not seek to be excluded from the 6.5 percent savings exercise required by the Minister of Finance? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst there was a 6.5 percent saving, those savings were taken out of the back office and redirected to the front office where there was a lack of resources and tools for front-line staff. Front-line staff are my focus and will continue to be so. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she allowing funding to be clawed back from front-line community providers when they say the need is still there and when she stated in Estimates that "We need to make sure that the front-line services are actually being resourced to be able to do their job and do their job well."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Quite frankly, if there is money left over, it's not going to sit in the bank accounts of NGOs that haven't spent it; it's going to be sent back to the organisation to be redistributed to the ones that need that money. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she acknowledge that persistent leaking of documents, the Minister dismissing officials' advice, Oranga Tamariki lawyers being forced to seek advice from King's Counsel over a failed restructure, and now headlines about the Oranga Tamariki chief executive officer hitting out at staff are all a clear sign that Oranga Tamariki is imploding under her watch? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst that doesn't come under the scope of the original question, I will answer that. Actually, I— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It's under your watch—your actions. Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It's not my statement or my actions. You've spoken about— SPEAKER: Excuse me—[Interruption] Can you stop for a minute—just stop. The only person who judges whether it's in the scope of the question or not is me. If a question is asked and not stopped, assume it's in scope. Please just give an answer and the rest of the House will listen while the answer is given. Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I disagree with the fact that it's a failed restructure. This restructure is focusing on the front-line staff, making sure they have the tools necessary to do their jobs so that our children are at the centre of every decision that we're making. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It's imploding! Hon David Seymour: Supplementary— SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. We're just not going to have these calls out in the middle of a question. You're right at the edge of it, I admit, but it's not particularly helpful. Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister's belief that it's possible to get better results in some areas with less money, and if so, what are some of the values and initiatives that she's brought to her leadership of Oranga Tamariki to achieve it? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, we need to actually focus on where the problems lie, and my focus has been on going around visiting organisations to see where the issues and problems lie. Lots were in the youth justice and care and protection facilities, which is where I'm putting a big focus to make sure that our young people come out better than when they went in. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In the Minister's answer to my first supplementary question, which part of the question did she disagree with? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Could you repeat the whole question again so that I can give you an answer? Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Happy to. SPEAKER: No—hang on a minute. The question is about the Minister's answer. Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'm not sure which question she's asking about. SPEAKER: Well, sorry, we can't do that. We could go on for ever doing that. Just give some kind of answer. There must have been a reason why the Minister said what she said. Hon David Seymour: Point of order. In the most recent supplementary question, Willow-Jean Prime actually asked which part of the question did the Minister disagree with. I'm sure the Minister would probably— SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Sit down. The Minister's answer said that she disagreed with part of the question. I remember that very clearly. It's in the Hansard. The Minister, I'm sure, remembers which part of the question she didn't agree with. Hon KAREN CHHOUR: From my understanding, part of the question was around a holistic approach from the Children's Commissioner and the other part was about punitive, and I don't agree that we're going down a punitive road. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order. That wasn't the question. SPEAKER: Well, then, that's unfortunate, because that's the answer. If you've got another question, ask it. Question No. 2—Justice 2. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statements and actions? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes. I particularly stand by my statement yesterday that the Government is reforming sentencing to ensure criminals face serious consequences for crime, and victims are prioritised. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What role does he believe Te Tiriti o Waitangi plays in the criminal justice system? Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I believe that the Treaty of Waitangi does play some part in our everyday lives. However, what's more important is that New Zealand society as a whole is protected from serious violent crime, and with the latest New Zealand crime survey results coming out and telling us that there were 1.88 million victims of crime last year in New Zealand, the focus actually needs to be on protecting our communities as a whole. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How, then, can he justify the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions from legislation, especially from legislation that has been designed to address breaches of Te Tiriti within the criminal justice system? Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, the focus is on our communities and our victims of crime. We will justify any improvements that we can make to legislation to ensure that our communities are safe. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, if the brightest legal mind in the Māori world back then, Sir Apirana Ngata, who got a law degree in two years flat—a record for any legal student in this country—did not believe that it had a connection, why would somebody with no training think there was one? Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I think what we need to do is actually come back to the core responsibility of this Government to protect our communities, to make sure that our victims are recognised, and to lock up those serious criminals who have no respect for the law, for New Zealand, or for victims. Question No. 3—Finance 3. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What changes come into effect on 1 July? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Next week, New Zealanders can expect, after six years of struggle, some relief to their back pockets. A number of promises the coalition Government campaigned on will be delivered next week. These changes will be good news for Kiwis who are sick of being punished for daring to drive a car in Auckland or owning a home, and there will be good news for parents who have been slammed by the cost of living crisis. Tim van de Molen: What benefits will parents see from next week? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, from next Monday, we're putting more money in the back pockets of Kiwi parents to give them extra support to take precious time off to bond with their newborns. The maximum weekly rate for paid parental leave will increase from $712.17 to $754.87 gross per week. We know many families are struggling with high costs, including childcare. That's why, starting next week, families with young children will be supported with a partial reimbursement of early childhood education (ECE) fees. Through our FamilyBoost scheme, families can claim up to 25 percent of their ECE fees, to a maximum of $150 per fortnight. This is a major coalition campaign commitment and forms part of our overall tax plan. Tim van de Molen: What do Aucklanders have to look forward to next week? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, from next week, this Government will be ending the Auckland regional fuel tax. This will make Auckland motorists 11.5c per litre better off, and in difficult times that is a significant saving. Despite abolishing this tax, we are delivering a record investment in transport, including in Auckland, with money set aside to fix and prevent potholes on the State highway and local road network, and funding for public transport services increasing compared to the last three years. Tim van de Molen: What do homeowners have to look forward to next week? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the tax relief keeps on coming. Brightline tests for residential property goes back to two years on 1 July, ending the previous Government's stealth capital gains tax. Of course, from 31 July, just the end of next month, more than 1.9 million Kiwi households will benefit on average by $60 per fortnight when our personal income tax relief package comes into effect. Question No. 4—Revenue 4. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister of Revenue: Is he confident that all wage and salary earners will receive the full tax benefits, as outlined in Budget 2024 and the Tax at a Glance leaflet, on their first pay day on or after 31 July 2024; if not, why not? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yes. Inland Revenue is working at pace with payroll providers to ensure that every wage and salary earner will get their well-earned tax relief as promised. After 14 years, Kiwis have waited long enough to get their much-awaited tax relief. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did the Minister elect not to carry the personal income tax threshold changes through to PIE investor rates or employer superannuation contribution tax (ESCT) rates until 1 April 2025, even though personal income tax thresholds are changing on 31 July 2024? Hon SIMON WATTS: The two examples provided by that member were highlighted as part of the Budget documents released, and it is correct that the employer superannuation contribution tax will come into effect on 1 April 2025. But the reality is that 3.5 million New Zealanders are going to benefit from personal income tax relief on 31 July, and that side of the House voted against it. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister aware that not changing the PIE investor rates or the employer superannuation contribution tax rates until 1 April 2025 means that low-income earners investing in KiwiSaver will be overtaxed by an average of $70 each between 31 July 2024 and 31 March 2025? Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I've answered that in my prior question. I said that we are aware of that and that those changes and fixes in regards to the ESCT will come into effect. The amount quoted, around $70.80, is correct, but we've signalled that as part of the Budget process. But, again, I remind the member: her party voted against the policies that we are implementing to deliver taxpayers in this country tax relief from 30 July. Hon Chris Bishop: Is it the case that the House may have seen an incredibly rare occurrence, a Labour MP arguing for tax relief? SPEAKER: No, that's not a question. Things like that are not at all helpful. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister aware that this over-taxation will lead to KiwiSaver balances being reduced by—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: —700— SPEAKER: Hold on. Start again, while the House is listening. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that this over-taxation of low-income earners will lead to KiwiSaver fund balances being reduced by $700 million by 2070? Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, firstly, I don't agree with the premise of the question, because I stated already that the Budget included the assumption that these fixes would come into play from 1 April 2025. So it's not over-taxation. But what is over-taxation is that side of the House not supporting the tax cuts that this Government has outlined where 3.5 million New Zealanders will benefit by an average of $32 a fortnight. But I'm proud to be part of a Government that has delivered upon our promises. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister comfortable with the over-taxation of low-income New Zealanders when it helps the Minister of Finance to balance her Budget? Hon SIMON WATTS: I mean, this is a little bit tiresome but I will reinforce the point that on this side of the House we believe that hard-working Kiwis deserve to keep more of what they earn. What is clear on that side of the House is that they do not believe in that premise. I tell you what: New Zealanders are pretty smart: they will follow the aspect that makes sense for them. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister— SPEAKER: Just wait till the House is prepared to listen. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, they will be. Would it have been easier to handle this matter of tax cuts had the Government not had to wrestle with the squanderous $25 billion excess spending of the last three years? SPEAKER: No, that's another one of those questions that's kind of interesting but— Rt Hon Winston Peters: And it's true. SPEAKER: Well, that will be the member's assertion, and if that's the case, the whole House knows it. So we don't need to hear it again. Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment 5. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she support disabled people being paid as low as $2 per hour due to minimum wage exemptions; if not, why did she discontinue the wage supplement that would replace exemptions while protecting existing jobs? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, the minimum wage exemption scheme supports disabled people to gain the rewards and social connections that come from work that they may not otherwise have the opportunity to obtain. The majority of disabled people covered by the exemption scheme receive the supported living payment, so this income is on top of their benefit payment. This means for a single person on the supported living payment, $403 a week plus up to the $180 a week from their supplementary work. I disagree with the assertion that the wage supplement would have protected jobs. Many enterprises dedicated to enhancing the employment prospects of severely disabled people said the wage supplement would put pressure on their operating model, reducing their ability to provide to disabled New Zealanders a job. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she acknowledge that around 96 percent of these workers work for business enterprises, and is she comfortable with massive corporations such as Air New Zealand benefiting from the labour of workers who earn just $2.30 an hour for doing work they can do without? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, the disability enterprises across New Zealand are all charitable organisations and their main purpose is supporting people with disabilities to be in employment, and they are free to choose to work there or not. Ricardo Menéndez March: How exactly can a wage supplement, which would act as a top-up for employers and designed to protect existing jobs, result in job losses for disabled people? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The disability enterprises have been really clear about their concerns about what was proposed by the previous Government, and, actually, our party had campaigned very clearly on retaining the status quo, because we want to see those enterprises that are a significant part of our communities do well and continue to employ disabled people and give them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her statement in defence of cutting the waste supplement that "A group of New Zealanders who have significant challenges and would clearly produce less than someone else may well be shut out of employment.", and, if so, how would the wage supplement have resulted in job losses when it is a top-up to the employer's contributions? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, the disability enterprises themselves raised concerns. And just so that the House is aware of how the minimum wage exemption works, there is a labour inspectorate who assesses the person's ability and their productivity in terms of the role that's proposed. They set a wage in that instance of which the person has the opportunity to accept or not. I stand by my statement. For me, it is incredibly important that we focus on what New Zealanders can do and what they can't, and I want to ensure that more New Zealanders have the opportunity to be in work. For a very small number—I'm talking nine—there is a top-up to what they are receiving in terms of their supported living payment. Ricardo Menéndez March: Did she seek or receive any advice on how many job losses would have resulted as a result of implementing the wage supplement; and, if so, how many job losses would have resulted as a result of implementing the wage supplement? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I stand by my comments. The disability enterprises are a significant part of our communities. They are charitable organisations that without their existence we would not be able to provide those employment opportunities. While that member may not appreciate it is a small number of people, I value each and every single one of those disabled people and want to ensure they have the opportunities to be in work. Ricardo Menéndez March: Why does she keep insisting that the wage supplement would have resulted in job losses when it is a top-up for employers and she is not able to substantiate how many job losses that wage supplement would have resulted in? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because—as I said in my primary answer, if the member had listened—many enterprises who are dedicated to enhancing the employment prospects of severely disabled people said the wage supplement would put pressure on their operating model, reducing their ability to provide disabled New Zealanders a job. The member doesn't seem to understand that with the wage supplement, there is more costs involved in employing somebody. And this is not about a saving; this is about protecting disability enterprises. They are an important part of our community who provide very important opportunities that disabled people can choose to participate and work there. Question No. 6—Transport 6. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about land transport investment in New Zealand? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Today, I released the final Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, a $22 billion plan over the next three years which will deliver on our transport commitments. This GPS is already delivering for New Zealanders, and will continue to do so by bringing back the successful roads of national significance programme. It invests substantially more in road maintenance and invests significantly more in reliable public transport. Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement investing in pothole prevention on State highways? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, good question. Our Government has created a new pothole prevention fund activity class that is ring-fenced to resealing, rehabilitating, and the drainage on the maintenance of our roads to prevent those pesky potholes from forming. Over $2 billion has already been allocated to the pothole prevention fund for State highways across the country—a 91 percent increase in funding compared to the spend in the last three years. Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement investing in pothole prevention on local roads? Hon SIMEON BROWN: More good news: almost $2 billion has been allocated to local road pothole prevention to prevent pesky potholes from forming—a 50 percent increase in funding from over the last three years. Compared to spend in the previous three years, we're increasing local road pothole prevention funding by 74 percent in Auckland, 61 percent in the Bay of Plenty, 38 percent in Canterbury, and 40 percent in Southland. This investment will deliver real results for Kiwis travelling on our roads. Joseph Mooney: How is the Government policy statement delivering for public transport users? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, even more good news. There is great news for public transport users across the country, with our Government delivering a 41 percent boost in funding for public transport services and operations to help Kiwis have more travel choices, particularly in our main cities. We are a Government of delivery, and we're committed to delivering reliable public transport services for New Zealand. The last Government—they might have spent their time on a ghost bridge across the harbour; we're actually going to get things done. Question No. 7—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence 7.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she stand by her statement regarding the development of a family violence reduction target, "I didn't feel it was appropriate to have a target in this space"; if so, is the reason she did not feel it was appropriate because justice sector Ministers were advised that family violence victimisations are unlikely to change over a 3- to 6-month period? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I stand by my statement. In answer to the second part of the question, no, because family and sexual violence is a focus for this Government. That is why the justice sector Minister has agreed that family and sexual violence is measured under the target to reduce violent crime by having 20,000 fewer people as victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults by 2029. If you listen to the people who work in this space, like I do, they say it wouldn't be appropriate, for example, to have a target like the number of reported rapes or sexual assaults because, actually, we know this is an under-reported issue. An increase in reporting would be a good thing because that means more feel confident in coming forward in knowing that the support services they need will be available for them, which is what my focus is. Hon Ginny Andersen: On what date was she advised than an incident-based family violence target can be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Sorry, can you just repeat that? Hon Ginny Andersen: On what date was she advised that an incident-based family violence target can be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: If you would like a specific date, you can put that question in writing and I can get that to you. Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she confirm that she received advice from Te Puna Aonui that stated, "Family violence victimisation— SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on—just wait. Now you can ask the question, because people are listening. Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she confirm that she received advice from Te Puna Aonui that stated, "Family violence victimisation can in fact be reliably measured through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. However, it was not possible to develop a Government target due to public sector Budget cuts possibly shifting the survey from yearly to every second year."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can't remember all the advice that was in there, but I can speak to the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, which is an excellent survey because it takes on board people who come forward and share their experiences with how the system has wrapped around them and what supports they have been able to get. This is something that will be very crucial when it comes to looking at how we are achieving in this space in the future. Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she explain to the victims of family and sexual violence that it was not possible for her Government to measure progress for family violence because of their own Budget cuts? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would actually disagree with that statement. It is possible to measure that through the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. We are focused on having 20,000 fewer people as victims of assaults, robberies, and serious sexual assaults by 2029, and that is a commitment we intend to keep. Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she expect to "break the cycle of violence for the safety and wellbeing of all New Zealanders" when her Government was not able to set a family violence target due to Budget cuts, provided zero additional funding for family violence in the Budget, and agreed for police to step back from family violence 111 calls without any additional support services being in place? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We did set a target—it was under the justice sector Ministers—which was to reduce by 20,000 fewer people to be victims of assault, robberies, and sexual assaults. I disagree there wasn't a target. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw to your attention Standing Order 396—I believe—which says that a question should not contain imputations, arguments, or information beyond that that is necessary to make the question intelligible. Now, in that question and an earlier one from Willow-Jean Prime, we've had four and then three assertions made within the question. Now, if you want questions to be a way of making arguments, that's one thing, but it's not consistent with the Standing Orders and it's now a pattern. SPEAKER: You are absolutely right, if the letter of the Standing Order was followed—there's no question about that. But then, again, those Standing Orders that deal with questions also equally deal with answers, and so there is a little bit of give and take. I personally thought that the Minister was answering the questions about an assertion quite strongly, so I didn't feel there was a need to interfere with the flow of the House. Question No. 8—Agriculture 8. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the primary sector? Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Well, the Government is absolutely committed to meeting our climate change obligations. However, it just doesn't make sense to shut down Kiwi farms and send jobs and production overseas so that less carbon-efficient countries produce the food that the world needs. The Government, therefore, is delivering on its election commitments to take agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), to disestablish He Waka Eke Noa, and to restore confidence in the sector. Instead, the Government will engage directly with a small group of industry leaders through a new pastoral sector group, and today we have announced we have commissioned an independent review of the science and targets of methane against additional warming so that farmers will know exactly what it is they need to achieve. Suze Redmayne: Is the Government committed to reducing agricultural emissions? Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, and that's why the Government is investing further in R & D development to develop practical tools, with $400 million being committed over the next four years to accelerate the commercialisation of tools and technology to reduce on-farm emissions, including an additional $50.5 million funding for the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre. Just this week, the Government and the BNZ announced an additional $8 million commitment towards AgriZero to boost New Zealand's efforts to reduce agricultural emissions with the development of technology like methane vaccines, a project to lower-emissions cattle, something so that the Opposition members produce less hot air, and accelerate the work of methane and nitrous oxide. We are investing heavily in research and development to provide farmers with tools to reduce methane, not to reduce productivity. Suze Redmayne: What more is the Government doing to support the rural economy? SPEAKER: I'm sure there's plenty but keep it a concise answer. Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we've heard loud and clear concerns from farmers and growers with the role that banks have played over recent years. Promoting robust competition in the banking sector is vital to rebuilding the economy and that's why the Government has written to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Primary Production Committee to undertake an inquiry into banking competition, including rural banking. Growing the rural economy is critical to rebuilding New Zealand's economy, and with farmer satisfaction and banking services dropping over recent years, it's critical that we better understand the role that the bank competition can play for the rural sector. Suze Redmayne: What else has the Government announced to support our rural communities? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the National - Act - New Zealand First coalition Government knows that local issues require local solutions. That's why we've also announced that we will be backing farmers to improve land management practices and water quality, with further commitment to support locally led catchment groups. Catchment groups and collectors are an integral and vital part in rebuilding an expert-driven economy, so the Government is committing $36 million to support these groups, with $7 million of this going directly to catchment groups across the country. Question No. 9—Conservation 9. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree that every Government, no matter their politics, has a duty of care on behalf of all New Zealanders in the conservation of Te Taiao? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, I expect that every New Zealander, including every member of this House, feels an innate desire to protect our conservation values in this country, and as the Minister of Conservation, I have a statutory responsibility to do so that I am determined to uphold. Lan Pham: Does he think that his duty of care is being upheld when he decided to cut the successful Jobs for Nature programme, which has brought immeasurable benefits to te taiao; enabled iwi, hapū, and communities to regenerate nature; and employed thousands of people? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, the Jobs for Nature programme included work streams that were always time limited. That was the case under the previous Government under which they were established; that remains the case now, and unallocated funding being discontinued is not inconsistent with that. Lan Pham: Is he concerned that his duty of care to protect biodiversity and taonga species is threatened by the Minister for the Environment's decision to cut over $600 million from Vote Environment, gut her own ministry, and scrap 500 staff roles? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, I obviously reject the premise and the characterisation of that question. My fellow Ministers and I are obviously determined to achieve conservation and other Government priorities. Part of that is reprioritising within the portfolios to ensure that the spending available—noting that no Government has ever had an unlimited budget in these matters—is deployed to maximum effect by concentrating on the areas with which we can make most difference to the conservation estate. Lan Pham: Is he concerned that his duty of care to protect marine species is threatened by the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries' proposal to disregard environmental risks and community voice through a blanket extension of every single marine farm in the country for 20 years? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, obviously I reject the characterisation of the actions and the statements and the responsibilities as executed faithfully by that ministerial colleague. Lan Pham: Does he think his duty of care is threatened by the Government's decision to override core environmental laws, our proud history of democratic process, and our founding document of Te Tiriti through the Fast-track Approvals Bill, all for the sake of industry profit? Hon CHRIS PENK: Again on behalf of the Minister of Conservation, and again those characterisations are not even close to being accurate. In relation to the democratic participation element, just to pick on that aspect of the question, it's the case that the relevant select committee has been engaged in hearing submissions on that very point, which rather undermines the member's point. It's precisely because we have that ability for democratic participation that select committee will form a view on the bill as a whole, including any amendments that it might propose, and the Government will consider those in due course. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you'll have observed in the last question and the one before that that this member's habit is to get up and make a lot of comments that she cannot authenticate, and in this House you're required to be able to authenticate to the House or the Speaker if you're challenged. Those statements about the four changes were not true then and they're not true in the future. SPEAKER: Well, that would be an interesting point of order if it were in line with the Standing Orders. Supplementary questions merely have to follow on from answers given to a primary question. I listened to that very, very carefully. Sometimes we let stuff go because of the flow of the House, but I don't believe those questions were as far out of order as was being suggested. Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. SPEAKER: Is there a further point? Ricardo Menéndez March: It's a point of order, yeah. If I heard correctly—and I just wanted to check because I was trying to pay attention—did I just hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters imply that my colleague was lying by claiming that— SPEAKER: No, no, you didn't hear that. You heard him questioning the relativity of the question to the Standing Orders, which is quite reasonable. I call Lan Pham. Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker—. SPEAKER: This better be good. Is it new? Hon David Seymour: Supplementary, yes. Is it— SPEAKER: Well, hang on, I've called Lan Pham. Hon David Seymour: Well, it better be good, then. SPEAKER: Just everyone go back to being quiet and listening to a question. Lan Pham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What in his department's environmental reporting and monitoring has he seen to support the Minister for the Environment's claim that "we consider the balance [has] swung too far towards environmental protection"? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, fellow Ministers and I are determined to ensure that we achieve real-world outcomes that are better for the environment but also better for the economy. This need not be a false choice. We can actually improve the environment in a way that reflects good, sustainable development and management principles, and that's what we determine to continue to do. Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister's view that wealthy countries are able to put more resource into conservation and his duty of care to the planet and the people of this country will be so much better discharged with sound economic management under this Government? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, that is indeed the evidence that we see worldwide. Countries that can afford to expend their resources in terms of protecting the environment, invariably are able to do so in a way that countries that are poorer simply cannot, and that feeds into the bigger-picture work of the Government of rebuilding the economy so that we have resources to do precisely this kind of thing. Question No. 10—Māori Development 10. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: What reports, if any, has he seen regarding his support for cuts to Matariki funding by 45 percent in Budget '24? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: On behalf of the Minister for Māori Development, I can advise that he has not seen any reports regarding his support for such cuts, given that the appropriation in which Matariki funding sits is with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. But on the matter of cuts, I would say that what should have been cut was the bubble and squeak from the young man from Ngāti Toa who I thought did a gross disservice last night in this Parliament lecturing Matua about Matariki. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot let that go. It was well out of order. It was gratuitous, and it's what we expect—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just a moment! Points of order are heard in silence. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That was entirely gratuitous, wildly out of order, and simply disorderly, and I simply can't let that go. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure that you can't let it go; I've got to decide what to do with it. So, what is your petition? Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Speaker, I would request that you take action in respect of that kind of gratuitous and outrageous swipe. SPEAKER: Yes, I think it would be appropriate to withdraw that comment. Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that remark, but I'll be back to see you in your office. SPEAKER: Lock the doors! Hon Dr Duncan Webb: If he won't apologise, throw him out. Get rid of him. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I'm hearing from my left the comment that there should have been an apology. There's no apology necessary. There was no offensive remark made. There was a comment that was outside the strict bounds of the question answer. Simple. Hon Peeni Henare: What is the rationale for cutting much-needed funding for Matariki events when, according to reports from Ministry for Culture and Heritage, they have seen year-on-year increases in economic spend in the regions? Hon SHANE JONES: Matariki was created as a holiday by the last regime. This regime has inherited a straightened set of economic circumstances. Money will still be made available for Matariki, but Matariki has to serve the purposes of every single New Zealander, not add to the ideological fervour of younger Māori who want to dismember the Treaty. Hon Peeni Henare: What does he say to the organisers of the Matariki Pēwhairangi festival who have said, and I quote, "Many businesses feel that it has been a slap in the face. People get angry about funding, thinking it's some kind of handout, but all [of] that money circulates back [into the economy]." Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, as a regional champion, I'm pained by the note that Tai Tokerau might be denied money through Matariki, but I would have thought that that problem was more related to the protracted time frame that it's taken to open up the Brynderwyns, which fortunately opened up last night. Hon Peeni Henare: How would the Minister rate his performance in terms of delivering for Māori in Budget '24, or are Māori best advised to put their hopes in the Matariki star, Hiwa-i-te-Rangi? SPEAKER: So much as the Minister believes he's got some responsibility for the material put in the question, he may give an answer to the House. Hon SHANE JONES: There are a host of references and allocations that have been made specifically to Māori outcomes, not the least of which is Matatini. And, of course, the full extent and breadth of the $1.2 billion regional growth fund will be made available next week. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: It comes back to this side—so Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Kia ora. Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. Supplementary to that question, what does the Minister say to the Matariki festival organisers in Pēwhairangi who said, "We were not informed this funding would not be renewed. We sent emails and tried to contact … [the ministry]. Then last week, the funding page was quietly deleted."? Hon SHANE JONES: I tēnei wā kua mimiti te haere o te pūtea. Kei pōhēhē a wai rānei i roto i te hapori e pūhake ana te pūtea, ahakoa Matariki, ahakoa hauora, ahakoa ratonga, me mōhio te Whare kua mimiti haere te pūtea. [At this time the funding is drying up. Let no one in the community be mistaken that the funding is overflowing. Whether it be Matariki, health, or services, the House should be aware that the funding is drying up.] Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, with respect to the supplementary question put by the Hon Peeni Henare, how could he possibly, as a Māori Minister, rate himself when it is known that the kūmara never says how sweet it is, and before we start posturing about Māori culture, how about learning some basics about Māori culture? Hon SHANE JONES: I am a rare kūmara. And, of course, the tribe that the member belongs to use the word tukau. I will not boast of sweetness. You will judge me by my results. Thank you very much. SPEAKER: You may be a rare kūmara; it's just we're lucky he's not tasty. Hon Peeni Henare: What list does Matariki and other Māori initiatives belong to, the A list or the C list, and does 'C' stand for "See you later; ka kite"? Hon SHANE JONES: These matters should be dealt with in a serious manner. It has become a habit for such institutions to be trivialised, misrepresented, and I think that the fact the Matariki holiday is now a feature of our calendar—in the right way, more Kiwis are embracing it. But I'd also remind the member that the word Matariki is in the Book of Job. It's as old as the Bible. SPEAKER: Yes, and I think that answer was a confusion between the stars of Matariki and the road to Damascus. Question No. 11—Building and Construction 11. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about building and construction? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): The Government has published the terms of reference for the review into earthquake-prone buildings. These demonstrate the Government's commitment to ensuring that we get the balance right between public safety and costs to building owners. The review will be extensive and will report back to the Government in the first half of 2025. Mike Butterick: Why do we need to review the earthquake-prone building system? Hon CHRIS PENK: Because the Government is focused on reinvigorating our cities and regions to support economic growth. Buildings sitting empty and abandoned for years will be negative for everyone. Buildings in that kind of state can be dangerous, but they are also a handbrake on growth and development. Improving the way we manage the risks of earthquakes will be beneficial for everyone, from our largest cities to our smallest regional towns that are the backbone of New Zealand. Mike Butterick: What will the review be focused on? Hon CHRIS PENK: The review will focus on, among other things, the cost of mitigating earthquake risk and improving buildings' resilience; proposals for managing earthquake risk, as affecting building owners; barriers in the types of incentives that would help building owners better manage seismic risk; and changes that align with broader Government objectives, such as going for housing growth and rebuilding the economy. Mike Butterick: Can Kiwis have their say on the review? Hon CHRIS PENK: Yes, they certainly can. That includes all those across the political aisle within central government but also those in local government who have key roles to play in the system as it currently exists. The public can provide their feedback and share their views via the building.govt.nz site. Question No. 12—Conservation 12. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by all his statements made at the Estimates hearing of the Environment Committee on 18 June? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Yes, in the context that they were given. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What work, if any, has he done to determine the cost of avoiding species extinction, given his statement "we have to be very careful before we say every single species is going to be saved. We have to be very mindful that that comes at a cost which up until this point in time, no one has figured out." Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister of Conservation, I note, first of all, that the Department of Conservation has a world-renowned threat classification system. Obviously, considerations need to be taken into account such as the number of different locations within New Zealand that endangered species exist and where extinction is threatened. Obviously, some are in greater need in terms of the sheer numbers involved, such as the number of breeding pairs of endangered birds, for example. I do note, however, that there have been considerable successes over the time of successive Governments, such as the dial being turned, so to speak, in relation to takahē and kākāpō. These are positive steps and we're focused on maximising the resources that we have to protect the conservation estate. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: So how can he say that saving every at-risk species without a costing is " very myopic and short-sighted", when he has also said, at the same hearing, that there was no costing? Hon CHRIS PENK: It's impossible to quantify exactly the cost of saving all species. I would encourage all members of this House, including the member asking the question, to take a long-term view of the problem and to be quite clear-headed about the need to prioritise resources that will achieve the best possible effect in terms of protecting New Zealand's conservation. I don't think there's anything controversial about that. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does he agree with Nicola Toki, chief executive of Forest & Bird, "It's incredibly concerning to hear the conservation minister say that avoiding species extinction is 'very aspirational' and that we need to somehow put a price on saving species that are only found here in Aotearoa New Zealand"; if not, why not? Hon CHRIS PENK: Obviously, I do not share Ms Toki's view in that regard, but I welcome her and every other New Zealander who has a view in the matter to express it. I think, however, as Minister, I've been quite right to emphasise the importance of prioritising species that exist only in New Zealand, and I make no apology for doing so. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in him as conservation Minister when he has so little ambition for protecting our biodiversity and has allowed over $100 million in cuts to the Department of Conservation? Hon CHRIS PENK: Obviously, I reject the premise of the question. Clearly, I am focused, as are my fellow Government Ministers, on maximising the outcomes—and I emphasise outcomes as opposed to merely funding in the hope of achieving outcomes—and for that reason, I am very clearly focused on ensuring we understand exactly what is required and to deliver exactly that. SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill. I'd just ask those members who are going back to various other bits of business to leave the House quietly, please. LAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLE STANDARD) AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Debate resumed. Clause 6 Section 167C amended (Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard)) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, could we ask those that are leaving the House to leave quietly and have discussions in the lobbies or elsewhere, please. Members, when we suspended for the lunch break, we were in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill and we were debating clause 6. Clause 6 is "Section 167C amended (Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard))". I will remind members that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5E amending section 167C should properly be an amendment to clause 6, so will be considered as part of this debate. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a very brief call in this debate. It's good to see the Minister back in the chair after the break. We've had the Minister Erica Stanford answer all of our questions on this part and so I only want to thank her for her excellent contributions. We have no more questions on this part, but if the Minister would like to add to her answers, we'd look forward to asking her. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just had a member tell me there were no more questions on this part, and now we're having calls. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I can explain, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'll have one wee explanation. Thank you. Just a wee one. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: A little point that was made when a different Minister was sitting in the chair, but it hasn't been answered—so the point that I think my colleague was making was that it would be very great to hear some answers from the Minister, and I'll remind the Minister what my point was very quickly. It's just that the Ministers in the chair have been talking about certainty with the state change, which makes it sound as if the Ministers expect the regulations to be mandatory, but all the words in the legislation say "may", not a mandatory "must", so I'd like a confirmation that in fact the regulations are, as the Minister said before, enabling the Minister to make the regulation, but it's not in fact mandatory for a regulation. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 42 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. Tangi Utikere's amendment to delete clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 44 is out of order as being a direct negation of the question. The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 6 to replace "2024" with "2025" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 6 to replace "2024" with "2026" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5E be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 6 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Clause 6 agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, Arena Williams' tabled amendment to insert new clause 5F is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Arena Williams' tabled amendment to insert new clause 5G is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation. Clause 7 Section 175 amended (Targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the debate on clause 7, which is the debate on "Section 175 amended (Targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions)". The question is that clause 7 stand part. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on clause 7. This clause, effectively, does two things. What it does is it removes the prescribed targets which are in the legislation that the last Government legislated. Secondly, it allows the Government to be able to set new targets via regulation for any calendar year after 2024 rather than keeping those targets in legislation. So the targets for this current year will stay in law, the targets for last year will stay prescribed, but the targets for the next three years will be removed. The regulation-making power is then set so that the Minister can then set the targets for the next three years, just as it's already in place for the years after that. There's a regulation-making power which already allows those targets to be set for the following three years; this just simply brings that forward and allows for those targets to be set from the end of this year. So it's a very simple clause. It makes two key changes which then enables the Government to make any changes. There is a review already under way as prescribed in the Act. As the Minister of Transport, I'm required to undertake a review of the standard. I was required to review the standard prior to 30 June 2024; the problem was that I could review it but there was no ability for any changes to be made. So, quite simply, I'm doing the review and now there's going to be an ability for any changes to be made based upon that review. Actually, that is a common-sense approach; a sensible way. In fact, I remember being around the select committee table when this bill was being debated, going through Parliament, and, actually, one of the points which consistently came through is, actually, enabling the Minister to set these standards via regulation was put to the last Government, they ignored that advice, they ignored those recommendations; we are simply doing it in a far more sensible way. I look forward to the debate on this clause. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some questions that I put to the Minister around the commencement date that pertain also to this clause that I haven't heard an answer to in the committee yet. This is particularly around repealing section 175(1)(c) to (e) and reducing the carbon dioxide targets that are in there. So the effect of the repeal is that the targets for reducing the carbon dioxide emissions for the calendar years of 2025 to 2027 are removed from the principal Act. What I'd like to know from the Minister, given that he's going to have the ability to make those by regulation, is what will the impact on emissions reduction plan (ERP) 2 and ERP3 be? Will those need to be updated, given both of those emissions reduction plans have baked in emissions reductions that have been calculated by various measures, including the Clean Car Standard. So in terms of the repealing of those baked in, if that's the Minister's intent just to put in place regulations that are as ambitious or more ambitious than what is currently in the legislation, then I'd expect that we'd see an improvement to the emissions reduction plans for those periods. It might actually only be emissions budget 2, but the Minister will be able to tell me that—that it could be an improvement to that. But it is the way in which these two documents interact, and the fact that we are seeing through section 175 that that is the effect that is going to take effect. I think the committee needs to understand in terms of the Minister's time lines, his level of ambition, and what the interplay with the emissions budgets will be. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, I thank the member for the question. The answer to that is there is a review under way. Under section 167C of the Act, there is a number of criteria under which the Minister has to be satisfied and take into account and consider when setting the regulations. So in setting the regulations, I will be satisfied and have consideration, and undertake the appropriate processes as required under that piece of legislation. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you. So from the Minister's answer, is he telling me he will not be satisfied if there is a negative impact on the emissions budgets—so ERP2—and he will not make a change that will have a negative impact on that emissions budget? Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like some clarifications from the Minister because I've been kind of waiting since the title to ask this question because it's pertaining specifically to clause 7. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good idea! [Member pauses speech] Sorry, I just said "Good idea!" because it's specific to the clause. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Ha, ha! Playing the long game. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Minister, you have already mentioned—and I appreciate the fact that you laid out what is in section 175A Land Transport Act around that "The Minister must, not later than 30 June 2024, initiate a review …". And the Minister already mentioned before that if you initiate the review, there may not be any opportunities to make changes because what is being repealed—section 175(1)(c) to (e)—is already locked into 2017. However, can I just check: my presumption when it comes to something like this is that "initiate a review" doesn't necessarily mean that the review must be completed within a particular period—it just means that we need to have a process in place to start reviewing for it. I'm curious to know in this case when we're looking at section 175(1)(c) to (e) that when we are looking at the initiation of the review, what outcome is the Minister hoping to achieve by making the presumption that two years of data between 2023 and 2024 only would see a viable trend on how successful this was, and meets the criteria that the Minister has just laid out in section 175A(2) onwards in terms of things that the Minister must take into account? So I guess my clarification that I would like from the Minister is, the current settings were put in place for us to see that five-year trend, but now, by removing that, and I don't know how long the Minister intends for this review to take place, but presumably that the original intention—if the Minister would like to clarify as well—is to see that five year trend. So the review that the Minister is intending on conducting, would that also take place in consideration of that five-year trend? And, if not, and because we are seeing the repeal 175(1)(c) to (e), if that's not the case, what are we able to perceive or what are we able to be enlightened by two years' worth of data? So if the Minister would mind clarifying that. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. The questions that relate to the review I think are outside the particular clause here in relation to what this clause is doing. The clause is doing two things. One is it's removing the standard for the next three years and then allowing them to be set by regulation. The review is underway in order to provide—well, one, to fulfil what the law requires, and, two, to provide advice as to what those standards should be. That that work is under way. I note the member is asking about time frames and all of those—they're all good questions, but ultimately they're not necessarily part of this clause in terms of what this clause does. What I would say is, I'm not going to be doing a review for multiple years because that would not be—ultimately, decisions need to be made, targets need to be set. Also, the Government's position has been very clear: we support having a standard, but we also believe that there should be the opportunity for that standard to be amended by regulation rather than having it prescribed in legislation, which is what this clause is doing. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Still interested in a response from the Minister of Transport to the issues that have been raised by my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods, particularly just some clarification around whether he would or wouldn't make regulations that would, basically, be more to the detriment in relation to what emissions reduction plan (ERP) 2 and 3 looks like. So that's still on the radar for the Minister's consideration. I've got three Amendment Papers in my name—42, 43, and 44—and given the Minister has not shut them down as of yet, they might be up for consideration. Well, they're up for consideration; whether they are up for him to take them on board or not, we'll wait with bated breath as we progress through this. The one that I do want to speak to specifically is 43, because clause 7 basically strikes through all of those listed specified targets in section 175(1)(c), (d), and (e), and they relate to the various targets post the end of this calendar year—so, (c) relates to 25 January, (d) 26, and (e) 27, and then from that point after is when the regulations kick in. What my Amendment Paper seeks to do is still allow for the Minister to make regulations post the end of this calendar year, but what it does is it seeks to ensure that any of those regulations that are made under the regulation-making provision would be such that those targets that are made by the Minister would not be set at a higher level than in any previous calendar year. Effectively, I guess, you'd call it a "sinking lid" so that we have a baseline where the targets for the current calendar year for a Type A vehicle is 133.9 grams and for a Type B vehicle is 201.9 grams. Then what we see if you look at those over corresponding years, the targets in the primary legislation are naturally going to decrease every year until the regulation-making power kicks in. Now, what Amendment Paper 43 provides for is an ability for the Minister to still make the regulations but a guarantee that the regulations that he would make would, effectively, never be an increase on any previous calendar year. So I invite the Minister to share his thoughts on that. If he is serious about meeting our targets in relation to the various agreements that we have signed up to as a country, I think that would actually mitigate a lot of the concern that has been raised by some who haven't been consulted. So I ask the Minister what his perspective or view is on that particular amendment to ensure that he still retains the power to make or set these targets by regulation. The only point of difference, of course, is that the sinking lid for the targets would continue to be on the incline. It would mean, potentially, that he could set those targets, or the Minister could set those targets, at the current rate and that that wouldn't change, but what it would guarantee is that there wouldn't be an increase in that. So I'm interested in the Minister's response. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I think the questions from the member Tangi Utikere and the Hon Dr Megan Woods in relation to the ERP and ERP 2 and 3 are good questions, but, ultimately, those are questions that will be dealt with as part of the review. This clause is quite simple. It makes two changes. One is to remove the targets and then allow for them to be set by regulation. There is already empowering provision and considerations that have to be taken into account when setting targets and what the Minister has to take into account as part of that process. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have been waiting to ask this question: on clause 7, why did the Minister of Transport feel it necessary to delete the existing standards for 2025 to 2027? The bill could have been drafted to allow new targets to be set by regulation for those years without deleting the existing values in the meantime. Why did the Minister think it was necessary to delete the targets in the meantime? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Because what it does is it, quite simply, makes consistency between how targets are set after 2027, with those targets set between now and 2027. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): So although leaving the existing targets there in the meantime until new ones—I mean, it would also be the case that there would be the consistent approach of being able to make new targets through regulation, even if we left the initial targets in the legislation in the meantime so there was some sense of there being a target for 2025, 2026, and 2027 in the interim. So why did he delete the targets before the new ones have been set? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, there is a target in place right now for 2024. We're not removing or amending the target for 2024—the one which is in existence now. There's a review under way, and that review will provide advice around what the target should be going forward. But this, ultimately, empowers those decisions to happen. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from that line of questioning from Julie Anne Genter, I have an amendment in my name that would allow for this. The point that she has made is the right one: we're not disputing the Minister's ability to create for himself new regulatory-making powers that would apply from 2024, but those could exist alongside the primary legislation, particularly 175(1)(c) to (e), whereby he would be able to set other targets and a number of other things that are set out at 167B in the primary legislation that aren't covered by what is set out in the primary legislation between 175(1)(c) to (e). It would be really useful if he could comment on the interaction between section 175(1) of the original Act with section 167B of the original Act. What I want to ask is, also, given that he has said there is no intention for him to remove 175(1)(b) from the primary legislation—that's not an amendment that he's proposed—he is, essentially, creating a power for himself. He's got a regulatory-making power which will apply between July and December of 2024 alongside the primary target in the Act: those primary legislation targets that are set out in 175. He himself has just told the committee that his regulatory-making powers can exist alongside the primary legislation. I'd like to hear from the Minister then, why that cannot be the situation in 2025, 2026, and 2027. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for his earlier comment on Amendment Paper 43. I know that he has said that that will form part of the review, but I'm interested, Minister: do you think it is a way in which some of the concerns could be mitigated, by effectively allowing for a reduction? Well, not even a reduction, actually; just the targets as they currently stand for the current year to remain static through to whenever a regulation-making sort of date would kick in. The other one is, I'd just remind the Minister that earlier in the day he did say he was going to provide a response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's letter, specifically in relation to clause 7, so he may want to take up that opportunity given he'd signalled that earlier in the day to do so. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of those questions. The Government's position is that—and I think it's clear in the legislation—we are providing consistency with what the law says post-2027 and what it will be post-2024. That is, the regulation-making powers will be used to set targets. We've made it very clear we support a standard, but we're going to undertake a review. That review will provide advice in relation to setting those targets. There's a number of tabled amendments in terms of these issues. Some of them are inconsistent with Government policies, such as Amendment Paper 42, which says to "replace '2024' … with '2028'." That, of course, is inconsistent with the intent of the Government. There's others which seek to delete subclause 2, which again would be inconsistent with the Government's position, which is that we are seeking to be able to use the regulation-making power which already exists within the Act, to be able to make those amendments. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Was it important for clause 7 to delete the existing targets for 2025, 2026, and 2027 because the Minister of Transport intends to water down the standard for 2025? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to be clear that when we're talking about section 175(1)—for anyone listening—that sets some numbers for targets for calendar years in paragraph (a) for 2023 and in paragraph (b) for 2024, and those don't change. What's changing is the targets in paragraph (c), being 2025; paragraph (d), for 2026; and paragraph (e), for 2027. They are all being repealed. Those targets are being repealed. The questions I've been asking in relation to clause 6, as well, are about whether there is any replacement regulation for those standards. The standards are being repealed, the Minister is saying he's doing a review, and the Minister is saying that these changes enable regulations. They don't require regulations. So what, I think, this side of the House is quite agitated about is the possibility that the Minister will not make regulations that are better for the environment but that he will make regulations that are worse for the environment than those current targets for 2025, 2026, and 2027. So this is a great opportunity for the Minister to record on Hansard that it is totally his intention after his review to set targets that will be better in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions for the environment than what is in the Act at the moment, and if he can't say that, then all of his arguments that we've heard in his previous speeches go out the window, because it becomes a policy debate. The Minister has said over and over again that all that this bill does is enables him to make regulations and it does cost recovery. But, in fact, if the Minister chooses not to make regulations, or makes regulations that are of less effect in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, then it is a policy choice to increase carbon dioxide emissions, and we can't see any analysis in the reports that come with the bill on that policy choice because we've been told that there is no policy choice. At the moment—and I'd really like the Minister to answer this question—it appears that it's discretionary for him to make regulations. The targets are gone, and that is a real problem, unless, of course, he can say on the Hansard and to the committee that he is committed to doing a review whereby the regulations will be better than what he's repealing. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, the position of the Government is very clear. What we are doing here is we're making the legislation the same for the years 2024 to 2027 in order to be exactly the same as what it will be post-2027. So all of those questions that the Opposition are concerned about are questions which they should have been concerned about with the legislation that they passed themselves when they were in Government, because, actually, they put in place legislation that enabled regulations to be made and they didn't prescribe them for post-2027. So we're simply bringing that power forward. The legislation allows for, or requires a review to happen. That review is under way. The Government has said that we're committed to a clean car standard, and we'll make decisions as part of that review. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a couple more questions but remembering that it's quite a narrow part and the Minister has engaged in answering a number of questions. So I'm going to go back to the Hon Rachel Brooking. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. It's a very short point, and that is: what the Minister of Transport just said gave us no comfort. To paraphrase somewhat, he said, "Well, it was always open from 2007"—I'm getting my decades mixed up; 2027. "It was always open from 2027 anyway, and so that's all I'm committing to."—nothing about there will be the minimum of what's in the current Act at the moment, with the standards he's repealing. Given that answer, my question was also: where is the policy analysis about that? A very simple question. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do just want to note that earlier in the debate we were told that most of the substantive debate was actually relevant to clause 7. So this is, I thought, the time when we would most get into the substance of the bill, during clause 7. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Except the questions are becoming—the Minister's answering the questions and we can't guarantee that the members will like the Minister's answers to the questions, but the Minister's answering the questions. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, Madam Chair, I'm going to just take the opportunity to point out to the Minister, because he doesn't seem to understand the difference between having 2025 set by regulation versus 2027 or 2028—and the difference is 2025 is in six months and 2027, 2028 is several years away. So the difference is that if he were to undertake a review— Tom Rutherford: What's the question? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I don't have to ask a question. I'm going to use my time to speak, thank you. Hon Members: Ooh! CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That's enough. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I don't—[Interruption] CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Carry on. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So the difference is that when the targets for 2025 to 2027 were set, that was years ago and the industry had several years ramp up to know what the targets were going to be. The fact that they can now be changed in regulation means they can be changed in the next six months and they could be changed to be more ambitious or less ambitious, therefore increasing uncertainty for the industry. Although given that the Minister keeps saying it's increasing certainty and we know that he's only really talked to certain people in the industry, we can, I think, assume that the only direction of travel will be to weaken the standards and therefore allow more highly polluting vehicles into the country than otherwise would come in, thereby increasing carbon emissions relative to no change. Now, earlier I read from a letter, a statement from Drive Electric—they're not the only ones. There are a number of people in the industry who are very concerned about the change to the standards from 2025 to 2027 and saying that this clause and this legislation increases uncertainty around direction of travel and any changes to the standard has broad economic implications. It's unclear, but very likely it will reduce electric vehicle uptake, it will increase emissions from transport, it will increase imports of petrol and diesel relative to not changing the standard, which of course costs the economy and affects the current account deficit. So I guess my main question now for the Minister is: in whose interest is this legislation and the changing of the targets? Is it for the vehicle importers who want to sell more highly polluting vehicles and earn more profit at the expense of New Zealand and at the expense of the climate? Is that the interest that the Minister is legislating in, and, if not, why has he not opened up consultation and spoken to other people in the vehicle industry, people who represent electric and low emissions vehicles? Does he admit that bringing in the legislation now and making the possibility of changing the target for next year is increasing uncertainty and direction of travel? Is it in fact as a result of cancelling the Clean Car Discount? Because, as I know very well, the vehicle industry wanted the Clean Car Discount. They did not want standards without the Clean Car Discount. When we brought in the Clean Car Discount, what happened is it made a huge difference to— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We are talking about another bill now, though. It would be good to come back to this one. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, OK. Those two bits of legislation work together and the combination of the Clean Car Discount and the Clean Car Standard together resulted in a substantial drop in the average emissions of vehicles being imported into the country. Since the Clean Car Discount was cancelled, it has massively increased the average emissions of the cars coming into the country. That's why now the Government has to water down the standard and create a lot of uncertainty in direction of travel, because they got rid of the incentive that was working to change the demand, consumer demand, but also the options that are available for people. Of course the Minister won't do this, but because we're not having a select committee process, I think that it needs to be said that the voices of the people who care about the progress of our country, who care about actually switching our fleet to lower emissions vehicles because it's better for everyone—it is literally better for everyone except some overseas car manufacturers who can make a bit more money selling us higher emissions vehicles. Oh, and also the people who produce oil, you know, and fund the Atlas Network, which is very influential to some of the people in here. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I realise and take into account your guidance about the number of questions that we have had about the effect of, essentially, whether the primary legislation can still exist and doesn't need to be repealed, alongside the Minister's policy goals. The reason we need an answer on that, Madam Chair—and I'm going to ask the Minister again so he can have another go before his speech—is that we've had a Minister here resolutely continue to tell the committee that he is making a policy decision which only brings forward his ability to make decisions, and so there is no appetite from him in this stage of the debate to entertain that he would commit to setting ambitious targets which will meet New Zealand's climate goals. There's no intention to commit to the standards that already exist in the legislation that rachet up the requirements on the industry. This is a problem and I'm going to offer him an opportunity to answer now, because he'll get back in that seat at the third reading and he will tell us that he is ambitious for New Zealand's climate goals. He will tell us that he is responsible as the Minister of Transport for reducing the carbon dioxide emissions of New Zealand's fleet. We have heard that from Ministers of the Crown today in question time. We hear it from the Prime Minister weekly. So I am going to ask the Minister: is he committed to using his new regulatory powers, which he has come to the Chamber and proposed in this bill, to ratchet up the requirements on the car import industry, and will he commit, as the Minister of Transport, to using his new regulatory powers, which we cannot scrutinise, to improve New Zealand's carbon dioxide emissions? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the members for their questions in relation to this clause. As I've stated on a number of occasions, this is about the regulation-making power being extended from what it is post-2027 to 2024. Now, in the Act already, there is a range of considerations that have to be taken into account when setting those standards, and those are the things that I will take into account when considering the review, which is currently under way. Now, I note that the member Tangi Utikere has been asking me to respond to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's letter, which I think is a fair question. Effectively, the comment he is seeking in that letter—one is around timing. We've already debated that. The other one is around, again, more prescription around the use of the regulation-making power, and what I would put to the member is that there is in the Act already a range of considerations that have to be taken into account when setting the standard, which is exactly how I will undertake that. SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to delete clause 7(1) set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to delete clause 7(1) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed—Amendment Paper 43. Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 7(2) set out on Amendment Paper 42 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to delete clause 7(2) set out on Amendment Paper 44 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 7 to replace "2024" with "2025" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 7 to replace "2024" with "2026" be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to insert clause 7(3) set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 7 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Clause 7 agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will report this bill without amendment. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately. Third Reading Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill does two things. It does two things to amend the Land Transport Act to ensure that the Government is able to amend the clean vehicle standard by regulations rather than for it to be set in legislation. Secondly, it allows for the cost recovery of the clean vehicle standard process, rather than for that cost to be put across all New Zealand taxpayers. This Government is committed to retaining a clean car standard. We see that as playing an important role in ensuring that New Zealand gets the mix of vehicles that New Zealanders rely on. Affordable vehicles, cleaner vehicles, and the mix of the types of vehicles which can help New Zealanders with their day-to-day lives, including those who are on our farms, in our cities, and in our small towns. We want to ensure New Zealanders have that mix of vehicles at an affordable and increasingly sustainable approach. However, the last Government, when putting in place the clean vehicle standard, effectively legislated what that standard should be right out to the end of 2027. And what this bill does is it says instead of having it legislated, it allows that those standards can be amended by regulation, just as they are post-2027 those can already be amended or put in place by regulation. And the reason for doing that is because the law actually requires a review of that standard to happen. So it legislated a standard and then it legislated a review. But after doing a review, which it required me as the Minister of Transport to start prior to 30 June 2024, it did not have any ability for the standard to actually be amended. And the reality is that if the standard is kept as it currently stands, we're going to get to a point where our standard becomes more and more stringent, to a point where New Zealand as a car market—people importing vehicles and consumers—will either have to pay more and more for those vehicles because there isn't the global supply for them, or ultimately they won't have the mix of vehicles that they rely on. So we're reviewing it to ensure we're getting the balance right in regards to affordability, the emissions reduction, and also making sure that New Zealanders can get the mix of vehicles that they need. So that review is under way and decision post - this legislation being made will allow decisions to be made in regards to what those standards should be going forward. But this bill also ensures an appropriate cost recovery mechanism is put in place, which is that for the clean vehicle standard operation currently there's $11.8 million that's being given per year to the New Zealand Transport Agency to operate an IT system, which, by the way, is then used by people who import vehicles. Well, in every other aspect of importing vehicles there are cost recovery methods put in place to ensure that the systems are user pays and those costs are recovered. So this bill enables regulations to be set for those costs to be recovered. But the interesting thing is despite the last Government allocating $11.8 million each year to the standard, it was actually only costing around $6.5 million to run. And it just shows how the last Government actually operated. They'd allocate almost twice as much—almost twice as much, just appropriate it, which is what they used to do; the magic money tree—just appropriate it. And then, of course, what's the incentive? "Oh, let's just spend it." Well, actually, on this side of the House, we actually think that this is taxpayers' money and it should be treated far more carefully. And so that's what this bill will do. So this bill makes two, I think, very sensible changes. I thank members from across the House for their engagement in the committee of the whole House stage. The bill is going forward without amendment because, ultimately, the decisions made by the Government allow that review to take place, any changes to happen, and that cost recovery method to be put in place. We stand by this bill and we commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, the House has been sitting since the late hours of last night, all through today, to deal with this one piece of legislation. Andy Foster: Whose fault was that? TANGI UTIKERE: Well, whose fault it was, Mr Foster, was this Government's, who clearly want to take this country backwards in terms of meeting our emissions targets and being ambitious, because there is absolutely no ambition in relation to that. This is a piece of legislation that has been rammed through this Parliament, through all stages—first reading, second reading, committee, and now third—without any opportunity for any select committee scrutiny or engagement. But the Minister, as this bill has been making its way through the Parliament in the last 24 hours, has made very clear that consultation under his watch will take place, but it will only take place with the importers that this bill will affect. Those are the only people that he is interested in. He's been very clear about setting regulations. He will only consult with importers. He will not consult with any environmental NGOs. He will not consult with anyone else that might want to have a view on this. And this is just emblematic of the approach that this Government seems to take in terms of making decisions that will have a real impact on the ground, but they don't care about that. They are simply focused on being in it for those that will support them. This is very, very disappointing. Parliament has spent a number of hours reflecting on the fact that an officer of this Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner of Environment, took the time, bevvied into this process by sending an open letter to the Minister of Transport expressing concerns and opportunities around the fact that this was a bill that would have huge implications on the environment. Yet there was not an opportunity for an officer of Parliament to directly feed into that and has had to, effectively, issue an open letter to make his views known. And you know what? When those views were put to the Minister time and time and time again, he simply said, "Well, it's got nothing to do with that, actually, because it's got to wait for the review process." I think that is absolutely disgraceful, on the part of Simeon Brown, that that is the response that he has. There is a requirement for the Minister to consult whenever he is going to issue regulations and he's made it very clear around who he is going to consult with. You know, members on this side of the House have attempted to be very conciliatory in a number of the amendments that we've put forward in this process. Now, the Government has had, in many instances, a lot of time to actually have a look at those amendment papers because they were tabled, I think on the night or within the 24 hours of the Budget, so at least three weeks to pursue or peruse through those. Now, one that I thought was actually very sensible, and would have provided an opportunity for the Minister to have a look at, was the creation of the sinking lid, to ensure that the risk for actually an increase in those targets to take place would be mitigated because they wouldn't be possible. But the Minister did not give any consideration to that and it is rather unfortunate that that is in fact the case. There is no ambition here in this legislation. What we have currently is the state of play, a legislated specified list of targets that run us through the next three-year period, and then we revert into regulations as an opportunity. What is wrong with that—what is wrong with that? The Minister has failed to address that. This clean car standard is a piece of legislation that was introduced as a way of workability in tandem with the clean car rebate or the discount. Now, this Government slated that within their first hundred days. They basically chopped out households from having an opportunity to access a no to low emission vehicle opportunity by saying "No, no, we've hit the target." And, as a result of that, we have seen the sales of those vehicles actually plummet. And this will do nothing to support the reversal of that as well. This was something that was phased in from December 2022 and its focus was primarily around driving down the CO2 emissions for light vehicles, to target those who use light vehicles, everyday households, others that have it in the fleet as well, let alone the environmental factors that are at play. We have heard time and time again in this House about the fact that we have to drive down our transportation sector emissions if we are going to make any real progress to delivering on the outcomes that we have signed up to as an international player. It's interesting when we look at the numbers—there are 1,000, or thereabouts, vehicle importers that import 300,000 vehicles each year into this country. Now, what is interesting is that this is going to be, effectively, a car tax that is thrown on to each vehicle. It's the only logical way that the Government will be able to administer this, by saying, "Actually, we're not going to set an across-the-board fee, X amount of money that's required, spread that over the 1,000, and everyone pays the same amount." There are equity issues with that. What they are going to do is they're going to say every single vehicle that is sold in New Zealand is going to have an admin fee tacked on and something else to meet the costs of this. So it is a car tax. It is something that they are putting on to households and purchases as well. Now, this is clearly a Government that is looking to authorise and permit dirtier cars on our roads, dirtier cars in our communities, less efficient cars out and about. And that would be vehicles that have higher operating costs over the life of the vehicle as well, and they are going to continue to penalise those for whom it is just a little bit more difficult to make the decision to actually migrate over to a no to low emitting vehicle. And that is rather unfortunate. It is important that we do have a sense of ambition. This is something that is lacking from this Government, that they've taken urgency to ram through this piece of legislation. Simon Court: Coming from your side. TANGI UTIKERE: Oh, Mr Court, that's got him going. You know, he's sitting there silently for quite some time, and now whenever we tinker with the suggestion of no ambition from him and his party, as a member of this Government, that's what riles him up a little bit. But there is no ambition from this Government to seek to drive down the emissions in this country. If we look at what the levels are contained here in the actual piece of legislation, there was a real opportunity for Minister Simeon Brown to come to the House to say to the Parliament and to those who are listening, "You know what? Actually, I give a commitment that the targets that I set as Minister of Transport will not be higher than the targets that exist here today." And he refused to do that. That was an opportunity to signal to everyone in this House and out there in the community that we are serious as a Government about driving down our emissions in the profile. He refused to do that, and I think that is just absolutely an unfortunate opportunity that has gone by. An aspect of this bill is to push those costs to the industry via the cost recovery. It's something that Minister Brown has talked about ad infinitum—that this is about user pays, it's about cost recovery. That will find its way on to the consumer. The money that is currently being paid by the public for an element of public good is going to make its way on to the consumer. And we've had this conversation as part of the committee of the whole House about whether it was appropriate to amend as the principal Act, the Land Transport Act, or whether there had been some advice sought or some advice that may have been given. Actually, this sat more squarely within the consumer rights, consumer guarantee space; or maybe it sat in the energy efficiency, climate change space. We didn't actually hear from—well, no, we did hear from him, to be fair. And he said, "No, no, this is because this is what the previous Government did." Since when did previous Governments buy in future and current Governments—since when did previous Governments buy in future and current Governments? Because, if that was the case, the Government wouldn't be on its mission and heading in the direction that it seems to be heading in as well. So that is absolute and utter nonsense—absolute and utter nonsense. The Minister is simply running a ruler through all of these specific targets that will kick in, and that is really unfortunate. You know, the focus of the Land Transport Act is around a rapid reduction in emissions, in terms of Part 5. This piece of legislation that's been rammed through the House under urgency at the moment over the last few hours, or many hours, is doing nothing to do exactly that. It is doing nothing to actually drive down our emissions profile as a country. And what that means is there will be significant implications for households and for us as a nation as we fail, under this Government, to take climate change seriously, and we fail to meet the targets that have been outlined and the responsibilities that have also been outlined and underpin the emissions reduction plans 2 and 3. It is unfortunate. So, on this side of the House, we will continue to oppose this ridiculous dire piece of legislation that seeks to do nothing but to put a further barrier on those that want to make a difference. I oppose this bill. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Better things are possible. The whole reason I was motivated to stand for the Green Party and get involved in politics is because I am eternally hopeful and I have seen places that make better decisions than New Zealand currently does: places where people have warm, dry, affordable homes, where they use more renewable electricity, where they have lower fuel bills and they have cleaner air and kids walk and cycle to school and people are healthier and happier as a result. Ironically, in those very places that the National Party identified as the countries in the world with the "best roads"—the Netherlands, Singapore, Japan; what do all these places have in common? The majority of people in the cities are not using cars, and the reason for that is because they've invested in alternatives. All of this is possible for New Zealand as well. But as long as we are going to be totally focused on cars and roads, as this Government is—if they want to realistically do anything to meet our climate targets, which they say over and over they are committed to, we have to do something about the cars coming into the country and reduce those emissions, and we have to be evidence based about what is going to work. I want to acknowledge my predecessor Jeanette Fitzsimons, co-leader of the Green Party, the late Jeanette Fitzsimons, someone who was way—way—ahead of her time and calmly persevered in here. She set up the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and worked alongside the hon David Parker on fuel economy standards—which were then thrown out by the National Government in 2008 and as a result of that, we were lagging behind the rest of the world. That's very clear when you look at these graphs from the International Council on Clean Transportation which compares New Zealand, Mexico, Japan, Chile, South Korea, Australia, China, Brazil, India, the United States, Canada, the UK, and EU and shows that up until very recently, the average fuel economy of the vehicles coming into New Zealand was worse than all of those other countries. And nobody benefits from that here in New Zealand; nobody benefits from being a dumping ground for polluting vehicles. It just means we spend more money on petrol and diesel, and we have worse air quality and more people die as a result—and we have worse carbon emissions. So here's the opportunity that we had to have evidence-based policy that was going to get results—objective results—that would benefit everyone in New Zealand as proven by the benefit-cost analysis that was done. But in fact, the policies exceeded expectations. They were working even better than planned. The Clean Car Discount combined with the Clean Car Standard saw a drastic reduction in the average emissions of the vehicles coming into this country. Before we brought those policies in, the industry said, "No way, can't be done—can't be done." That's what they said. But then guess what happened? We did bring in the policies, and it happened, and the average fuel economy of cars coming in—and bear with me, I know the other side doesn't like numbers, they don't like to get into the numbers, but we went from 189 grams of carbon per kilometre to 136 grams of carbon per kilometre. It was decreasing at 50 grams per kilometre per year—incredibly fast rate. The average emissions on that trend for May 2024 would have been 92 grams per kilometre and now they're up to 161 grams per kilometre. So, objectively, ditching the Clean Car Discount, putting up the road-user charges for electric vehicles, and now introducing certainty in the sense that the standards for 2025 to 2027 are going to be watered down means that we will get more polluting vehicles in New Zealand than we would otherwise get. And who benefits from this in New Zealand? Who? Anyone? Oh, a tiny percentage of people—the only people the Minister is actually going to consult about this policy because he's put this legislation through under urgency with no select committee process. We've heard from heaps of people actually in the vehicle industry that they are very concerned that this means ditching the standards. It's introducing uncertainty and it's at a time when electric vehicles are increasing globally—sales are drastically increasing, but they have plummeted in New Zealand and this locks in emissions for 20 years from now because brand new vehicles that come into the country, they're still going to be driven in 20 years. So every year that we import more fossil fuel vehicles that have high emissions we're locked into those emissions for ages. So it's just a total own goal but, you know, entirely expected from a Minister who takes very seriously the comments on his Facebook page: rather than looking at evidence, rather than looking at what is going to be effective, turn everything into a culture war, make it all about blaming certain categories of people, when in truth we all have to face climate change together. The farmers are being affected by the floods and the droughts. We have to work together to solve this problem and we were—we were solving it together. But those people on the other side, they will use hate and division and utter propaganda to stop progress—to stop progress. Why? Because the people who donate to them stand to benefit. A tiny percentage of people—a tiny percentage of corporations and very rich individuals. My colleague Tangi Utikere said that these parties are not ambitious. Well, they are very ambitious for a very small percentage of people. They want a very small percentage of people who already own the most and have earned the highest profits to earn even more—double-down on the status quo and pretend that letting a few people get richer or a few overseas corporations make more money at the expense of New Zealand's atmosphere and air quality, that that's somehow going to make New Zealand better off as a country. What a joke—what a joke. It's positively Orwellian, the propaganda and the words that come from this Government when they describe their actions. We had a Government policy statement today, supposedly about increasing economic growth and productivity—what a joke. Every action it takes is setting us backwards on the failed policies of the 20th century that have led to New Zealand having an incredibly inefficient transport system, incredibly high petrol and diesel bills, and it's going to keep doing that. The Minister said, with respect to this legislation, that it was increasing certainty for the industry. It's doing the exact opposite. As he admitted during the committee stages, putting it into regulation means that the standard for next year—just six months from now, 2025—could be higher or could be lower. He said he's done this to make it consistent with how the standards were going to be set two, three, four, or five years from now. The truth is it's increasing uncertainty and it's making it very clear that the Government is going to water down the standards irrespective of the evidence about the climate impacts, irrespective of the evidence about the economic cost to New Zealand of doing that, irrespective of the evidence of the health impacts. The Government is going to carry on down this track because a small number of overseas vehicle manufacturers will find it slightly more profitable because the rest of the world is not taking these polluting vehicles anymore. I've heard the ACT Party say during this debate that, "Oh, it's so great that the vehicle industry is making more electric vehicles and reducing emissions." The only reason they're doing that is because most of the rest of the civilised world has understood that in order to get them to increase efficiency, we had to have fuel economy standards and price incentives like the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount. That's literally what every other country in the world and the EU and China and the US are all doing right now. So when we water down the standards and we get rid of the price incentives, what's going to happen? Again, New Zealand will be getting the more polluting vehicles that are more costly to run, that are more damaging to our health and our cities. And all of this for what—for what? Do the members opposite actually think that's going to make us better off as a country? If so, I'm intrigued as to the rationale for how one could think that we'll be better off as a country by importing more highly polluting vehicles that cost more money to run and that means we have to import more petrol and diesel. Why is that better for New Zealand? Hon Member: Listen to our speeches. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, I haven't heard anything that makes any sense from anyone in the Government parties on this topic, particularly not the Minister. But it's just one of those things that if they say something enough in the media, they know that a certain percentage of people will believe it. So they just keep saying, "Black is white, white is black, up is down, let the rich get richer and then we'll be richer." Oh, yeah, that's what's happened over the last 30 years—that really works! Double down on neoliberalism, double down on lack of regulation. Actually, what I do see—the common thread from the Government parties—is there's a constant trade off where we allow a small number of people to get richer, a small number of corporations to increase profits at the expense of life itself. It's more cancer, more car crashes, more climate chaos—for what? SIMON COURT (ACT): Oh, enough of this climate doom and alarmism. C'mon on, everybody! It's Thursday. It's Matariki tomorrow and we're going to go home soon. Some of us will go home in aeroplanes. Did you know that today Air New Zealand received its first shipment of sustainable aviation fuel made at Exxon Mobil's refinery in Singapore? How good. New Zealand is doing sustainability better than anyone else. The problem this bill tries to solve is that the previous Labour Government got it all wrong when it comes to clean vehicle standards. Instead of listening to all of the auto makers who said, "Oh, it wouldn't be a good idea to introduce these standards years earlier than the jurisdictions where the cars are made. How about you give us a bit more runway to make sure New Zealand has affordable and efficient vehicles?" But, no, the previous Government didn't listen. So this Government's here to fix yet another problem. We've solved sulphur dioxide in diesel. We've got some of the cleanest diesel in the world. We've saved led in petrol back in the 1980s. Now we can actually get lower-emission vehicles. But we're not going to get them the way the Green Party says. What was interesting was that the former speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, a former transport Minister, quoted Sweden and Norway as being great examples of having great roads and low emissions. Well, Ms Genter, Sweden is a nuclear-powered country that has one of the biggest mining operations in Europe that makes an inordinate amount of money by selling weapons to its friends and allies. Norway has some of the biggest State-owned oil and gas sector in the world. Where does the money come from? How do we get lower emissions? Well, New Zealanders become wealthier, we can afford better cars, they're lower emissions. Job done. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): The Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill is a very small bill. There's been a huge amount said about so little. Hon Member: Commend the bill! ANDY FOSTER: You didn't ask him to do that! This is a very common-sense bill. The first part of the common sense is that the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, has been asked, or required, to do a review. This just gives the Minister the ability to do something with that review rather than having to change the legislation again. The second thing it does is allow the Minister to get the powers now that he was going to get anyway in 2028, which, again, is common sense. The third thing is that we heard from the other side that this about a new tax. Well, no, it isn't. What is doing it taking a cost off the taxpayer and putting it on the user. That is not a tax. And the other thing to congratulate the Minister on is that he's actually managed to cut the cost in half. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Helen White. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to remind the House that in the three years that the standard will be taken away by this bill and replaced by what is a discretion over criteria, 2,200 people every year will die of pollution because of the emissions of petrol and diesel vehicles, and 6,600 people will die. There will also be 27,800 people hospitalised, and that's our kids. That's our kids with asthma. That's a whole lot of illnesses that are utterly preventable. What this previous situation did was it put in place a target so that the industry knew that it had a place it was going and it was utterly certain about that pathway. What the Minister has done is taken away all that certainty. I listened very carefully to what the Minister talked about when he was given repeated opportunities to assure this House that he would not use his new discretion to lower the situation with regard to the safety of New Zealanders through these kinds of chemicals. He was offered that opportunity repeatedly and he did not take it. So people who are listening today should know that those are real lives, those are real injuries, and that this Government has not actually prioritised the public interest here. Now, I want to come to the tax issue, because that's another way New Zealanders get hurt. Yes, I do call it a tax. What we have here is a removal of what actually sounded like, from the Minister's speech himself, only $6.5 million of administrative cost which was being paid by the taxpayer in recognition of the fact that this is important for our kids, it's important for our older people, and it's important for our people in our cities. It's a health issue and it's an environmental issue, so it's a public good. So we were doing that as a Government and I'm proud we were doing that. Instead, it's been removed, and all that cost will be put into a pool that will be paid presumably, actually, ultimately, by the consumer, because it's going to the industry. I just want to actually make people think about where that is. Who will be actually visited that cost? Well, actually, people who run an electric vehicle and people who run a petrol vehicle. How the hell is that fair? How's it fair that all of the injury is being done by one group and yet everyone shares the cost? Isn't it an interesting and logical issue that that's what this Government has done? It's visited the cost on people who have done no harm, who are doing no harm, who are doing the right thing. There's no nuance in this. This is a bill that gives the Minister the discretion so that he can water down standards. That's what he's doing. There might be a lot of weasel words around it, but that's why I cannot support this bill. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill enables the Minister to change the clean vehicle standard carbon dioxide targets through regulations without consultation. Is he likely to strengthen or weaken those targets, or, potentially, leave them exactly the same? We don't know, and the importers don't know either. It seems anti-democratic to leave those changes to the whim of the Minister of Transport, who has consistently refused to answer during earlier debate who will be giving advice on what those targets should be. Random comments from donors and voters probably don't really match the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Climate Change Commission chair, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientists that have probably just been sacked, or all of the other scientists. Simon Court: They've been replaced with AI—it's much cheaper and faster. CELIA WADE-BROWN: And it gives you the shitty little lies that you want as well. [Interruption] DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, all right. Well, there has been one or two words creeping into Parliament the last couple of days; we'll just calm down and perhaps not use some of those words. CELIA WADE-BROWN: OK, I shan't mention artificial intelligence any more, then, Madam Chair. Let's give the certainty of direction to the vehicle industry, because this kind of Government policy has a really significant impact on the vehicle market, on what's brought in here. That lack of any emissions standards—I remember when garages were about to bring in emissions testing equipment, when they would have done it during the normal warrant of fitness process. Quite a lot of garages made that investment, and then—good idea evaporated. This country's average carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles are among the highest in the world, and the rate of improvement needs to be as rapid as it was after the first introduction of these targets. Look, the Government's decision to— Simon Court: Honestly, these people used to be opposed to GE—I mean, come on. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Just ignore him. CELIA WADE-BROWN: Who? I didn't hear anything. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not related to the bill; don't worry about it. Keep going. CELIA WADE-BROWN: The Government's decision to delay the entry of agriculture into the emissions trading scheme puts even more pressure on the transport—[Interruption] When the Clean Car Standard was introduced, several submitters at select committee—do you remember what select committee was, for bills?—wanted the targets to be more ambitious. Many of those submitters might've hoped that they could educate the members sitting in the select committee, but there is not a great deal of evidence of that. But have we stopped having a climate emergency? I think the people in Wairoa, Heretaunga, Haumoana would say the climate emergency is here, it is now, and if it's this bad now, it's going to be a lot worse in the next 20, 30, 40 years. Whose grandchildren are you condemning to coastal retreat from their much loved homes? We need to adapt, for sure, to what can't be avoided, but we have a moral obligation to do what we can, and the ridiculous thing is that this is a win-win-win opportunity: you increase the targets, you save people money, you clean up the air, and you make us more productive altogether. This Government seems to me very focused on trade-offs. It's either the environment or the economy; it's either "Freddie the Frog" or the motorway. Well, I think you can actually put them together and have a productive economy. Dan Bidois: We agree with you, wholeheartedly. CELIA WADE-BROWN: I think I might like to have that on record, that I'm agreed with wholeheartedly. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's on record—it's on the Hansard; it'll be on record. CELIA WADE-BROWN: So I just want to say: for what reason, rather than private lobbying instead of public scrutiny, does this Minister want to amend the targets on his own? GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Well, great news: we have almost passed the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill—great news. But the greatest news of the day is the fact that the Brynderwyns are open, Northland is open, and you're all welcome to come and visit. Please do; we need people to come and visit. The businesses of Northland need it. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Well, we've been here since about 11 p.m. last night debating this bill, which has moved through all stages under urgency. We haven't had answers to our questions from the Minister. We had a valiant attempt by the Minister Erica Stanford when she was in the chair, but we haven't heard from the Minister of Transport about why he is giving himself new regulatory powers when, in fact, they could be set through the mix of what exists currently. And he also hasn't been able to be clear with us whether these are clean car standards anymore or whether he has created dirty car standards in the wrong piece of legislation. But I'm glad we're here. I'm glad we've got this time in the House to be able to run through things. I want to thank everyone around the House who's made fulsome contributions to the debate, thank my colleagues in the Green Party for their contributions, and thank the number of Green Party MPs who have been down here keeping the debate lively and engaging. Also, thanks to those members of staff who have put up with us as we have been going through this urgency into the long Matariki weekend with no clear line of sight about when it will finish. So, thank you for putting up with us as we've been going through this process. Also, I just want to bring us to the outstanding questions that Labour members still have about this piece of legislation. Because the Minister is right: at the end of his committee stage, he did get to the point where he was saying, "Look, all of these questions are good questions, but they'll be open to Labour members to ask when I review the regulations as they are now." So, let's recap what those questions are that are still open. Who will the Minister consult with? Will it be only the importers, or will he actually consult with those members that he is required to consult with under section 175(1) of the primary legislation, which he didn't repeal. He didn't propose to change his consultation obligations, and so he has some when he sets these regulations, and one of those groups that he will be required, under the common law, to consult with is Māori. He has come here into this House during this committee stage and told us that he will not be consulting at all with Māori who will be interested in this and its effect on te taiao—and good luck to the bloke. I've told him several times that he's opening up the Government to further risk on this, and look, we'll have a fun time in the Regulations Review Committee, I'm sure. Another question that is still open is whether the Government's policy position is, in fact, to ratchet up the requirements on the car industry to bring in more clean cars or not. The Minister refused to answer that in committee stage, although he did continuously say in his speeches that he was still committed to New Zealand's climate change obligations. So, really, the question remains, will he do his part as the Minister of Transport to impact the profile of emissions in New Zealand's transport sector so that his ministerial colleagues like, just today, the Hon Todd McClay, can answer in question time that they are committed to New Zealand's international climate change goals, or will it be that he will not use his regulation-making powers to do that? And will it be that Ministers of his Government will then stop saying things like that because it will become clearer and clearer to New Zealanders that this is a Government intent on taking New Zealand backwards and resiling from its long-term commitments? Those are the questions I still have in my mind. But it has been a privilege to be a part of the committee stage on this bill and all three readings of it today. Thank you to everyone who's been a part of it, and we're voting against it. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'll keep this contribution short because we have had a really fulsome debate across the process of this bill coming through the House. There has been a long process through the committee stage, really well fleshed out. The Minister gave superb answers from the chair. There was really great leadership from the Minister when he was in the chair. I commend the bill to the House. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The sad thing about the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill is that the Government hasn't yet worked out what it's going to do to reduce light vehicle transport emissions, given that they've knocked over the Clean Car Discount, which was a feebate scheme that was highly successful. By the end of that scheme, 75 percent of the vehicles coming in month by month—that's about 25,000 per month—were either hybrids, plug-in hybrids, or fully electric vehicles. Since they abolished that scheme, the ratio has changed, and the number of internal combustion only cars being imported into the country, diesel or petrol power, has doubled, so that now more than 50 percent of the cars coming in are not hybrids, plug-in hybrids, or electric vehicles. So the Government is even more reliant on the Clean Car Standard to drive the efficiency that we need in cars that are coming into the country. As has been noted in this debate, once a vehicle enters the fleet, it lasts for about 15 years, and until it's worn out, it's used and it's pumping out those greenhouse gas emissions. So the only chance you get to improve the efficiency of the fleet is as those vehicles are being added to the fleet, because once they're here, someone uses them until they're completely worn out. You've got to get them at the point of import, and the Government has ruined that. They could have come to this House with legislation that said, "Look, now that the Clean Car Discount is gone and the number of these more polluting vehicles has gone through the roof, we need a tougher standard, and we're going to do it through that standard." But they haven't, and they haven't done that work. This, of course, is typical of the Government's non-performance on climate issues. Having signed up to the zero carbon Act, I believe, as a ruse to get voting support at the last election, they've turned back the clock on everything. Agricultural emissions—it is just not economically responsible to exclude agriculture, the 50 percent of our emissions, from a price-based measure. That doesn't mean to say they should go to zero, but they should not be cross subsidised by the rest of the economy. We protected them, in the last Government, through the split-gas target, meaning that methane doesn't have to be reduced to zero, like long-lived gases do, but we do need a price-based measure. They say that they're going to rely on the price of carbon under the emissions trading scheme to drive emissions reductions, and yet the private sector doesn't believe them, because the private sector price for those emission units has dropped from $75 a tonne to $50 a tonne, a decrease of 30 percent. So the private sector knows that the rhetoric from the other side is not matched by the stringency of measures that are needed to drive a price on carbon, which is, in turn, necessary to drive the emissions reductions that we need as a planet. We can't support this bill. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): To use the racing parlance, this Government has achieved the trifecta. We've scrapped the subsidies on electric vehicles, which were neither self-funding nor sustainable, which saw over $500 million paid out of two years at the expense of hard-working farmers, tradies, and taxpayers. Of course, in the first 100 days, we also scrapped the ute tax—remember that? The ute tax. Farmers and tradies are now no longer unfairly punished. Now, the Government is delivering more workable, more realistic clean car standards. I commend the bill. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I find it extraordinary that that member Cameron Brewer just stood up and celebrated three great lurches backwards— Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Imagine his grandkids seeing that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —in respect of our climate. The member to the right of me says, "What will he say to his grandkids when the tide comes in?" There is a real problem there. Many speakers have spoken very eloquently on this, but my real objection to this is that it's part of the Government's programme to move decision making away from this House, to move it away into the executive and into the shadows. This is some of the most important decisions that can be made in respect of the Government of New Zealand, how we achieve our climate targets, and how we address the climate catastrophe that's facing us in the world—how we uphold our international obligations to be good citizens. We've had a long committee stage about the details of the bill. But in the big picture, what we've got is the Minister taking power unto himself so that he can make decisions without—as Arena Willaims said—any real, effective consultation or transparency and just choose. In his third reading speech, I was here in the House, and I heard him say that we're going to make the clean vehicle standards more workable. In the language of the other side, what that means is: less carbon-friendly, more emissions. Just as they have with agricultural emissions: let the agriculture sector off the hook again because they don't want it to be an undue burden. What that means is unfettered emissions. What this means is more emissions from our car fleet. As David Parker said, the cars that come into today will be emitting for 15 years. That's what the Government on the other side Is happy to see, to see a more carbon-emitting fleet for a longer period of time than would otherwise be the case. Simon Court: The cleanest vehicles that have ever been made in the history of mankind. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Here we go—here we go. The ACT Party, the friends of the oil sector. I can smell the coal tar on your breath. It comes as no surprise at all, to me, that the friends of the oil industry want to see dirtier cars. This is the "Dirty Vehicle Standard Amendment Bill". Of course we're going to oppose it, because, on this side of the House, we stand for a sustainable New Zealand that stands up and adheres to its international obligations and makes decisions now and into the future so that we can look at our children and grandchildren and know that we were good stewards of this country, unlike that Government. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mānawatia a Matariki—happy Matariki, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. DAN BIDOIS: As the last speaker in this debate, I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 47 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. THERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS ACT REPEAL BILL First Reading Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement can is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I move, That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health 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. Today, the Government is keeping its promise to New Zealanders in repealing the Therapeutic Products Act 2023. At the moment, medicines and medical devices are regulated under legislation that is 43 years old, the Medicines Act 1981. This legislation is broadly agreed as being out of date and no longer meeting the needs of the public, industry, and practitioners. The Therapeutic Products Act was intended to replace the Medicines Act with a more modern regulatory regime, but this Government disagrees with the approach proposed in the Therapeutic Products Act. We spoke out against this Act during the election and we promised to repeal it, and that is what we are doing. The Government considers the Therapeutic Products Act would have imposed unnecessary costs and paperwork on consumers, industry, and exporters, with minimal benefits for consumers. Repealing the Therapeutic Products Act responds to the concerns of industry, it responds to the concerns of consumers, and it responds to the concerns of practitioners, who all collectively felt the Act would lead to over-regulation of low-risk products, impose unnecessary costs, and lead to products becoming more expensive or limit their availability or even remove availability. Repealing the Therapeutic Products Act shows that we are listening to the thousands of submitters who opposed the bill when Parliament considered it. Of concern to many, the Therapeutic Products Act created a single regulatory regime for all health products, whether they were pharmaceutical medicines, devices, or natural health products. In repealing the Therapeutic Products Act, we are listening to the concerns of the submitters and listening to ordinary New Zealanders who considered that natural health products should be regulated in a separate, stand-alone bill. I have spoken extensively to those in industry who had grave concerns about the Therapeutic Products Act and how it was going to be implemented. Those involved in the medical device industry were concerned we were going to follow the path of the EU, where red tape meant that people were not able to receive the devices they needed. Those in the natural health products industry were concerned that people would no longer be able to buy products that are currently on the shelves in New Zealand. The Therapeutic Products Act would also have required natural health product exporters to obtain New Zealand market authorisation, even though they were meeting the standards of the importing country, and that is what really matters. This double regulation would have imposed red tape and cost instead of encouraging economic growth. The Therapeutic Products Act was due to commence in 2026. Its provisions are not yet in effect and significant work and funding was still required to put in place the regulations necessary to support it. This means that repealing the Therapeutic Products Act now will not have any impact on industry or consumers. Industry will not have to change anything they are currently doing and consumers will continue to be able to access the same health products. Health practitioners will not be distracted from their important work by the need to familiarise themselves with a new bureaucratic regime at this time, and health officials will not have to spend further time working on implementing a regime we do not believe would have been effective. This Government wants workable, practical policy that improves people's lives. We need to ensure that the health policy is there for all New Zealanders to support better health outcomes. Once the Therapeutic Products Act is repealed, we can continue work on better regulation that will ensure New Zealanders have timely access to medicines that will back our innovators and exporters and which will allow our doctors and our other health practitioners to deliver quality healthcare every day. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Madam Speaker, fire up your DeLorean. We're going "back to the future", back to the Medicines Act 1981, because what this Government proposes to do today is to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act. The Therapeutic Products Act has been worked for for 15 years by officials in New Zealand across three different Governments, and what it sought to do was to modernise medical regulation in New Zealand. Let me name some of the treatments that have come into existence since the Medicines Act 1981: immunotherapy, mRNA vaccines, minimally invasive surgery, chimeric antigen receptor t-cells, gene therapies, 3D printing, implantable devices—all of these modern technologies that some on that side of the House say they're desperate to spend money getting but they are now abandoning a form of regulation for it. Those products need to be appropriately regulated. Let me tell you why: because when you do not regulate them, people get hurt. I want to tell you about the people I have looked after with implantable devices that have had defects—that have started to rot their way out of their body—because they are not properly regulated. Think about the women who had been harmed by surgical mesh in this country, who we do not have a system for going back and finding out where particular devices were used and then going and telling those women that, actually, there's a problem with the device. That is what the Therapeutic Products Act did, and that's what this Government is repealing. I don't know if, in this short time, I have the ability to go through the errors that were in the Minister's speech, but here's a few. The first was that the Minister said that there was a single form of regulation in the Therapeutic Products Act. Absolutely not true: medicines are regulated differently from devices, are regulated differently from natural health products, are regulated differently in some ways from rongoā. There is also a lack of clarity in the Minister's remarks about how the bill was actually to be implemented. There is less clarity for industry now when they had the opportunity to work through how regulations were to be brought into place, because now it's apparent that the Government doesn't have a plan at all. We're going back to there being no regulation. In fact, it's less clear for industry. It seems to me that this Government can't agree on how it's going to take this forward because if they could, they'd just bring an amendment. They'd bring an amendment, they'd change things about medical devices, perhaps, because I agree—I accept, though I do not agree—that members on the other side of the House might have a different view on regulation from that that we do. But if they had a view, they would make an amendment. Instead, they're removing all the options of regulation and, as the Minister confessed, they don't want to spend the spend the cost of making the secondary regulation. So what happens as medical technology continues to advance? What happens when new products enter the market? Well, there's no way—there's no way—for medical devices, other than being listed on one website by the Ministry of Health. There is no other protections around them. There is no regulation. That's what we found out during the pandemic—there was no regulation of rapid antigen tests. I also want to remind new members of the House what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. We did not have a way of enabling the vaccine roll-out because we have no way of having emergency authorisation options in the Medicines Act 1981, so we had to pass retrospective legislation in this House in order to be able to have the vaccine roll-out. So none of the lessons learnt from COVID-19 are incorporated into the Medicines Act 1981. That's why when there was a monkeypox outbreak in Auckland, we also had to run that vaccine roll-out without publicising it because there was no opportunity to have public health emergencies responded to in this Act. I have stood by too many New Zealanders' bedsides when they have been hurt by products that are inadequately regulated. The Therapeutic Products Act sought to prevent some of this harm. This Government is taking New Zealand backwards. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I stand on behalf of the Green Party to oppose this repeal. The Therapeutic Products Act is taking—well, actually, this Government is taking us back to the future. This legislation was needed and it was overdue. When I think about the links of consultation, engagement, that the team has undertaken since 2014 at the outset of the work towards building a new regulator, and then what I experienced out on the floor within hapū and iwi, I say moumou—that's a waste. Because ultimately the Therapeutic Products Bill and this repeal is yet another piece of legislation that this Government is taking us back—just like Te Aka Whai Ora on the chopping block, just like smokefree laws on the chopping block. And the work was well overdue. When we have legislation that sits back in 1981 for the Medicines Act, and then we also have our natural supplements regulations from 1985—way not fit for purpose, way out of date, and not enough regulation to control its flow into our communities. Now, I want to talk about the engagement and the consultation that I saw and the robust nature by which officials from Te Manatū Hauora, the Ministry of Health, and Te Aka Whai Ora led out in the consultation process. Within hapū and iwi, we engaged because we had concerns. So we had the officials come to our marae—Parawhenua Marae in Tai Tokerau. There would have been probably about 100 whanaunga, and those 100 whanaunga were angry about the potential inclusion of rongoā Māori. Now, what I want to share with you is that, actually, the officials did a great job in listening. The officials were awesome in the way that they heard the concerns from our people and they took the heat from te Iwi Māori. But those that gathered also shared that there needed to be engagement, there needed to be shared understanding, and also standards and quality assurance in the rongoā Māori space, so it was a work in progress. So I mihi to Peeni Henare for his work in listening and being a listening guide for te Iwi Māori in this space. Now, rongoā Māori is a whole system of hauora, led by mātauranga Māori. This isn't wishy-washy stuff; this is indigenous health systems. And it's a taonga guaranteed through article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The rongoā Māori practitioners have gathered and the experts met, and Peeni Henare listened. So I mihi to Peeni, because our people understood that we needed change in terms of therapeutics products, but also that rongoā Māori wanted to stand up through its own tikanga, its own standards, and work alongside as a complementary medicine to Western science. That's that mahi tahi that we see as tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti working together. Further, in February 2023, I had the honour of facilitating in the forum tent at Waitangi. I invite my colleagues of the Government to join us in the forum tent at Waitangi some time—it'll put hair on your chest. Our people are fiery, and they want to share their whakaroa openly within the forum tent. And Peeni Henare joined a panel alongside other Māori health experts to talk about the importance of hauora Māori, but also about therapeutics products, because it was so hot within the Māori community. But this legislation actually moved and changed, because consultation was robust. The Government listened. The officials took the messages back into the ministry. They worked on the legislation to provide a dual pathway whereby we can still have robust regulation and then rongoā Māori could have that separation and the ability to self-regulation, aka rangatiratanga. So I think that it's a shame that we've gotten to this point, because did we really need to repeal? If there was a need to cut some corners or some red tape that the industry apparently is asking for, why do a full repeal? Because I think it's a wasted opportunity after so much work has gone into it to build a robust machine that was and is and could have been something good for all New Zealand. Kia ora. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise and speak to the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. It's actually a great week for healthcare this week. On Monday, you might remember we had an amazing announcement for Pharmac, whereby 54 new medicine will be listed and 175,000 Kiwis are going to benefit from that. And these are new technologies that are actually going to be made possible under the new regulatory regime that we're going to be bringing in once we repeal this piece of rubbish. I actually can't believe—I was just listening to the last speaker Hūhana Lyndon—that I cannot find a single stakeholder that it is actually in support of the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA). Patients were upset. Industry was upset. Everyone was not happy with that Act, so what we're doing today is making a pragmatic decision. We're repealing something that actually isn't actually even in force, and we're putting in place proper regulations so we can get the latest and greatest medical technology to Kiwis faster and we can deal with natural health products in an appropriate way. This is very, very exciting. We are moving forward into the future on this side of the House. We know that there's great innovation and technology on the horizon. and we're going to make sure New Zealand has the best system in the world to get that to Kiwis faster. Health conditions that we couldn't even imagine could be treated and cured years ago are now on the brink of being tackled, and we've got to make sure we have the systems in place to do it. The TPA was not that piece of legislation; it was awful. ACT voted against it when it was passed through the House and we're voting in support of its repeal today. We are going to be putting in place modern regulations to ensure that modern treatments get to Kiwis. The natural health products sector have been very upset because, again, they were lumped into this and their actual concerns have not been listened to and weren't taken on board. So despite there being 15 years of policy development, it was wasted because people were not listened to in the last few vital years when this was put together. I am very excited that we're actually going to be doing something on this side of the House to put in appropriate regulations, and I look forward to working with Minister Costello and Minister Seymour on doing that, because I actually do know a little bit about this area. As has been well reported, my background in the medical technology industry will be a great asset, and while I'm not financially invested in that sector anymore, I am intellectually and emotionally invested in that sector and I'm going to make sure Kiwis get these amazing treatments that we need. So I'm very happy to stand here this afternoon in support of this bill, and I commend it to the House. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): What a pleasure it is to listen to my friend Todd Stephenson over there—that was very good. Hey, look, this piece of legislation, at its first reading, fulfils a coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First. We're repealing the Therapeutic Products Act. Later this year, we will get together and we will consider proposals for fit for purpose legislation. We will come up with new regulatory solutions for natural health products. I note that the current Therapeutic Products Act caused a lot of concern from that segment, and rightly so. Look, Labour's approach didn't work; it wasn't popular. We are repealing it. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carlos Cheung. The reason I say that is we're on a first reading and we cannot pass on the Te Pāti Māori call. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I was listening to the other side just now, talking about engagement and talking about the problems of people. Let's talk about the truth. The truth is that in 2023, the Health Committee reviewed more than 16,500 submissions, and over 95 percent opposed the Therapeutic Products Act. I think that's better law. I commend this bill to the House. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Well, well, well, we've heard it all now from big pharma; we've heard it all now from the people who don't understand this bill whatsoever. We've heard it through the election campaign, where they told and promised the New Zealand public, "We're going to change the way Pharmac do things. We're going to change the Therapeutic Products Act." Then, they got here and went, "Oh my gosh! That's actually a bit harder than we thought it was." That, actually, they've got to come to this House and explain, through the process of democracy, how they're going to do that. We haven't seen that today. What we've heard is a repeal with no answers. But Mr Stephenson just gave us a glimpse into what the ACT Party are going to do: they're going to ram regulations and laws through in this House, probably under urgency, not listening to the people. That's why we're here today—that's why we're here today. I can tell Mr Stephenson, in the 135 meetings I had up and down the country, he wasn't at one of them. He absolutely wasn't at one of them. I went to maraes, convention centres, offices, and health centres, and that man wasn't there. So he can stand up all he wants; his view on this reminds me of view on the arts: it's non-existent. When this bill is interrogated as it moves forward, we want to see from this Government what's going to replace it, because all we're seeing is repeal and that's about it. Nothing else. We'll probably be here in urgency, which I know that side of the House hates, which is why I'm going to take my full five minutes today. Buckle in whānau! Buckle in! We're going all the way. What we know with respect to rongoa Māori and the natural health products is it's very clear that it's important to listen to the people. When I went around the country to make sure that we heard the voices of the people, we managed to find a way forward in order to support that sector—so much so that ACC now allows rongoa Māori to service those whānau who need to access rongoa Māori, who choose to access rongoa Māori. I've got a bit of rongoa Māori for the other side of the House: if you grab the patete leaf, you boil it till it makes a pulp, you rub it on your ears, and it will help your hearing. That's what the other side of the House needs to do. Under the old Therapeutic Products Act, we made sure that that was still possible. We not only protected rongoa Māori, we allowed it a future to continue to help service the health needs of this country. So we will be looking towards what this Government is going to put in place to replace this. The other thing is we want to make sure, as Mr Stephenson said, we've got to listen to the people. If we are back here in urgency, pushing through the next piece of legislation on the therapeutic products, they're going to hear all about. For far too many times over the past eight months, they have sidestepped democracy in this country in the hope that they can help their friends in big pharma. I'm going to put it out on the record because that's what's happening. We heard it very clearly from Mr Stephenson. Now, what I want to know, as I look across the three headed taniwha which is the coalition Government: this time, is it the tail wagging the dog, or is it the head wagging the rest of the tail? Because what I heard from ACT today is a clear insult to the public of New Zealand who shared their views on this particular legislation. They did so for over 15 years. Now, ACT come in here and all of a sudden Mr Stephenson—who's probably five foot one at a stretch—now thinks he's six foot 10. That doesn't happen that way. We're going to be here to push the ACT Party, who got a small percentage of the party vote, who are now trying to wag the tail of the dog. This is going to be a fascinating debate because, as we talk rongoa Māori, as we talk about natural health products, as we talk about the instruments of health that my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall talked about today, everyone in this family of MPs here will know somebody who's had to use those particular facilities. They'll know somebody who has had a bit to do with the rongoa Māori. In fact, I suspect that as we debate this bill, many of them will have a come to Jesus moment. They'll stand there in a moment of clarity and they'll say to themselves, "By crikey! Are we doing the right thing? Maybe we should go back to how it was. Maybe the 15 years of work by experts on this know better than the people who are here in this House." I'm going to put that on the record here. Of course we oppose this amendment bill—of course we oppose it. I look forward, as this Government introduces more regulations, to holding their feet to the fire on this matter. But that's OK, because I've got another rongoa when your foot burns. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with great honour that I rise to speak in support of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill in this first reading. Glen Bennett: Say it like you mean it. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Yes—now, the National Party opposed this bill when it went through. We do agree that there needs to be modernisation of the regulation on therapeutic products. Unfortunately, this bill is not it. It just offers a tangle of red tape and increases crippling compliance costs on many in our society. The things is, when this went through select committee last term, there was a number of areas we opposed it on, and I'll just mention two. One of them is including software into this. This is some innovative stuff that we can really use right now. We don't need to regulate it. We do need to make sure that we are being innovative, cutting edge. The other one is, of course, the regulations that if we're going to export some of our natural health products—and New Zealand does have a lot of these manufacturers—they were going to have to be held to a standard that is greater than the exporting country. Once again, it's a sign of red tape going nuts. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you so much. Gosh, National don't want a bar of this bill, do they? In fact, that's all they could put up. They've barely taken a call, they've focused on two specific things that were the only things that they had a problem with, they got one of them factually incorrect, and they got the other one completely the wrong way round. So that was very, very interesting. But, look, this is a clear and unequivocal demonstration of a Government that just simply doesn't have a plan, and they are quite literally taking us back in time and taking us backwards. As my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall has said, they're taking us back to 1981. Robert Muldoon was Prime Minister, the first ATM was installed just down the road in Wellington, and Brendon McCullum was born, and we know that he grew up and scored lots of test runs and has since retired. That's how long ago it was—the Medicines Act 1981. It's a medicines Act that doesn't cover huge numbers of the products that are now routinely used in our health system, in a modern healthcare system. Now, in comparison, the Therapeutic Products Act, as we've said, was the fruition of a huge amount of work over a series of Governments over 15 years. It was modern, it was comprehensive, and, most importantly—something that hasn't been mentioned, and it certainly wasn't mentioned by the Minister—the fact is that it was risk proportionate. It was a risk-proportionate regulatory regime for therapeutic products—and, no, for the people that have said that the natural health product industry was against that, because, actually, half of them weren't. Half of them were the ones that were right behind this because they wanted to be able to export. They needed to be able to make healthcare claims and medicinal claims, and to be able to do that, it required legislation. So you are going to be leaving those people out to dry— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not "you". Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Not you, Madam Speaker—obviously, not you. I know you wouldn't do that. The Therapeutic Products Act, as we've said, was just needed. It really kind of blows my mind that if this Government had any plan—and let's remember. I don't necessarily think that this is the National Government, because I remember sitting with Dr Shane Reti all through this process, listening to all of those thousands of submissions—which many of you haven't heard, and most of you don't know anything about—and he only had a couple of small problems with it. So this is actually New Zealand First and ACT. As they said—tail wagging the dog. If they had a plan, they would have had an idea of what the two pieces of legislation that they needed to introduce to cover the repeal were, and they don't, because they haven't done the work. So, bearing all of that in mind, you've got to admit that—you know, why wouldn't you just do some amendments? Why wouldn't New Zealand First advocate during those coalition negotiations that they wanted to amend the Therapeutic Products Act? I believe it's because they were operating under misconceptions about what it was. We had a submitter come to the select committee who raised an apple and said, "This is a therapeutic product.", and it was like: "No, that's an apple. That's regulated under the Food Safety Act. It may be healthy, but it's not a medicine." So this Therapeutic Products Act was weaponised from the very beginning by some groups that used it as a means to organise people for their own purposes, and this is the outcome of it. We have a Minister and a party that has fed into that, and it is now causing this huge amount of disruption and it will leave us with a massive gap in our regulatory framework. So we don't support this bill. It's a rubbish bill. It's a pretty bad way to finish off the very exciting urgency period that we've just stumbled our way through, and, hopefully, the National Party will see fit to make some sort of other comment on it. Thank you. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): It's an honour to be the last speaker in this first reading of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. Other speakers in the House have said pretty much everything that I might have said, so I just will finally say, Mānawatia a Matariki. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is, That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be considered by the Health Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Health Committee. Instruction to Committee Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024. Motion agreed to. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 23 July 2024. Happy Matariki. The House adjourned at 5.08 p.m.