nz-debates/20200618.txt

THURSDAY, 18 JUNE 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): On Tuesday, 23 June, the House will consider the second readings of the Racing Industry Bill and the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. As notified to the Business Committee, after the general debate on Wednesday, 24 June, urgency will be moved and the House will sit through to Friday evening. This will make up some of the time lost while the country was at COVID alert levels 3 and 4. Legislation that will progress during that time will include the Education and Training Bill, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, the Public Service Legislation Bill, the Racing Industry Bill, the Resource Management Amendment Bill, and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update, and given the very long list of bills the Government intends to progress in urgency, can he just clarify that the House will lift on Friday regardless of the progress that has been made, or is there a scenario that sees the House sitting into Saturday.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, if the Opposition choose to filibuster and business takes longer than anticipated, that's—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! This is by way of points of order.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is a matter that the Government will take into consideration when deciding whether or not the House will continue to sit beyond midnight on Friday.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you. Could the Leader of the House give a more accurate description of his definition of filibuster?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Well, if legislation takes an unnecessarily long time.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, Statistics New Zealand released GDP data for the March quarter, showing the initial impacts of COVID-19 on the economy as we moved early to close our borders and put public health measures in place to protect New Zealanders. The data showed GDP fell 1.6 percent in the March quarter from December, within the range of economists' expectations. Annual average GDP was up 1.5 percent from a year ago. We have always acknowledged that GDP in the March and June quarters in particular will show the impacts of the public health measures to protect New Zealand from the global COVID19 pandemic. It is these measures which have allowed us to open up the economy more quickly than planned and given us a head start on our recovery compared to many other countries in the world.
Kiritapu Allan: How did the global COVID-19 pandemic and public health measures affect different industries in the economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our measures to protect New Zealand from the global pandemic started on 3 February when all foreign nationals travelling from or transiting through China were refused entry through our borders. Moves to close our borders on 19 March, the move to level 3 on 24 March, and to level 4 on 26 March all had an impact on GDP. Activity in the accommodation, restaurant, and bar industries declined 7.8 percent during the quarter, while exports in terms of travel services declined 8.5 percent as fewer tourists entered New Zealand. We also saw the impact of the glut of European logs going into China, which led to activity in the forestry and logging industry declining 5.2 percent, while we also have to bear in mind that the drought at the start of the year was also having an impact in the agriculture sector, which fell 0.3 percent.
Kiritapu Allan: What is the outlook for the economy from here?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We know that the current June quarter will see the biggest impact on GDP of COVID-19, reflecting the alert level for measures through April as well as alert level 3. This backwards-looking data will be released in September. The Secretary to the Treasury yesterday advised the Finance and Expenditure Committee that its outlook has changed since the Budget forecast. Treasury said the move to alert level 1 sooner than expected has meant increased economic activity and said that early indications are that activity had held up better than expected in the June quarter, but they warned about the global outlook deteriorating. Today, Kiwibank indicated that beyond the September quarter, there is a growing sense, albeit small, that the outlook is looking brighter. New Zealand got on top of COVID-19 much sooner than most had expected, allowing the rapid reopening of the economy. Kiwibank have said they've been buoyed by the strength in the rebound of spending amongst their own customers and that New Zealand would avoid the worst-case scenarios.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Health's management of the COVID-19 response, given the implications it has on the health and finances of New Zealanders?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. This Government is adamantly focused on addressing failures in the system and removing risk, unlike those who are calling for international students to flow through our borders without adequate preparation, and who have made all sorts of comments about the Government failing to make steps and protocols of safety available to 5 million New Zealanders. Their error was an unacceptable failure, and for that reason we have appointed Air Commodore Darryn Webb to lead the quarantine efforts and we have halted compassionate leave for isolation until we can be certain that proper procedures will be followed in each and every case.
Hon Nikki Kaye: If she has confidence in her Minister of Health, why did she take the unprecedented step to send in the Defence Force instead of letting her own Minister manage the COVID-19 response?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because, for those who know the real world, if you're looking for people to handle logistical matters, then the Defence Force would be the most trained in this country.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What about our own Minister?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, as I say again, Minister Kaye—the Hon Kaye—if you've asked the question, do you want an answer or not, or are we going to have you chipping away telling us what you don't know? 
Hon Member: Answer it.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My answer—well, I'll answer the question. If anybody over there wants an answer, keep quiet. [Interruption] Well, you clearly don't, then.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Can she personally guarantee that David Clark has managed the COVID-19 response competently, and, therefore, will she guarantee that we will see no further serious errors relating to quarantine management?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health has laid out, with his colleagues and the all-of-Government response, the protocols to be followed. We said at the beginning there would be human error and mistakes. That's what life is like. But it surely is not the responsibility of a Minister who lays out the protocol for people in their thousands to follow when some person fails to follow that protocol. We want 5 million New Zealanders to be part of the front line in our defence, and we're saying, again, it's an unacceptable failure and we're going to make sure that we eliminate that as much as possible. But remember, at the very beginning, as we were moving 130,000-plus people in and out of this country, we did say there would be some mistakes.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it her expectation that the Minister of Health will personally supervise the admission to and exit from quarantine, as seems to be suggested by the Opposition?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that's a very, very good question, because it just demonstrates—[Interruption] No, not being pedantic—it demonstrates a perverse mind that doesn't understand a thing called fairness or reasonableness. That's what it displays, and that member from the Hamilton area that no one knows can keep on shouting at the back. That's why he's there—because he's not worth promoting. The reality is the Minister of Health cannot, surely, be responsible, any more than the director-general, for a human failure down the bottom. But our job is, as I say, to enlist the help of 5 million New Zealanders and ensure that the law and the protocols are followed. Can I just say, I'm hearing members shouting out here, like Judith Collins, who said that it was appalling that the Government declined compassionate leave, there is something very wrong in that decision making, and we need to have it sorted. That's Judith Collins. I've got countless quotes from these people over here shouting for the very thing to happen that we have sought not to happen.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Who will take responsibility for the quarantine management failures in this situation?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that there is a full-scale investigation as to how it happened, and those people will take responsibility. Can I just say, this is alongside a member of Parliament who got information, knowing full well that the plea was to tell the authorities as soon as you get the information because every minute, every hour, counts, and what did he do? Rather than tell the authorities, he thought he'd wait till question time in Parliament, and all those valuable hours were lost. Can I just quote another person who's now critical and shouting out as well. He said the absolute priority must be to get those students back for the second semester, and yet we're fluffing around and not making much progress on that. Who said that?
Hon Member: Test, test, test—accountability.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, it's accountability, is it? I said: who said it? That's how much they talk to each other. Mr Goldsmith said that.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Have there been instances where members of Parliament, including Opposition members of Parliament, have made personal representations urging for people to be released from quarantine early?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I think this quote comes from somebody who fits that description, and he said, "I think the symbolism of not being able to attend friends', relatives', and very, very close loved ones' funerals is a big problem. I think it's heartless, it's cold, and it is nowhere near kind." Guess who said that? Gerry Brownlee.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Why is she happy to front the world and receive the credit for New Zealand's—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I'm going to allow the member to rephrase her question in a way that she knows is in order, rather than as she knows is out of order.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Why is she happy to take the credit—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Prime Minister's happiness is not a matter for responsibility to the House. For goodness' sake!
Hon Nikki Kaye: Why does she take the credit for the COVID-19 response and the accolades from the rest of the world, but when things go wrong, she is nowhere to be seen?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, like the previous Prime Ministers in this country, I'm not usually here on a Thursday. However, I've got full confidence in my colleagues who are here, because it'll be like taking candy off a baby. Now, can I just say this here: this is coming from a member of Parliament whose leader said this—that the Government should bring in people from China as a matter of urgency—and now is trying to claim he wants a stronger border. Make up their collective minds.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Was her confidence in the Minister reduced the most when he personally broke New Zealand's lockdown three times or when he presided over the catalogue of failures around New Zealand's quarantine management?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health has given an apology—and a very effusive one at that—and that has been accepted. As Prime Minister, I do understand that human error sometimes happens, and, as long as it's a sincere error and can be corrected, then that should be accepted as well. But here's the real point: we moved as a country and as a Government 130,000-plus around the world, 80,000 back to New Zealand—against medical advice—and 60,000-plus out of New Zealand, to keep our international connections going, and we minimised the risk as much as possible. But we did say there would be examples of failure. Now, to stand up today and say there'll be no more failure is to be ridiculous. Our job is to, as much as we can, possibly and probably get the protocols properly put into place and ensure that we minimise the chance of failure.
Hon Nikki Kaye: How many cases, if any, has she been briefed on where the Government's quarantine or testing processes have not been followed?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, all the cases that I was briefed on, I was briefed on.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What a non-answer. How many?
Hon Nikki Kaye: How many cases—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There's somebody out there shouting out "How many?" Well, if you say all the cases I was briefed on, it means 100 percent.
SPEAKER: I know, but there's no responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to respond to inane interjections.
Hon Nikki Kaye: How many cases, if any, has she been briefed on where the Government's quarantine or testing procedures have not been followed?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I had no idea I would come down in the House today and be asked that question. If that was of concern, some notice—an hour's notice or two hours' notice—and we'd be down here with the precise number. But to expect the Prime Minister to come down here and to answer inane questions like that—"How many?"—when it could be hundreds, it could be—
Hon Member: It's not inane.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, given that there were 1,500 cases, the answer to that is more than 1,500.
Hon Nikki Kaye: At what time yesterday did David Clark inform her that a statement that the two COVID-19 cases had not come into contact with anyone since leaving managed isolation other than their parent, as per their release plan, was incorrect?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer, on behalf of the Prime Minister: when he discovered that the information was incorrect.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister's answer there did not address the question. It didn't ask for the conditions; it asked for the time. If the Prime Minister isn't able to answer the question that's fine, but that is not an answer to the question.
SPEAKER: I think it was. Yeah.
Hon Nikki Kaye: What would it take for her to lose confidence in David Clark and sack him, given he's overseen failures around Avatar crew, failures in testing, people absconding from quarantine, and the return of COVID-19 to New Zealand?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it is very, very sad that we are witnessing, in the case of this nation's safety and health, by way of analogy, the behaviour of an African veld. When a lion comes out of the field and attacks one animal, they are all running flat tack, but the moment one gets taken, they all stop and start eating and grazing again. We expect a higher standard of behaviour when our nation's health is of concern. To turn this round on a personal attack for some flimsy, paltry, political advantage is very, very sad.
Hon Nikki Kaye: Who will take responsibility for the serious errors in quarantine management and testing in New Zealand?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the director-general already has. In the end, though, we will find—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Blame the official.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Blame the official.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Well, there'll be nobody who takes responsibility or blame for him. Can I just say, Mr Smith, that the fact is that we're going to find those people at the coalface who didn't follow the protocols. The only way we can eliminate this sort of irresponsible behaviour or failure to fulfil the protocol requirements is to identify those people and make sure it doesn't, as much as possible, happen again.
Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that the Leader of the Opposition, when asked whether or not he would sack a Minister of Health—if he ever became the Prime Minister—because of an official's mistake, said no?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes. I heard that. And given what his colleagues are screaming out for today, there's a word for that. It starts with "h" and ends with "y", but I can't say it.




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What is the most recent advice he has received from the Treasury on the likely impact of COVID-19 on the New Zealand economy over the period to 30 June 2021, and what impact does he think this will have on New Zealand households?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest advice I've received from the Treasury is reflected in the statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury to the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday. In that advice, the Treasury says its outlook has changed since the Budget because of three developments: firstly, that we've moved to level 1 sooner than expected, increasing economic activity with people getting back to work; secondly, June quarter activity looks to have held up better than expected; and, thirdly, in less positive news, the global outlook is weaker. On balance, Treasury suggests that this indicates near-term improvement on their Budget forecast and a longer, slower recovery in the long term due to the global outlook. In answer to the second part of the question, the impact on specific households will be different for each, but the measures the Government has put in place will cushion the blow of the impact of this one-in-100-year global pandemic.
Hon Amy Adams: How many New Zealanders does the Minister think will struggle to pay their bills as a result of the level of economic decline outlined by Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and a range of others when today's GDP fall already represents an average drop of $13,000 for every household?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Far fewer than would be struggling if it weren't for the measures that the Government took in terms of the wage subsidy scheme, the support for small businesses, and the support for sectors like tourism.
Hon Amy Adams: Does the Minister think that the people now queuing up for food parcels—the number has increased by 400 percent—really believe that this Government's actions are supporting them through this crisis?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I know that many of those people will be grateful for is the fact that the Government on 17 March increased main benefits by $25 per week, doubled the winter energy payment, made sure that there were services available through the civil defence and emergency management arrangements to ensure people did get food parcels and did get what they needed, funded Whānau Ora for over $100 million to make sure that people actually got what they needed—a range of measures which the National Opposition in large part opposed.
Hon Amy Adams: How many more New Zealanders are out of work today compared to at the start of the year, when you include those who don't qualify for jobseeker support?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of the numbers around jobseeker support, it's approximately 45,000 since the period of COVID, anyway, coming into being. And in addition to that, I'd need to get back to the member on the exact information on those who've got the COVID income relief payment, which will include those who weren't eligible.
Hon Amy Adams: Well, how many jobs could have been saved if the construction sector, who were the biggest contributor to today's GDP decline, hadn't been fully shut down by the Minister?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is incorrect in terms of the impact on different sectors that is noted in today's GDP. What I can say to the member is that—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I accept that there's a certain amount of provocation in the question, but I want to hear the answer, and colleagues, right from the usual suspects down to the normally quieter ones, are making too much noise.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I was saying, the construction sector—yes, it did see a drop. There were other sectors affected by things such as border closures that suffered a larger drop, so in that respect the member's question is incorrect. In terms of where we are today, New Zealand's economy is operating at a higher level than most other countries in the world because we went hard and early and because we said we would do this once and do it right. That allows us now to have an economy that is operating ahead of most other countries.
Hon Amy Adams: How can New Zealand have any confidence in this Government's economic management of the biggest economic crisis in a generation when the Minister can't answer straight questions about job losses so far, and in the first three months of this crisis New Zealand has already experienced five times more economic damage than Australia?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member's question, I actually think, does a disservice to the 5 million New Zealanders who actually endorsed the Government's strategy—up to about 90 percent, I think—to go hard, to go early, to do this once, and to do it right. Yes, there is an impact in the March quarter data. Yes, there will be an impact in the June quarter data. But New Zealanders have backed this Government because we have a plan to deal with COVID-19.
Kieran McAnulty: Has he seen reports of any groups calling for, at the same time, more spending, less debt, open borders, closed borders, and open industry?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I have. I've seen one particular group of people in an utter state of confusion about those matters, and in the case of some members on the other side, they've managed to do—
SPEAKER: Order!




Question No. 4—State Owned Enterprises
4. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by all of his actions relating to investment in KiwiRail?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Yes, I humbly do, particularly those concerning projects which promise to revitalise New Zealand regions. Last week, we visited the Whangārei freight terminal with my colleague Shane Jones. We had the pleasure of meeting many of the people who work on a critical part of New Zealand's infrastructure which has been neglected and run down for far too long. It included seeing the welding of new heavy rail lines of 75 metres in length, the cartage of them down to the railway lines all the way to the tunnels, and also the plans to lower the tunnels between Whangārei and Auckland. That represents huge investment and a harbinger of enormous economic recovery for Northland when these things are running properly.
Darroch Ball: How much in total has this Government invested in New Zealand's railways?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: $4.6 billion, which includes $350 million for improvements to the Wiri to Quay Park corridor; $371 million to extend the electrification from Papakura to Pukekohe; $211 million for improvements to the Wellington, Wairarapa, and Palmerston North networks—but hang on, there's more—$400 million for the Interislander ferry replacement; $247 million for the Drury and associated railway stations; and $6.2 million for the Napier to Wairoa railway. There's no doubt that railways has got a new sense of action and unction. Thank you.
Darroch Ball: How will these investments in rail help create jobs for New Zealanders?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much for that question, because the Government's recovery plan is based on business and business and jobs, jobs, jobs, and as part of the recent Provincial Growth Fund reset, again spearheaded by my colleague Shane Jones, $60 million of projects were announced specifically on worker redeployment. That includes $26 million for rail projects which will focus on maintaining existing lines which lay neglected and overgrown under the purview of the previous Government. That investment will create shovel-ready jobs for hundreds and hundreds of people. This Government is jobs-focused, and that's why we're making sure that employment is a core factor of our decision making, where we make our investments in New Zealand railways. The great news is that these investments will be around from 50 to 100 years' time.




Question No. 5—Health
5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Did he intend for the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 to provide for the mandatory testing of certain individuals; if so, was the Director-General of Health referring to mandatory testing when he said on 9 June, "from today, everyone in managed isolation … will be tested twice during that period, whether they have symptoms or not, around day three and around day 12"? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 provides that orders can be made under the Act to require persons to "report for medical examination or testing"—section 11(1)(a)(viii). That Act maintains the 9 April 2020 section 70 order under the Health Act 1956 by the Director-General of Health, which includes requirements for mandatory testing. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: So if testing is mandatory, or can be mandatory, rather, why were people in managed isolation given information advising them of their right to refuse a test? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is something I have requested answers for, because I find it unacceptable. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: So are all individuals in managed isolation being tested for COVID-19 in the manner described by Dr Bloomfield on 9 June, and, if not, how many individuals have not had the two tests the public were told would take place? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The expectations of Ministers and of myself are very clear that people will have those two tests in mandatory self-isolation. The second part of the member's question was how many people may not have had those tests to date. As he will know, that data has been requested. I have not yet received that data because I want it to be absolutely correct. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many other cases, if any, are there where individuals have been released from managed isolation before a COVID-19 test result is known where the individual subsequently tests positive for COVID? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am not aware of that having happened other than in cases that have been raised publicly. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given his previous answers, will people who refuse to be tested for COVID-19 now be allowed to leave managed isolation after 14 days, notwithstanding that? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The expectations are really clear, but I will say there's no evidence to date of any person coming out of managed isolation who has gone on to spread the virus into the community. The 14-day rule is done so, because it is effective. The rationale for it is based on the incubation period of the disease. It's the time from exposure to development of symptoms, considered to be in the range of one to 14 days, but most commonly three to seven days, and, as such, that—
Alastair Scott: Answer the question. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —internationally agreed protocol is the thing that has been shown to work. The member's question—if there's some aspect I haven't answered, I'm happy for it to be repeated. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Which—
SPEAKER: Sorry, I'm just going to deal with an interjection. Who made that loud interjection? The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. 
Alastair Scott: I withdraw and apologise. 
SPEAKER: I just remind members—and the member is not a long-term member—that that interjection is a reflection on me, because it is my responsibility to ensure that that happens. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Were the two women who tested positive for COVID-19 this week released from quarantine following personal representations advocating their early release from quarantine by National MP Chris Bishop? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am aware of that. Obviously, there have been representations made for compassionate leave from members of Parliament. I think people need to be very careful because these are sensitive matters, necessarily—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I'm going to hear the rest of this answer in silence. It's a very serious allegation that's been made here, and I want to hear the answer. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, I am aware of that, and I just would ask members to be careful around these situations. On the one hand, people have been requiring or requesting that people be let go early out of these situations. On the other hand, we've seen the risks that that presents to New Zealanders and the team of 5 million and their efforts so far. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'd like you to reflect on your commentary about the question from the Hon Chris Hipkins as being a "serious allegation". It kind of injects the Speaker into the question time in a way that a value judgment of that question might not stand scrutiny. Mr Bishop's advocacy for those people did not infer that an unsafe process should be followed, and the fact that you have, effectively, commented on the fact that it's a "serious allegation" is probably unhelpful—it's certainly unhelpful. 
SPEAKER: Well, if—sorry, I should have said it's a serious matter and not a serious allegation, and I'm not absolutely certain that the member's point of order has diminished it. But I will reflect on that. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Thank you. Does he agree with the Ministry of Health's statement around the COVID-diagnosed sisters, who were not tested, that they have had no contact with anyone since their arrival in Wellington? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The most recent statement from the Ministry of Health is, I believe, the best information that we have to date. 




Question No. 6—Health
6. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Was his management of PPE supplies during the coronavirus outbreak "textbook", and how does that align with the report released by the Auditor-General regarding management of personal protective equipment?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): New Zealand's health response to the global pandemic has been world leading. The ministry welcomed the Auditor-General's review of personal protective equipment (PPE), which found, "The Ministry moved quickly to set up a new centralised system for procuring, prioritising, and distributing PPE stock." and this appeared to work well. The ministry has confirmed it will implement the report's 10 recommendations with work on seven of them already under way.
Dr Shane Reti: Given the report's observations, was Ashley Bloomfield's comment accurate and correct when he said to Radio New Zealand at the time the outbreak was near its peak that PPE supplies are plentiful and steady and distribution is being made "rock solid"?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I haven't seen the detail of that quote, but obviously the system in the early stages had challenges. Anyone who reads that report will see that, but the ministry did respond to those challenges and there is, of course, then, that praise in the report for the ministry's response. 
Dr Shane Reti: How does he justify his statement on 7 May when he said that Ashley Bloomfield's stocktake report did identify some initial teething issues that have now been resolved when yesterday the Office of the Auditor-General identified ongoing problems?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the statements speak for themselves. There are challenges in that supply. There is a globally competitive environment for PPE because COVID-19 is spreading at the fastest rate it has spread, currently, around the world. There is a global pandemic happening which is affecting supply chains around the world. Our response has been impressive in light of that global pandemic but, of course, there are always things we could do better and we are working hard to make sure that risks are minimised and New Zealand's safety is put first.
Dr Shane Reti: Were the PPE issues not resolved, then, when on 7 May he said they were?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Issues can be resolved before new issues arise. That's logical. And certainly the global situation continues to be challenging for securing PPE and other stocks necessary to combat a global pandemic.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with the findings of the Auditor-General that a degree of confusion appears to have arisen in relation to PPE; and if so, does he believe his decision to produce 36 separate PPE guidance documents contributed to this?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I believe that the report is right in saying that the ministry responded appropriately by setting up a new centralised system for prioritising, allocating, and distributing PPE stock, and also that the ministry needed to act quickly to set up a centralised approach to managing national reserve stock levels, ordering, freight, and distribution.
Dr Shane Reti: If his management of PPE is part of the "textbook" response that he has stated in this House many times, can he tell New Zealanders exactly which textbook he is referring to?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would say, firstly, that management of the day-to-day operations is actually the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, not as the member characterises, and, secondly, I would say just how wrong he is. His references to "textbook" are all, as far as I can find through the Hansard, in response to his questions framing the response as "textbook". I don't know if he sees the irony in that. But I'll repeat to him a previous answer from the House: "If you can read any textbook it's liable to have a few challenges in it.", and we've heard recently anecdotes of PPE in the early stages not getting to where they needed to go. That's why I'm seeking reassurance since we've stepped in to make sure that the system is working as it should.




Question No. 7—Education
7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What responses has he seen to Apprenticeship Boost?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm advised that the Apprenticeship Boost package, which provides employers with $1,000 per month for a first-year apprentice and $500 per month for a second-year apprentice, has been received extremely positively by businesses and industry groups. The CEO of the industry training organisation Competenz, Fiona Kingsford, said she was delighted. The Motor Industry Training Organisation's Janet Lane said she wholeheartedly applauded the unprecedented announcement, even going so far as to say the Government is showing leadership and significant goodwill to businesses taking on apprentices. While the Motor Trade Association's chief executive Craig Pomare said that it was "A great outcome for everyone."
Jo Luxton: What responses has he seen from businesses?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am informed that LT McGuinness's construction manager Sean McGuinness said on Newstalk ZB that this'll help an industry facing trade shortages in recent years. He said it's going to incentivise a lot of employers to take on new trainees and futureproof tradespeople in New Zealand for the next decade. Agricultural machinery supplier Landpower's John McDonald said that the "Apprenticeship Boost, along with the removal of training fees, is a significant helping hand." He said, "It gives [them] confidence to keep [their] current apprentices and provides [them] with a [much] greater appetite to bring on more".
Jo Luxton: What reaction has he seen from farmers?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Chris Lewis from Federated Farmers acknowledged that one of the key problems facing farmers is the cost associated with taking on and training new staff, particularly those who are new to the sector. He said that the apprenticeship support programme will make the transition and retention of new workers a lot easier, benefiting farmers, workers, and the economy as we rebound from the effects of COVID-19.




Question No. 8—Transport
8. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Transport: What projects, if any, in addition to those already listed in Schedule 2 of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, did he propose as fast-track projects to improve transport in Auckland?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The Minister for the Environment has announced 11 initial infrastructure projects that will be fast tracked, under a new law to help rebuild the economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This represents the best balance of rail and road and housing projects. The bill also opens the way for other projects to be fast tracked, to help deliver faster economic growth and more jobs as soon as possible. I'm advised by the Minister for the Environment that the initial plan was to include four to six projects so as not to slow down the implementation of the bill. In the end, Cabinet agreed on 11 projects, including the Britomart East upgrade, the Papakura to Pukekohe electrification, the Northern Pathway, and the Papakura to Drury State Highway 1 roading upgrade. I'm advised that other projects proposed included Mill Road. KiwiRail also put forward the Wiri to Quay Park segment of the third main, the Rail Network Growth Impact Management project, and City Rail Link works at Newmarket.
Jami-Lee Ross: Are the projects listed in Schedule 2 the highest priority transport projects in his portfolio; if not, why did he not ensure other projects from the Auckland Transport Alignment Project or from his New Zealand Upgrade Programme were included for fast tracking?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That matter is one for the Minister for the Environment, who's responsible for the bill. I'm sure the member will understand that a range of criteria were used to determine the selection of projects. But I want to reassure the member that our expectation is that the Resource Management Act fast-tracking legislation will be available to a much broader variety and a longer list of projects, and if the member has suggestions about additional projects, I'm sure the Minister for the Environment would welcome them.
Jami-Lee Ross: If his Government is open to further projects being fast tracked, will he recommend to the Minister for the Environment that amendments to Schedule 2 be supported, such as including the Eastern Busway or the Botany to airport project to also be fast tracked?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the Eastern Busway is a fantastic project that will give people in Botany a congestion-free 40-minute ride between Botany and Britomart. While the first stage of the Eastern Busway is already under way, as the member knows, stages 2, 3, and 4 are now beginning—the procurement process is under way—and I'm very happy to have discussions, and will, with the Minister for the Environment about the potential for additional transport projects to benefit from the fast-tracking bill.
Michael Wood: Is it possible that rail projects in Northland could be considered for fast tracking under the bill, and, if so, would the consideration of those projects be impacted by the negative comments about the value of rail in Northland by the local member at Estimates hearings this morning?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The value of rail projects to actually futureproof our transport system and boost jobs and economies in our regions is far too important for us to be put off by the petty nit-picking of some members.




Question No. 9—Defence
9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Defence: On what date, and at what time, was the decision made to give the Assistant Chief of Defence authority over all quarantine and managed isolation facilities, including the processes around the exit of those who had been in the facilities?
Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Firstly, can I thank the member for asking me a primary question. It's the first one since 13 March last year.
SPEAKER: Order! That's not necessary. 
Hon RON MARK: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker; my apologies. I have been advised that the decision, which I fully support and welcome, was made by the Prime Minister on the evening of 16 June. There was an unacceptable failure of the system, as the Prime Minister stated. Military precision, discipline, rigour, and operational expertise were clearly needed, something that I have been consistently in support of throughout the entire COVID-19 response—
SPEAKER: Order! The question has been answered.
Hon Mark Mitchell: So why was a New Zealand Defence Force officer appointed to take over managed isolation facilities weeks before that date?
Hon RON MARK: Could you say that again, please?
SPEAKER: A bit louder, I think.
Hon RON MARK: A bit louder, please.
Hon Mark Mitchell: So why was a New Zealand Defence Force officer appointed to take over managed isolation facilities well before that date?
Hon RON MARK: Oh, Air Commodore Digby Webb had been working in the operational command centre (OCC) under the command of former Police Commissioner Mike Bush since about 31 March. He was seconded there in a role by the Chief of Defence Force. This recent elevation into a more senior position and a higher level of authority is a decision that's been made by the Prime Minister and, from what I understand, also from Mike Bush, who leads the OCC.
Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just seek your guidance? The Minister didn't answer my question at all. I asked him about a New Zealand Defence Force officer being appointed to take over the management of the managed isolation facilities. He hasn't responded to that question at all.
SPEAKER: I think he did. I mean, it mightn't satisfy the member and it might leave some further supplementaries that he wants to ask, but as far as I'm aware, the gentleman concerned is a senior officer.
Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the name of the officer that was appointed prior to the 17th to take over the managed isolation facilities?
SPEAKER: Well, there is an assertion in the question; I'll let it run. And the other point that I'll make to the member is that he has a very narrow primary question, which probably doesn't include that matter at all. But because there's clearly some interest from the Opposition in whether or not someone else was appointed to that job before Digby—what? I'm sorry. Air Commodore—
Hon RON MARK: Air Commodore.
SPEAKER: Yep, then—
Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am struggling a little to understand precisely what the question is, but I might be able to shed some light and address the member's question in this way. Air Commodore Digby Webb has been in the operational control centre.
SPEAKER: No, no—[Interruption] No, no. The member will resume his seat. It was a pretty specific question about someone other than that particular individual—[Interruption] Order! I'm on my feet. I'm not going to let the Minister go on about the qualifications of someone who was in the primary question and therefore he should be prepared for, but that's not who the question was asked about. If the Minister is not aware or disputes the assertion that's made, he should say that, but he doesn't need to go on about the qualifications of a person who the question is not about.
Hon RON MARK: Well, I reject the premise of that question, Mr Speaker.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he think it's good for New Zealand that because of Government failures, our defence forces have been asked to police our civilian population?
Hon RON MARK: Once again, I reject the premise of that question. The defence forces have not been asked to police the civilian population by the Prime Minister. An officer who was assisting with a particular role has simply been—for want of a better term—promoted in the field because he's done an outstanding job. Now, the situation is, instead of him assisting health officials, he is now leading in that particular role.
Hon Mark Mitchell: So can he clarify for the House then that the only thing that has changed is that they have appointed someone new to lead the response?
Hon RON MARK: If the member's question is: "Has the officer concerned been promoted?", the answer is yes. If the member's question is: "Has the Prime Minister identified some qualities and, indeed, has Mike Bush seen some qualities in this person who had a slightly less senior role—maybe as a senior officer—into taking total responsibility now for the entire network of isolation facilities throughout New Zealand?", yeah, he has taken total responsibility now, at the direction of the Prime Minister, and congratulated for that.
Hon Mark Mitchell: So what has changed at our border, in terms of managing our managed isolation and quarantine processes, where we've seen multiple breaches—what has changed other than one person being put in charge of the response?
Hon RON MARK: Well, I think the member's a little confused. Air Commodore Digby Webb has not been put in control of the borders, actually. He has got a specific job around the quarantine facilities and the management of the personnel within that.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Will the Minister now take responsibility for any further breaches now that he has one of his senior New Zealand Defence Force personnel in that role?
Hon RON MARK: I've been waiting since March to get asked some sensible questions—I'm still waiting.
Hon Mark Mitchell: Will the Minister now take responsibility for any further breaches now that he has one of his senior New Zealand Defence Force personnel in that role?
Hon RON MARK: I'll take responsibility for the defence of anything that the Defence Force is engaged in that is my responsibility. Right now, that senior officer, highly competent, very professional, who has been seconded into that role since 31 March, whose skill and expertise have been recognised by the Prime Minister, who has expressed such confidence in him in the Defence Force and he has been promoted—yeah, if I want to take responsibility for that, I'll do so. But I would say to that member, I have confidence in the New Zealand Defence Force, and so too does this Government, as has been indicated by the record levels of expenditure on defence platforms, on defence capability. That officer in particular is the Assistant Chief of Defence capability—capability. He has been at the core of some very substantial projects that have been run in the last 2½ years. I have total confidence in him, and I'll take responsibility for anything that comes out of that, including the credit.




Question No. 10—Trade and Export Growth
10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What actions has the Government taken to increase trade with the United Kingdom and other countries?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): New Zealand and the United Kingdom share a particularly close bond. We share a queen, we've both got a red, white, and blue flag, and soon we'll have closer trade links. Yesterday, New Zealand became one of the first countries to begin negotiations for a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the United Kingdom following Brexit. A high-quality, comprehensive, and inclusive free-trade agreement with the UK will also send a vital message about the importance of free and open trade rules more broadly with other countries.
Jamie Strange: What outcomes does the Government want to achieve from a trade agreement with the United Kingdom and others?
Hon DAVID PARKER: What we're doing is creating opportunities for our exporters to earn more money, to employ more New Zealanders, and to pay higher wages. We do this by improving the diversity of the export markets that they have lower tariff access to. We also want to make it easier for companies to trade through digital channels—this is particularly important in a post-COVID environment. We want to level the playing field between New Zealand exporters and exporters from other countries, some of whom have advantage compared with New Zealand—for example, kiwifruit from some other countries have lower tariff rates into the European Union, including the UK at the moment, and we think, overall, this will be good. Through this agreement, we'll also address environmental challenges like climate change.
Jamie Strange: How will a high-quality trade agreement with the United Kingdom benefit New Zealanders?
Hon DAVID PARKER: One in four New Zealanders' jobs depends on exports, and we know from statistics that exporting firms lift productivity at a faster rate, they employ more staff as a consequence of their export journey, and they pay better wages. So it's clear that trade can help drive our post - COVID-19 economic recovery through creating jobs, boosting productivity, and generating growth, and this New Zealand - UK FTA, like the New Zealand - EU FTA, will add to that journey.




Question No. 11—Police
11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: What police resources, if any, have been deployed to respond to incidents of people leaving COVID-19 quarantine or managed isolation facilities on compassionate grounds or prior to a COVID-19 test being returned?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Police are one of a number of enforcement agencies that may be required to respond across Government to incidents in relation to persons leaving a managed isolation facility on compassionate grounds prior to a COVID-19 test being returned. In this narrow example, I am advised that it is the Ministry of Health that will instruct police to assist them. Police will then make a decision about what steps they need to take to locate the person and facilitate their return. Decisions about police deployment are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police, delegated to district commanders, but, typically, police resources include managed isolation facility reassurance officers, district general duty front-line officers, iwi liaison and family liaison officers, police intelligence-gathering staff, and inter-district operations to coordinate regional responses when required.
Brett Hudson: Did police respond to an incident where a person had been released from a Corrections facility and tested positive to COVID-19, and, if so, how much time passed between police being notified and the person being located?
Hon STUART NASH: Well, that is a very specific question. If the member had put that down in the primary, I might have come with that information. One thing I would say is it probably comes as no surprise that I do not receive nor seek a briefing on every police call-out, of which there are approximately 3,250 per day.
Brett Hudson: Does he think there were adequate conditions in place for the reported cases of people leaving isolation to attend a Mongrel Mob tangi in Hamilton who subsequently needed to be tracked down by police?
SPEAKER: No, he's not responsible.
Brett Hudson: OK. How many incidents that police have responded to at the behest of the Ministry of Health regarding locating close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases have police successfully located?
Hon STUART NASH: They've successfully located all of them.




Question No. 12—Corrections
12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Corrections: What reports, if any, has he seen of individuals transferred from COVID-19 managed isolation to a corrections facility who subsequently tested positive for COVID-19?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): During the various alert levels, I received daily updates from Corrections regarding their management and response to COVID-19. I was also kept up to date with the progress of one individual who was transferred from COVID-19 managed isolation into Auckland Region Women's Corrections Facility at 6.38 p.m. on 29 April 2020.
Simeon Brown: Did the positive test for COVID-19 for that individual come back before or after the individual was released from the Corrections facility?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It may be helpful if I run through the time line of what happened to this particular woman. So she returned to New Zealand from the United States on 25 April 2020 and refused to comply with lockdown at her accommodation in Auckland. She had refused to cooperate with staff, including submitting to a COVID-19 test. She was not presenting as symptomatic. She was remanded—in other words, a judge made the decision—on two active charges of obstructing and hindering a medical officer of health. The prisoner was received into Auckland Region Women's Corrections Facility at 6.38 p.m. on 29 April. A decision was made to quarantine rather than separate the prisoner, based on the health risk she presented. On 5 May, the prisoner was escorted to an audio-visual link (AVL) booth for a court appearance where she was remanded for a bail application on 6 May. On 6 May, the prisoner was escorted again to the AVL booth for a court appearance where she refused to listen to the judge and her counsel. On 8 May, at 2.40 p.m., the prisoner was escorted to the AVL booth for a court hearing and agreed to consent to the examination—in other words, the COVID test. At 4.38 p.m. she was escorted to the receiving office and released on bail—another decision made by the judge—with the condition that she was to go with the Geneva Healthcare team to the Sebel Hotel in Manukau and then be transported by her mother to a bail address in Palmerston North. It's important to understand that the judge made the decision for her to be bailed, and Corrections must comply with what the judge says.
Hon David Bennett: That's because you tell them to.
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Now, Mr Speaker, I take offence at the member across the way, David Bennett, saying that I direct judges to do anything. I do not have that capacity, that capability, to direct judges to make decisions. [Interruption] What he is saying—and he has repeated it in this House—is an outright fabrication.
Matt Doocey: The Minister doesn't direct anyone. Answer the question. 
SPEAKER: Before the member does, the whip will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise.
Simeon Brown: Did Corrections staff notify the court that the individual had not yet received the results of their COVID-19 test before the individual was released?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Corrections did what the judge required them to do.
Simeon Brown: Is the Minister confident that there have been no additional cases of COVID-19 inside the Corrections facility due to this positive case?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I am extremely confident in the processes that Corrections took. The processes they put in place to manage COVID were exemplary. There were no cases, other than this woman, that came into Corrections. All staff were required to wear personal protective equipment. All people entering prison were kept separate. The fact that, unlike jurisdictions overseas, we have not had a case arise other than this one, that was imported from the United States, goes down to the great work that Corrections did to prevent the spread of COVID in our prisons.
Ginny Andersen: What report, if any, has the Minister received on the way Corrections managed its response for COVID-19?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Corrections officers were part of our country's essential services during our response to COVID-19 and did a spectacular job. The Chief Ombudsman wrote to the chief executive of Corrections this week, following organised visits, and thanked them for keeping the inspectors safe. He shared that "I have been very impressed by the cohesive and well-resourced response put in place to manage the impacts of COVID-19 in prisons. You and your staff are to be commended." As the Minister, I commend them as well.
 





URGENT DEBATES DECLINED
COVID-19—Quarantine and Managed Isolation, Government Response
COVID-19—Government's Economic Management
SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Nikki Kaye seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government's handling of the COVID-19 quarantine and managed isolation of travellers returning from overseas. I have also received a letter from the Hon Amy Adams seeking to debate the Government's economic management, given the official GDP statistics for the March 2020 quarter. An ongoing situation or an accumulation of information on an issue is not itself a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers' rulings 195/1 and 2. The Government's handling of COVID-19 or its management of the economy are ongoing matters. Applications for urgent debates must pinpoint, with some precision, a particular matter that has recently occurred. I will remind members that not raising a matter at the first opportunity will considerably weaken the case for an urgent debate application, and Speakers' rulings 195/4 and 5 apply. The applications are therefore declined.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't have a copy of the letter from the Hon Nikki Kaye to you in respect of the urgent application, but it was a specific triggering event as well as an accumulation of issues—that is the purview of Government responsibility—and that is the revelations around the management of the cases that have been the subject of media in the last 24 hours.





SPEAKER: Yes, that matter was referred to in the letter. From memory—I'll just get it here—the matter of urgent public importance relating to the Government's handling of COVID-19 quarantine and managed isolation of travellers returning from overseas. That is the paragraph with the request in it, and that is a general matter and not a specific matter, which is referred to later. I will remind people of the further ruling that I made: if people are going to rely on specific matters, it is important that they are brought up in a timely matter. These were matters which were well discussed before the House sat yesterday.





ARMS LEGISLATION BILL
Third Reading
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I move, That the Arms Legislation Bill be now read a third time. 
The details of this bill have been worked on assiduously since it was first announced 11 months ago, but in reality there are at least 23 years of knowledge and analysis behind it. On a day like today, in the middle of winter, on 30 June 1997, Justice Sir Thomas Thorp presented his review of firearms control in New Zealand. The Napier-born Sir Thomas passed away in 2018. But his colleague Simon Mount QC has been closely following the passage—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we have a bit of quiet for the Minister, please, as you leave. 
Hon STUART NASH: —of this legislation, and I would like to quote a message from Simon, received this week: "Sir Thomas would have been pleased to see so many of his recommendations implemented in this bill. He had a strong affinity with New Zealand firearms owners, and he knew how important firearms are for many sections of New Zealand's community. He worked extremely hard to meet with and listen to gun owners, and he respected those for whom firearms are vital tools or sporting equipment. He also valued personal responsibility and public safety highly, and he worked hard to find recommendations that struck the right balance for New Zealand. He had a deeply practical streak alongside his broad intelligence, and he wanted a firearms regime that would work in the real world. He knew that effective firearms regulation is not easy, and no laws, no matter how good, can prevent all harm. After years of waiting, he would have been very pleased to see Parliament finally adopt the key planks of the system he believed would give New Zealand the best chance of reducing harm." 
15 March 2019 will always be a devastating day in our history, but it does not define us. What defines us is how we reacted and the actions we took. There were so many brave people who stopped directly in harm's way to help victims—running into live fire, some knowingly giving their lives to save others. Families and friends sacrificed themselves and put others first on that day. People who were passing by stopped to rescue victims and take them to safe shelter. Police and emergency services rushed to the scene, and we know two of Police's brave officers managed to locate and stop the killer and prevented the horror from continuing. So many people rushed to help. 
I am proud of our response as a nation and of every person who took some small action to show support and solidarity, especially those courageous people who risked their own safety, and I'm proud of my fellow MPs in this Chamber. It's been nearly a year since that day, and we've achieved a great deal. We've achieved what previous Governments could not. We have collected, destroyed, or modified almost 64,000 firearms and destroyed more than 227,000 prohibited parts and large-capacity magazines. 
But we do not stop with that. As a Government, we took a comprehensive, system-wide approach to risk management of firearms use. That brings us to the bill before us today. The third reading of the Arms Legislation Bill is a historic milestone for community safety. We know we always have more work to do to make New Zealand a safer place. This is another significant step along that way. The new law is designed to stop firearms falling into the wrong hands. It spells out for the first time that owning a firearm is a privilege, limited to responsible, licensed owners. 
The most significant change is a new firearms register. Successive Governments have failed to deliver a register since it was first recommended by Sir Thomas Thorp in 1997. This will finally track how many firearms are in legal circulation, who holds them, who is selling them, and who is buying them. Once the register is established, every licence holder has up to five years to register their guns. They will need to keep updating the register as they buy or sell guns. It allows us to link firearms to licence holders, return stolen firearms to their legitimate owner, and hold licence holders to account for the safe storage and possession of firearms. 
We need to ensure that every part of our risk management system, from licensing processes to security requirements and the firearms themselves, is robust. We don't want anyone to have access to dangerous assault weapons or to be able to slip through a crack or manipulate the system, which is why we have expanded the definition of "prohibited firearm" and we have prohibited those types of pistols that were really short military-style semi-automatics. 
We need checks and assurances across the entire system. This comprehensive risk management approach means a number of changes. The changes we're making to the Act touch on those key points where it is essential to mitigate risk. Risk includes the unsafe use of firearms or illegal possession of firearms. These changes include those that take effect immediately following Royal assent, expected next week—for example, reducing length of a firearms licence from 10 years to five years for first-time licence holders and those who have previously had their licence revoked or who have allowed it to expire. Offences and penalties have been changed to better reflect the seriousness of offending. Examples include possessing a firearm without a licence, which now has a penalty of up to one year in prison or a $15,000 fine—that's up from three months or a $1,000 fine under the old system—and selling a firearm to an unlicensed person, which carries up to a two-year jail sentence or a $20,000 fine, which is up from three months or a $1,000 fine under the old system. 
More people involved in agriculture and similar businesses can obtain endorsements to possess prohibited firearms where it can be clearly demonstrated these are needed for pest control purposes, and a ministerial arms advisory group will be established to ensure there is ongoing support and advice on firearms matters. Some changes, though, will follow over a three-year period. These include new rules to take effect in six months to determine who is fit and proper to possess firearms and who will be disqualified from holding a firearms licence. The fit and proper person status is at the core of any application for a firearms licence. Every person applying must be responsible and trustworthy enough to earn the privilege of holding a firearms licence. 
There will be new rules, in one year, governing a gun dealer's licence to recognise the range of dealer activities and associated risks of theft or misuse of firearms. In six months' time, anyone who sells ammunition will need a firearms licence. 
To satisfy the public and licence holders that the changes we have made are delivering on the intent, we have brought forward the time frame for reviewing the Arms Act from five years to three years. This will include a review of the Act's offences and penalties and the registry. 
We appreciate the contribution from the firearms community throughout all these changes. We have had healthy debates and have worked to keep people safe. I thank them for their time and your support. No doubt, some of them will keep providing that support through the arms advisory group which will be established under these new laws. Its members will be people with knowledge and experience from both inside and outside the firearms community, who will advise me on matters such as legislative proposals and policies that contribute to the safe use and control of firearms. 
At the heart of the new laws is the new principle that the possession and use of arms is a privilege. We must always remember that with this privilege comes responsibility, and that is what our changes to this Act ensure. Every person involved with firearms has to act in the interests of safety. 
I mentioned at the start of my speech that Sir Thomas was a Napier boy. He watched his father rebuild his business after the devastation of the Hawke's Bay earthquake. We too have been devastated by the loss of life on 15 March and the harm caused by gun crime. 
To quote from the obituary of Sir Thomas in the Law Society journal in 2018: "He had an eye for the big picture and the future, and never stopped looking for ways the system could be improved." That must be the duty of this Parliament too. Sir Thomas, this is for you. Thank you. 





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is regrettable that we are standing here today debating this bill in the form that it's in. And that is true for a number of reasons, but particularly one key reason, and that is that the Minister himself, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, have repeatedly said that the provisions in this bill would ensure that guns were kept out of the hands of criminals and that it didn't unduly focus on law-abiding firearms owners. Well, that's not what the bill we are debating today actually delivers, and there's a mound of evidence that backs this up.
For instance, in the 51st Parliament, a Law and Order Committee inquiry heard evidence from Australia that almost 90 percent of firearms offences are committed by people who are unlicensed. And we were assailed for a period of time, pre-COVID, in this country, with report after report of firearms offences involving gang members, where those gang members were not licensed for those firearms, and certainly not carrying the proper endorsements for the semi-automatics that they shouldn't have been using, nor the pistols in some cases. This bill does nothing about that. This bill, and particularly in the amendments to Part 5 of the principal Act, places more rules, regulation, and cost on people that do follow the law, on those law-abiding firearms owners who meet the fit and proper test. It doesn't do anything about people that don't bother to get a licence. It doesn't stop them getting hold of or using the firearm. Yes, the Minister might say there is an offence with a tougher penalty if they get caught. That is true. But his claim consistently has been that it will stop them, and it doesn't.
One thing that could have been done—and I will only mention this in passing, but it could have been done—was putting firearms prohibition order provisions into the bill. That absolutely would have been a tool to help keep guns out of the hands of genuine criminals and gang members. There was ample opportunity through the process—the Minister has said 11 months, there was ample opportunity. The Government actually even undertook some minor form of consultation on the matter that ended in early January, but they didn't take the opportunity to put provisions in the bill. It's a missed opportunity. Had they done so, they would have been able to argue that, at least in part, it was delivering what they claimed it would deliver: to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But it does not.
Certainly, in licensing, it makes some changes. There was a comment as early ago as yesterday, which I just think needs to be resolved for the public and the members of the firearms community, in particular. The Minister claimed that the licensing provisions, the amendments and additions to Part 5 of the principal Act around licensing for lawful, law-abiding firearms owners, would have prevented the 15 March massacre. Principally, what he was referring to was a provision in here about patterns of extremist behaviour. Well, I think it's important for the public record to note the public record, and the public record of that very matter that we have been led to believe now for over a year, is that police were unaware of the online comments of that individual prior to the event. That being the case, there's nothing in here that could have stopped that. I do accept that had they been aware of it, absolutely, the provision would prevent it. But I'd say that you would have struggled to determine him fit and proper in the first place. But to be absolutely clear: can't claim that by adding a couple of provisions and codifying the elements of the fit and proper person test actually would have prevented that event. It wouldn't have. It is unfair on the firearms community to, in effect, indirectly demonise them by claiming that it would have done.
Actually, on that point, largely all it does do is take elements that are already in the police guidelines and codify them into the legislation. In itself, that is not necessarily a bad thing, but there are elements in it—not only that pattern of extremist behaviour one but also the health practitioner proactive notification element—which are worrying—very worrying. 
We all know how much of an issue mental health has become across the country—for instance, in a recent ride-along with Wellington police, I was told that, in frequency, mental health issues represent the second-highest frequency call outs for them. The first, regrettably and terribly, is family harm; mental health is a close second. It is an enormously serious problem. We heard evidence through the course of this bill traversing its way to this point and concerns not only from firearms owners, but from other organisations within the mental health sphere, that this risks people with problems not seeking help, because if they worry that by seeking that help, it might result in a police officer coming to their door to remove their firearms, they may very well not seek that help in the first place. That doesn't help anyone, and it certainly won't help to keep New Zealanders or New Zealand safer. There was an opportunity to improve that, in our view; that was not taken up.
What the bill also does in the form it is in is it places a whole lot more compliance and cost on shooting clubs and ranges, almost all of which are, simply, run by small volunteer groups. These are not large-scale commercial operations, they're not profitable organisations, and we've heard repeatedly that that risks many of these simply closing up. Were that to transpire—and there is good reason to believe that, in some cases, it will—it actually has the perverse outcome of making New Zealand less safe, because what we will see is firearms owners going down to a mate's place, a farm, down to the river to do things like sighting their rifles and for hunting or other activities, and that's less well-managed. In fact, there's general agreement—has been all along from police officials, I think even from the Minister, certainly from Government members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that these clubs and rangers represent the best organised, governed, and managed facilities in New Zealand. In the regulatory impact statement, the police noted that there has been no case and no evidence to suggest that any form of extremist or illegal behaviour was growing or fomenting in organised clubs or range environments. They put forward a hypothetical that suggested it could happen, but they admitted there was no evidence that it had. There was no need for this level of compliance burden. We argued that a simple notification of police of an existence of a club and range was sufficient because the police would retain powers of inspection at their wish, so they would be able to provide the enforcement and compliance oversight without burdening the clubs and range managements themselves.
On the register, I'm going to point out a problem—there's several problems on the register. Now, National does not oppose a firearm registry per se, but what we've said all along is that this one that's being proposed won't deliver the objective, which was stated as keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. Again, the evidence out of Australia at the select committee inquiry in the last parliamentary term: in 90 percent of homicides involving firearms, the firearms were unregistered. We heard a statement since this bill traversed: 50 percent of firearms captured by police in this country have their markings ground off. This, simply, is the case and it's borne out with other examples, not just evidence out of Australia, that the registry itself will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. 
It is also a really important element that Justice Thorp, who's been referenced, noted in his report that in order for a registry to be effective, it would have to capture at least 90 percent of the firearms. There are estimated to be 1.2 million firearms in the country. There are also estimated to be, based on police estimates, up to 180,000 now prohibited category firearms still out there in the communities that haven't been handed in. Now, that immediately and absolutely means that the 90 percent threshold would not be able to be met and that, by Justice Thorp's own comments, the registry that they are proposing would fail. That's before we even consider the security and privacy around it. I mean, the police's SAP system had a problem last year where dealers and firearms owners were able to see information, including firearms details, of other uses that they shouldn't have seen.
The pest control exemption has got an enormous fish-hook in it that the applicant has to prove a significant detriment to jump through that hurdle to get their application approved. We've seen over the last year that that will be used to avoid giving the exemptions. So Federated Farmers want to look again at what they agreed to, because their members are going to find it hard to use.
This was a wasted opportunity, a missed opportunity. We could have worked together to have presented worthwhile reforms; the Government heard, but it didn't want to listen. We reject this bill.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): The legislative changes that we have made as a nation since 15 March have meant the Christchurch terrorist would not have been able to purchase the types of weapons that killed 51 people last year. 
There have been a number of people that had contributed to this bill, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Stuart Nash. I want to acknowledge him for stewarding through this bill under immense urgency and I, also too, want to acknowledge his team. With us, we have the deputy commissioner Mike Clement, who is retiring next week from the police force after 42 years of service. He has been an exceptional champion for the safety of all New Zealanders, and, in this House, may I take the chance just to acknowledge you and the service that you've given to men and women across this country. 
I, too, want to acknowledge the rest of the team that is here with us today: Acting Superintendent Mike—I had to ask how to say this—McIlwraith, Catherine Petrie, Geoff Dunn, John White, and James Edmonds. You've all done exceptionally stellar job under exceptionally trying circumstances, and I believe that we are fundamentally safer as a society due to your collective actions. With no further ado, I'm extremely proud to commend this bill to the House.





DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I will be leaving the Chair to attend another meeting, and I do want to acknowledge Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement. He's performed an extraordinary service to New Zealand over the last 40-odd years. I wish him well and thank him very much—particularly from the East Coast electorate recently with the Whakaari tragedy and the support that he gave to the community there. But that's only one example of many, many years of extraordinary service. So thank you, Mike, and all the best.





Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The origin of this Arms Legislation Bill is the horrific tragedy that shocked this nation on 15 March last year, where a madman shot and killed 51 people, attempted to kill a further 40 people, and subsequently pleaded guilty to those crimes. The question in the mind of all New Zealanders and of this Parliament, in respect of our arms laws, is how it was possible for that individual to be able to pull together the armaments of which he committed that horrific terrorism act. The part that concerns me about this bill and all the rhetoric that has surrounded it is that that fundamental question has not been answered. 
Now, I've been in this Parliament through a series of tragedies—whether we look back to the awful Cave Creek tragedy, in which I became a Minister of Conservation to repair; whether it's the awful Christchurch earthquakes, in which New Zealanders lost their lives, and the subsequent royal commission of inquiry and the parliamentary response to laws; or, indeed, the more recent event of the tragedy that occurred at White Island, also with the loss of life. But, in each one of those tragedies, in responding as lawmakers, we need to know what went wrong.
What concerns me with this legislation is that the Minister has repeatedly refused to ask the most basic of questions, as we push through another raft of arms law changes. If we don't put the horse before the cart, then we keep pretending that we are fixing the problem but having no confidence in doing so. And here is the essential question that I've asked repeatedly, that my colleagues have asked repeatedly, but that has not been answered by the Government or the officials. It's this: when the mad murderer received his gun licence that enabled him to acquire the arsenal of weapons, was the law followed? Pretty basic question. Before we talk about whether the law needs to be changed, I ask the question of the Minister: was the 1983 Arms Act and its regulations followed?
The Minister says it was. Well, let's look at the facts. What we know is that the mad murderer was required under the law to have a referee who, under the regulations, is to be a close family member and to have a second referee that, by law, must know the applicant well. 
Hon Nathan Guy: They got someone from the chatroom.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Now, what we know, as my colleague Nathan Guy has said, is that this mad murderer was issued with a firearms licence with a referee whose only contact had been in an internet chatroom and lived more than 1,000 miles away. So the two referees were a father and son who lived at almost the most two furthest points in the country, who had never met, except on an internet chatroom.
Now, I say to the Minister: why have you not answered the questions about that very essential matter, that I think the 51 families of the victims deserve an answer of but so too do 5 million New Zealanders, who were appalled by the Act?
Now, the Minister says, oh, no, no, no—I'm not prepared to answer any of those questions because there's a royal commission of inquiry, but here's the problem: if we are to get our arms law correct, driven by the tragedy that occurred on 15 March with the mosque attack, then shouldn't we know the facts of what went wrong before we completely rewrite the law for New Zealand's 400,000 law-abiding gun users? Wouldn't it be more sensible, Minister—and I'm prepared to say, well, look, if you're prepared to answer the questions, we can make sure we get the law right. But what the police Minister is saying is, oh, I'm not prepared to answer any of that; I just want to rush this law through.
Now, it would be credible—remember, the royal commission of inquiry is due to report on 31 July. That is some six weeks away. So if we want to put hand on heart—and I do—that we are making the very best possible arms laws so that madmen, such as that individual, do not get access to firearms, then let's have the answers to the basic questions that go to the heart of the matter that saw those 51 people cowardly killed and a further 40 seriously injured.
Hon Stuart Nash: Read the bill, Nick.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister interjects and says "Read the bill." I have. But what I ask of the Minister is was the law—because we can change all the laws we like, but, if the law as it was was not followed, do not pretend that we are going to the core and—excuse the pun—hitting our target of making sure we have reacted responsibly and properly to the awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch. I find it appalling that 15 months after the tragedy, the Minister has ducked and dived, he has gone all around the circle, but he has not been prepared to answer that fundamental question, and it's simply this: who were the two referees that in November 2017 met the legal requirement for this madman to get a gun licence. 
Why is the Minister—there's a piece of paper sitting in the police department office that shows exactly who those two referees were. Doesn't this Parliament have a right to know whether those two referees were compliant with the law of the land as it was, before we go down these extensive exercises of completely rewriting our arms laws? I say that Minister, in refusing to answer those questions in this House, is acting negligently, and that there is no good reason to withhold from this Parliament, that is being asked to pass another major raft of arms laws, to not answer the most basic question, and that is: why and how that madman was issued with a firearms licence that led him to being able to get his arsenal of weapons and for him to then go on and perpetrate the awful evil that occurred on 15 March.
And then the second point that there has been no explanation from the Government, whatsoever, on is this: we know that the vast majority of firearms offences in this country are not committed by the law-abiding hunters and others but are committed by those with criminal convictions and gang affiliations. My colleague Brett Hudson, over time and time again, has asked that we provide for prohibition notices on people that we should quite clearly say, as a Parliament, should not have access to firearms. We are being soft and ridiculous in allowing gang members to be able to access firearms. And what we have advocated through amendments, we advocated it with the first firearms bill, and the Government said, I will think about that with No. 2. We have debated relentlessly this second arms amendment bill, and again the Government refuses to provide those sensible practical provisions that would prohibit gangs and other criminal organisations from having access to guns. It is wrong, this is a lost opportunity, and the bill should not proceed.





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the caucus of New Zealand First and to express their views as we move this legislation through the third reading. I guess, possibly, the last week has been somewhat sobering for a number of reasons. There is no secret; we've had many conversations in the media and with Minister Nash and with the Labour team around some of our reservations with respect to this bill. New Zealand First formed a coalition Government and selected the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern to be the Prime Minister of this nation, and she was the Prime Minister of this nation when that horrendous attack by that terrorist took place in Christchurch on 15 March. As the Prime Minister of this nation, she made a call. It was a loud and clear and very emphatic call.
As responsible parties and members of this coalition Government, New Zealand First supports our Prime Minister, and continues to do so. There are many occasions when I know commentators in the media and commentators around this country, politically motivated or whatever, have chosen to accuse New Zealand First of not being responsible, not capable of participating in a stable coalition Government. They often hark back to 1998 and the dissolution of the coalition Government. Actually, that wasn't our doing; that was Jenny Shipley's doing, and a whole band of turncoats inside her party who tipped that Government up. But, none the less, the accusations still keep getting levelled at New Zealand First. New Zealand First means to continue to support the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern as the Prime Minister of this nation and this Government. That's not to say that we don't have a different view in all cases to the Labour Party.
New Zealand First has had many conversations around this piece of legislation and has attempted to get some changes. We believe, at this point in time, we have struck a balance that will reopen the conversation around this Act. I know that some people want to celebrate and wave a flag and say that they have won a battle that they've been fighting for some time. Rightly or wrongly, they have certain views about firearms owners. I know a lot of firearms owners, who I respect as law-abiding citizens of this nation, who just want to go about enjoying their chosen sport freely. But 51 people dead, 50 people severely wounded, some who will carry disabilities for the rest of their lives—it provided an environment which made it very, very challenging to allow things to continue as they were. The Prime Minister made a call; we support the Prime Minister.
But we also support the rights of some people, like sporting shooters, to go on about participating in that sport. Whilst we have not gained the concession that we wanted from Labour in that respect to make competitive sporting shooting competitions—three-gun, military service rifle—an allowable sport, to allow those people who compete internationally all over the world, many of whom are professionals, highly qualified people. You have to be to be able to afford to undertake their sport. Many of whom demonstrate weapons skills and weapons safety standards far higher than a lot of the police officers that I see carrying around their AR-15 Bushmasters on the streets of New Zealand on a daily basis. Many of these people—many of these people—without going into names, are actually members of the police force. They are actually members of the Defence Force. They are actually people who, by dint of the occupation and the security clearances they hold and the appointments they hold in the police force and in the New Zealand Defence Force are highly responsible New Zealanders. It does sadden New Zealand First that they are not able to continue that sport.
But it's not over—it's not over—because the one thing that New Zealand First has negotiated in this piece of legislation—a couple of things, in particular—is a post-implementation review. In that post-implementation review, we mean—whether we're in coalition Government with National or coalition Government with Labour—to review and test the risk benefits that were argued. Any good post-implementation review goes back to the initial business case, to the detailed business case, and tests what's happened against what was stated would happen. When that test is done, the new Parliament of the day will make a decision as to whether these decisions that we're making here today, on the advice of police, stack up.
I guess the part that the New Zealand First caucus takes a great deal of pride in—at least satisfaction, and finds solace and consolation—is in the fact that we will have an independent arms authority established in the next term of Government. We would have liked to have seen that happen, but COVID's intervened. The legislative timetable doesn't allow for the new legislation to be written. We would have seen a change to the purpose of this Act. We would have seen that purpose widened so that an independent arms authority would have fitted the scope of the bill. We would have seen that legislation drafted, tabled in this House, and passed through all three readings before the House lifted. That's been interdicted.
I want to thank Minister Nash for coming around to our way of thinking. It was useful, actually, that Sir Justice Thorp had recommended that in his report in 1997. I've got to say, New Zealand First has been the strongest advocate and supporter of the New Zealand Police for the last 25 years, 27 years, that we've been in existence. It is through the various things that we've done in coalition agreements, whether it was with National or Labour, that over time we've increased the strength of the police by over 3,500 people.
Hon Nathan Guy: But you're not going to deal with the gangs in this.
Hon RON MARK: That is because of our belief that the police need the resources to deal with such things, Hon Nathan Guy, as gangs. So we're starting to hear about—and we understand the desire for police to interdict the weapons supply to gangs. I mean, it was me who tried to table a bill—
Hon Member: Last moment.
Hon RON MARK: —because at that time—to that member: you've been partaking already. It was me that tried to table a bill in this House called the Suppression of Gangs Bill that got vetoed, ironically, by Labour, and then not taken up, either, by National. That would have made it illegal to be a member of an organised crime unit or entity or a gang. But ironically, the people who talk about empowering the police to deal to gangs never supported that proposition at all. I think we tried twice to table it in the House. There is no question about New Zealand First's support of the police force, offering up law changes that give them greater powers to deal with organised crime. In this coalition agreement, Mr Nash knows, there are aspects of this coalition agreement that give greater resources to the police to deal with organised crime. The jury and time will tell us, the House, whether or not this legislation has stopped the gangs importing and accessing firearms.
I want to say a big shout-out to Mark Patterson, my caucus member, who advocated strongly for the farmers to ensure that they had access to semi-automatic centre fire weapons to deal with pest controls. I've been down in Southland and I've been down in Otago and around those areas where the wallabies and the hares and the rabbits run free, and I know the difficulty of trying to shoot rabbits on the run with a bolt action rifle, and trying to shoot goats and wallabies. Give it a go, if you think you can do it without a centre fire semi-automatic weapon.
I want to thank the New Zealand First caucus for their steadfastness. The post-implementation review of this Act will happen. The extension out to five years before the registration system comes into being is set in stone. In that time, we will assess, no doubt, how it's rolling out, its effectiveness against the criteria laid down by Sir Justice Thorp and decisions will be made at that time. So I'd just say to people that this Government, and New Zealand First as part of this Government, is passing this legislation. But don't be rolling out the bubbles and popping the cork too quickly, because after this election is over there will be closer scrutiny on what we've done and the costs and benefits and whether or not this is delivered to the people.
By the way, many of us are looking forward to the report from the royal commission so we understand better what happened, how that person got access to a firearm, and those vast quantities of ammunition that were signed off, and what changes should happen on the basis of the royal commission's finding. I want to finish by thanking—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.





IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I was coming down to the House with a few lines in mind, but after listening to that I'm totally confused, and I'll have to outline why. But before I do, I did want to just acknowledge the team up in the gods, I suppose you'd call it, because they've been through a number of arms inquiries and bits of legislation, and many of them have accompanied us through quite a few of those things. I just want to congratulate them on a very difficult topic, and a topic that will continue to cause debate for many years to come, I've got no doubt, but I think they should be acknowledged for the work they've done. 
One of the reasons that we're not comfortable with this bill was outlined very clearly by the Hon Ron Mark a moment or two ago; in fact, a number of the reasons that we're not comfortable with it were outlined. I guess the very fact that we're passing a piece of legislation that's going to come back for review in perhaps four or five months' time seems extraordinary to me. He also confused the issue a bit because he then talked about the arms register being put out for five years. That confused me too, because I don't think it is for five years; I think it's for three years. 
But we've heard today about the history of this piece of legislation. In fact, the first piece of legislation was brought to Parliament under urgency to deal with the gun buy-back and a number of other matters related to people owning firearms in our community. At that time, the Government gave us estimates of the number of those guns that were out in the community, of how the buy-back might achieve a reduction in those guns, and then, yesterday, we heard the Minister saying very clearly that this would take the guns out of the hands of the gangs. Well, the statistics, unfortunately, tell you that's not going to happen, because we have an estimated, I think, 1.2 million to 1.5 million guns in New Zealand society now; we have about 248,000 or 250,000 licensed gun owners in our society; and we had an estimated 240,000 guns that were to be acquired as part of the gun buy-back. We seem to have acquired around 65,000. So there could be almost 180,000 of these now illegal guns still out in our community, and if they're in the hands—and they will be—of people who are unlicensed, they will never appear above ground again, because they can't afford to. Those people will not bring them back into circulation; they'll be sold to the underworld. 
So that's a massive challenge that we've created, and we created it because, in the course of the first piece of legislation, we didn't enable the police, or whoever ran the gun buy-back, to effectively buy back every gun of that type in New Zealand. We only allowed them to buy the guns back from what the Minister yesterday called the good guys. That in itself has created a massive challenge. So that is one of the flaws, I think, that's highlighted by this bill and one of the reasons why we can't support this bill. It, frankly, hasn't got the background to do the job that it needed to do. 
The next issue that concerns me greatly, and it was raised by the Hon Nick Smith in his speech, is the fact that we've got a royal commission reporting back to Parliament in a month's time on the very issues that created the need for this bill. I think that it's extraordinary that we'd be pushing a piece of legislation through the House and passing it in urgency, when we don't know the result of that royal commission. 
Now, I want to go back to the point that the Hon Ron Mark has raised a couple of times in the course of this debate both before and today. That is the fact that that we've gone through a lot of effort in the time I've been in this House to look at this very difficult and complex issue—because it is a complex issue, because, effectively, we're taking the rights of people away from them and replacing them with, well, what's termed in the bill as a privilege. I've got an objection to that, too, which I'll talk about a little later. 
I don't think there's any doubt that our gun legislation needed to be reviewed and changed and improved. There's no question of that. The first piece of legislation was a reactive piece of legislation, and I'm not at all critical of the need to react; there was a need to react at that time. It was a reactive piece of legislation which set out to try to achieve a task which, as I just said a minute or two ago, it didn't really achieve all that well. So we accept the fact that there was some form of gun reform needed, but it needed to be done in a manner that, in my view, was much more informed and better calculated than this piece of legislation has been done. So it's disappointing that we're putting a piece of legislation through the House that we've already heard from the Government is going to be reviewed almost immediately after it goes through the House. 
This piece of legislation puts quite a significant imposition on gun owners. And the fact that the register has been delayed for three years is very significant, because we had a register in New Zealand once before. It was disbanded because it was inefficient, and, sure, in those days the manner in which you collected information was much more difficult than it is today. Of course, in those days, that information was probably much more secure as well, and that's one of the great concerns that many of the submitters had when they came to the Parliament to talk about the gun register. So the potential for that gun register to leak and the potential for that to then become just another way for the crooks to get a hold of guns or those people that shouldn't have guns to get a hold of guns—there was great concern around that. Now, maybe delaying the register might improve the chances of that being successful. I don't know whether that will be correct or not, because we seem to continue to have leaks from all sorts of departments and businesses in New Zealand and around the world, and that's also becoming more common. So that's another reason, in my view, that we don't support the piece of legislation, because we are not sure that we can provide for a secure register. 
There's been some changes made to the bill, and that was one of them, of course, the register being delayed, but there's been some other changes made to the bill which I think are satisfactory. Whilst it's not perfect, the fact that farmers and landowners are now able to obtain access to these types of guns to shoot pests, and can be licensed to hold those guns, is probably a good move. I tend to disagree with Ron Mark. I think you can shoot most things with a pretty simple sort of a gun, if you're a good enough shot, but—
Hon Member: Show me!
IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! No, I don't claim to be one of those, but I do think that, you know, that's a reasonable change to the piece of legislation and probably not a bad change. It shouldn't make it any more difficult to control where those firearms are—and what this bill is all about, at the end of the day, is controlling where firearms are and who has access to them. 
I want to get on to the point that I made a little bit earlier about owning firearms being a privilege. I said yesterday that I think living is a privilege. I object to the term being put in the bill, frankly, because I think we're starting to categorise things in life by using terminology that we don't need to use in pieces of legislation. That is one of them. I just think the fact is that you've got to go through a pretty—I wouldn't say it's complicated; it might be for me—complex system to get a licence. Not everyone qualifies to get a gun licence. That's the other point that needs to be made here. But having got that licence, all you've got to do to get a firearm is go down to the gun shop and buy the blimmin thing, so that's hardly a privilege. I think that to use that type of language in a bill like this is unnecessary and it creates, I guess, a false sense of security for people going forward, because it doesn't actually mean anything.
I think it would be very good if we could have supported this piece of legislation. We can't support it and I've outlined a number of the reasons why I don't think we should support it. Brett Hudson, earlier on, outlined very clearly why we didn't support this piece of legislation. I just hope that—if the Government, in fact, think they're going to bring it back in the next term of Parliament—we're the Government that's bringing it back, because we'll certainly be reviewing it in a manner that I think will make it a better piece of legislation and will do more to protect our society from what the first bill actually set out to protect our society from, because this bill does not do that. It doesn't take guns out of the hands of the crooks. It just merely has taken, and it will continue to take, guns out of the hands of good people. It's disappointing that we can't support it. That's my contribution, thank you.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to open by acknowledging the team that's in the public gallery this afternoon—including Deputy Commissioner Mike Clement, who, I understand, after a long and fruitful service, is retiring in a week—and thank them for the work that they've done in terms of bringing through and shepherding a quite significant improvement in our gun laws and gun regulations. I want to acknowledge also that, as a nation and globally, we've been having some really difficult conversations about firearms use and the police force, and that it is actually a sign of strength and the strength of this nation's values that our police force have stood, at certain points, this one included, for better regulation of firearms, and also, last week, having announced that they are abandoning the armed patrol trials. So we as a nation stand for non-violence, and we stand for what works in terms of keeping our communities safe, and we know that that comes with properly regulating firearms and getting as much of that as possible off the street and out of the hands of those who would not use them safely. 
I also want to acknowledge, as others have, that we stand here in this Chamber just barely a year after one of the worst, most devastating acts of terror in our nation's recent or living memory, on 15 March last year, when 51 innocent people lost their lives to a hate crime committed by gun violence, and, of course, dozens more were harmed, were injured irreparably in body and spirit, with scars that they'll bear for ever. We all remember that tragedy. We all remember the victims. We remember the small children that reminded us of the children in our own lives, the elders that remind us of our grandparents. We remember those who tried to fight back to protect their loved ones. And none of us wants to see anything like that happen in New Zealand again. We also remember, and I think that this bill really does represent, all that love that poured out across our beautiful nation as New Zealand came out, wrapped our arms around the victims, the victim communities across our nation. I think that the legacy of that love, of the strength that our nation showed, must be real change. We have to have those hard conversations in his House. We are responsible for the wellbeing of New Zealand, and we must make change; we must identify the shortfalls in our system, and that is what this bill represents.
I also want to acknowledge that, apart from that heinous act of terror, apart from the far outliers in terms of violence that we see, we also are here as representatives of a nation with epidemic levels of family violence that we're tackling in this House. We know that victims of family violence are made far more unsafe if firearms are involved. It's the difference between injury that victims can overcome and become survivors of or death. We also sit here in this Chamber as representatives of a nation with epidemic levels of mental illness and suicide, especially among our young people, and we know that firearms, if they are widely available, if they are available in conditions where we don't know where they are, where the licensing, where the registering system is unclear, untransparent, it makes it much, much more unsafe for those with serious mental illness. Those are issues that we have to solve in different ways, but this is a small step towards making all the communities affected by mental illness, by family violence, by gun violence, and by crime more safe.
So the Green Party has a longstanding kaupapa of standing for gun regulation, and one of those policies has always been to establish a proper gun registry. It boggles the mind that we don't have a gun registry that's available electronically, that tells law enforcement who has guns, what are the terms of their licences, and where they are. That's what this bill will introduce. So it's not about punishing those who lawfully hold guns; it's about making it easier for law enforcement to actually enforce the law. We have better licensing terms, we have clearer licensing terms both for dealers and for those who hold licences in terms of the terms of use and who can and will be allowed to continue to hold firearms licences.
The fit and proper persons criteria: those who have been convicted of serious crimes—that's violent criminal offences—who have a history showing symptoms of mental illness that might be deemed by the New Zealand Medical Association as being a concern. Importantly, I think, in the context of the Christchurch terror attack, one of the criteria for the fit and proper persons test being introduced here is that those who have patterns of behaviour relating to hatred and extremism will be identified and excluded—or at least that will be taken into account. And we know that, in terms of the Christchurch terrorist, there were reports about extremism, about communications that were concerning, made by members of the community who'd been to his gun club. So this will make it easier for law enforcement to record those things and to look at whether or not someone should hold a gun licence.
Offences and penalties—and we've heard this a couple of times: it turns out that in our law some fishing offences against our fishing laws hold higher penalties than firearms offences. So some of what we're introducing here will be offences, including failing to provide information to the registry; the sale, supply, or ownership of ammunitions and parts without a licence; the failure to permit inspection of firearms; the illegal manufacture or trafficking of firearms. These are terrifying offences and the lack of an ability to effectively enforce them must be terrifying for our police force. So we are acknowledging that offences against firearms law are serious, that they need to be described in our law clearly, that enforcement must be provided for, and that we need transparency around who can and can't hold a licence, around who does hold a licence, where they are, what the terms of their licence are. These are just breathtakingly sensible changes, and I think I do want to acknowledge again that, actually, it's been the law enforcement agencies that have been calling for some of these changes for decades.
So, as a Government, we are taking responsibility and taking action. It has been the apathy of successive Governments that has allowed for these changes to sit on the shelves and not be implemented. But, as a Government, we must also look at what else makes our communities safe. So we're taking action on gun control but we're going to look at things like housing; like accessible, inclusive education; and mental healthcare addiction treatment—all of the things that mean firearms use isn't on the rise in our communities, that crime isn't on the rise, that communities are safe and inclusive, and, as we have said many times in this Government, that a compassionate approach is taken to making us, well, safe, but also more of a community. So I do commend this bill to the House. It stands for peace and non-violence—Green values—and I commend the Government for finally bringing them with decisive action.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Well, Mr Speaker, I feel like we've come to the end of a long road, to be speaking on this Arms Legislation Bill this afternoon.
Hon Nathan Guy: It's going to be reviewed again. The road does not end.
ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, I know it's going to be reviewed again, Mr Guy—well, maybe it depends whether New Zealand First gets back, of course.
When the Minister introduced the bill at the committee of the whole House, he made this claim that this bill will keep New Zealanders safe and also will keep the guns off of the bad people. He implored us, the National Party, as to why we weren't going to support this bill. The simple answer is, unfortunately, this legislation won't achieve the objectives that it ought to—and it is with some shame that we've arrived at this point.
We, of course, supported the first bill and, as a firearm owner myself, I too was concerned about the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons or rifles that were available for sale. And much of that was dealt with in the first bill, now Act. However, what we experienced after the passing of that first Act was a debacle, in the sense that the delay in determining the remuneration that would be paid for returned rifles led to a significant loss of goodwill by the firearms community, and that ultimately led to a rather small amount of rifles being handed back in. The estimate was approximately 56,000, even though, whilst the police weren't able to quantify it, there is an estimated 250,000 of such dangerous types of rifles in the community, out with the gun fraternity at the moment. That is a shame—that is a real shame. I know we can pass laws that we're going to fine people and jail them, and all that sort of stuff, but unfortunately a lot of goodwill was lost, and has resulted in many very old, historic weapons being handed in that do meet the strict requirements of an automatic weapon but, in reality, offered absolutely no ability to be used in such a manner, because of their age or the way that they would operate, and I think that is a real shame. That is a case of poor implementation of this bill.
We have asked the police continuously about this number of 250,000. There are records of all the import records that show what of these types of rifles would have been imported to New Zealand—it is possible to quantify it—but even if it's within 20,000 or 30,000, if the figure is 250,000 of them in total, that is a staggering amount of them out in New Zealand. This bill—well, actually, the last bill—we actually were lucky enough to get two wins, and National played an instrumental role in that. The first one was as a result of National's direct intervention; we were successful in persuading the committee to reduce the licence period from 10 years to five years.
David Seymour: Success has many fathers.
ANDREW BAYLY: That is a very significant piece of legislation, and I know my good colleague from ACT supported that. The other area that we did get some headway around was the issue of dealer licences, particularly in relation to guides and film operators and armourers, in terms of their scope and how they were affected by the Act. But this bill perpetuates a number of real issues that we had with the original proposition, and that is namely the issue, firstly, about regulation of clubs. We had a number of excellent presentations, particularly from the pistol clubs, who operate under the most stringent conditions. Like many of you, I've visited them, and they are excellent, safety-conscious, and do the most wonderful thing that if you do want to learn how to manage and fire weapons or firearms, pistols, whatever, safely, they will teach you how to do it in a safe manner. Unfortunately, what the bill does is it imposes a whole lot of certification rules, notification rules, onerous, having a requirement to have public liability and, basically, it is making it so much harder for those clubs that we are at risk of losing those wonderful little clubs, all interspersed amongst our communities, who do that great job of training people safely how to use these types of arms.
The second one is really around sports shooters, and this was a perennial problem when the first bill went through, and certainly through this one. It is inconceivable that these people, who are highly proficient, highly skilled, and actually a very small number of them, who calibrate their arms that they use—they are so precious about them because they are personal to them in the way that they undertake competition, and we fought hard for them to be able to be exempt under most of the regulations over this. Unfortunately, we kept turning to New Zealand First during this process, and where were they? Unfortunately, they were not, they were silent, missing in action, and if they'd just fronted up with us we could have overturned that particular aspect and supported our sporting shooters in New Zealand. Collectors have already been subject to a huge amount of regulation, and, of course, they continue to have under these regulations ongoing, onerous requirements.
Pest control—this was traversed so numerously during the last time and this time, and again we sought to find a practical solution for farmers and, again, it is unfortunate we arrived at the committee of the whole House yesterday to find that we couldn't make an adjustment and yet here we have "Johnny-come-lately"—or should I say "Ronnie-come-lately"—who introduced a Supplementary Order Paper rather than turn up to the select committee and engage with us and be an active part of that select committee. We could have made those changes appropriately for farmers, but what we've got is an overt pitch to get farmers' votes at the last moment, and the worst thing is that if Mr Mark had ever turned up, or even his other colleague had spoken up, he could have changed it—if he'd just simply talked to us—because we had been pushing for it. But they're silent—they were silent.
The other thing is fire protection orders. We are very concerned about the issue of how these arms will be able to be in the hands of gangs and people who use them for significant crime. And this is our principal issue with the bill: that the bill does not sufficiently stop or target those people in the community who are most likely to use these types of arms for their nefarious gains, which is wrong. We should be focused wholly on those, because, unfortunately, what we've ended up doing is targeting a lot of lawful New Zealanders.
The other issue, of course, is the licensing of firearms, and there's been a lot of traverse around this, about whether it works or not. We heard from a number of E category licence holders—which is the highest category—how, even under their arrangements where they have to record each rifle or pistol that they own, as opposed to the general category, where the person is certified, that there were problems with the existing recording of their arms when they get checked every 12 months. So we are now going to move to a register for every firearm in New Zealand? That will entail a significant administrative burden. Guess what I said in my second reading speech! I said this: that I think it is wrong that the burden of this licensing of firearms has to be given to the police, who have many other most pressing priorities. I went on to say that it was my view that there should be a new entity outside of police control. And, again, here we had yesterday, in the committee of the whole House, a new member who we've never seen anything from about it, trying to claim that from the perspective of New Zealand First they—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Look, I really only just wanted to make one brief point. It was in response to Mr McKelvie's statement that he didn't like the use of the word "privilege" in the bill—an important statement that the ownership of a rifle is a privilege. You know, I think if it's not a privilege, it's a right. And if we go down that road, we're in all kinds of trouble. There are all kinds of privileges we have, and we have to show our competence and the reasons that we need it—whether that be using explosives or poisons or driving a car, and having a rifle for a legitimate purpose is simply another one of those. Once we establish that, absolutely the Government will confer that privilege on you, but to suggest it's anything other than that, to suggest it's a right, is taking us down a very slippery slope. We don't need to look very far to see where that leads us, and that's not where we'll be going today. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Listening to the debate this afternoon, I was able to reminisce back to the weekend just gone. I'm a licensed gun holder. I was out there with my 15-year-old son on our farm and a couple of his mates doing our bit for Predator Free 2050, shooting possums. Before we went out, I said to my son and his mates, "Let's run through the seven basic rules of firearm safety." I have a saying: "Out together, back together." So we went out after they had been well schooled on the vital information of keeping safe. We went out and had some fun. 
Now, this bill is brought about because of the terrible mosque killings in Christchurch. And we know we've had the first stage of gun reform whereby semi-automatic firearms had to be handed in. The Government went through the amnesty. I think it's fair to say that the amnesty didn't go as well as everyone would have hoped.
David Seymour: It was a disaster.
Hon NATHAN GUY: I can hear David Seymour saying, indeed, it was a disaster. Reading through the facts, it's estimated by the New Zealand Police there are 1.2 million or 1.5 million firearms in New Zealand and the amnesty yielded something like 56,000. So we know that there is a hell of a lot of weapons in New Zealand that are in the hands of unlicensed individuals. And that is a real concern. 
Potentially there are 180,000 illegal weapons at large in New Zealand. So in my mind, that's why it made sense for the Government to back what National's been saying for the last 18 months or so: let's get tough on these gangs with a prohibition order. So we had a member's bill; got voted down by the Government. We tried through the select committee stage, tried through the committee stage to really get tougher on gangs and what they do in communities with peddling illegal firearms. And what do we hear from the Government? "No, that's not necessary because 1,800 cops are actually going to deal with that issue." 
Well, that doesn't sit comfortably with me when I think back to what I've heard in the last wee while about the individual that took 51 innocent lives in Christchurch at the mosque killings, when we get down to the level of detail about how that individual got a firearms licence in New Zealand. When we look at that detail—and, by and large, when the police came and interviewed me and my wife for my firearms licence, they went through a hell of a lot of detail. They interviewed my wife. They went and had a look at the storage area, the gun safes. They looked at the weapons. They wrote down some, I think, serial numbers as well. I was heartened by that process a few years ago. 
But when we drill down on the detail of the murderer, that has now pleaded guilty, that took 51 innocent lives, how did that individual become a licensed firearm owner in New Zealand? There is a fit and proper test that the individuals need to go through. Well, we now learn that the referees of that particular individual came from a chatroom where they had never personally met the murderer, and those were the people that were interviewed. That is disgraceful. 
So we get back to the point of this bill now and the opportunities that the Government has turned down to do the right thing and get tougher on gangs. What this is going to mean is that good law-abiding citizens that have a firearms licence will have to pay more because it will move from a 10-year licence to a five-year licence. I do acknowledge the change that's been made for farmers with the ability to apply for a pest management regime and hold a semi-automatic weapon. I think that's a good move. But I'm disappointed that the Government didn't take this opportunity to get tougher on gangs. 
I'm also heartened to hear that the register that hasn't worked in Canada—it's cost a couple of billion dollars—is being delayed. This bill will be reviewed and reviewed and we will—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired. This is a split call. I call Rino Tirikatene.





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I'm delighted to speak on the third reading of this Arms Legislation Bill. I want to just acknowledge not only our outstanding Minister in Stuart Nash for his leadership in shepherding this bill through the House but I want to acknowledge the late Justice Sir Thomas Thorp. Justice Thorp told us what was wrong with our gun laws way back in 1997, with his landmark gun control report. Nothing had happened since that time, and we only need to look back to the tragic events of last year to see the deficiencies that are in place with an outdated Arms Act that goes way back to 1983.
So I'm delighted to be standing to support this bill. I want to acknowledge Minister Nash and our coalition Government for taking action—for taking action and bringing about this significant and much-improved piece of legislation. I'm pleased that we're consigning the Arms Act 1983 to history, and I welcome this new bill, and I commend it to the House.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Arms Legislation Bill. I sometimes reflect on what it means to be a New Zealander, and I certainly did in the wake of our nation's tragedy in Christchurch, when people of every creed, religion, and race, people who have come from all over the world, were united in their condemnation of the heinous act. It got me thinking: what is it that unites us? We have one thing in common as New Zealanders, and it's the only thing: it's that we are children of pioneers, that our ancestors chose, and in some cases ourselves as New Zealanders chose, to move to the edge of the map so our children could have a better tomorrow. If we wanted mediocrity, we could've just stayed, in my case in the UK or Hawaiki, but my ancestors came here to do better, for the best.
That's the framework against which I assess this Government's response to our nation's tragedy in Christchurch on 15 March last year, and how have they gone? Well, when we assess a policy, we might ask ourselves three questions: what is the intent of the policy, what's it supposed to do? Number two, is it effective at achieving that goal? And, number three, what are the side effects of that policy being implemented? The intention, according to the Minister of Police, is to stop bad people getting firearms, and I think we might surmise that beneath that, it is to keep New Zealanders safe. I would add that New Zealand needed something else in the wake of our nation's tragedy, and that was unity, to actually be united as a country against the terror that tried to divide us.
How effective has this Government's response been at getting the guns off the bad people, keeping New Zealanders safer, and ensuring that New Zealand is a more united country? Well, that would have been an intelligent and effective response, but what we've got is a response that, first of all, has utterly failed to take the guns off the bad people. In fact, in the previous legislation and the past legislation, there are so many new restrictions and rules for people who follow the law and nothing for people who break the law. That is the greatest failure, that it has targeted the wrong people: law-abiding New Zealanders who are as horrified by what happened in Christchurch as any other New Zealander.
That's where the second failing of the Government's response comes about, that it has actually chosen to scapegoat and blame and bedevil a group of law-abiding New Zealanders who've done nothing wrong, as though they were somehow vicariously responsible for the greatest peacetime tragedy on New Zealand soil. That is shameful, and it tells you something interesting about empathy, because the Green Party stood here and said it was all about aroha. Well, they didn't even show up to the Finance and Expenditure Committee when person after person—dozens, hundreds of people—came before the select committee and said, "We've done nothing wrong. These rules, for a variety of practical reasons, will not be effective in making us safer, and, actually, we feel victimised by the way we are being assaulted as law-abiding firearm owners and we find that divisive." It's an interesting thing, empathy. I'm not a gun guy. I'm not a shooter, but I get it—they're Kiwis, they're humans like us. They feel victimised by the approach the Government has taken. Where is the empathy for them? It has been sadly lacking.
Has the Government managed to get the guns away from the bad people? No. The buy-back that preceded this legislation was an enormous failure. Will the Government's regulations on clubs, introduced in this legislation, make New Zealand a safer place? No. What it's likely to do, and we heard this on the select committee, is that those clubs that are a place where people can monitor and keep an eye on each other are going to be less likely to keep going, and more people will go bush or do their sighting and get their eye in by shooting some cans on the back of the farm. It's going to make New Zealand more dangerous by making it harder to run a voluntary club, and it's going to make it less likely that people who are terrorists are going to be reported.
I was at a pistol club a few months back, and I put the question to the president: what do you actually do if someone comes along and you don't think they should have a firearm? They told me, "Actually, it's happened a couple of times. In one case, we got the person deported." Now, I would hope that, actually, that will continue, but nothing that's been done in this legislation has helped the relationship between the licensed firearm community and the police. Those are the side effects of this legislation, massive alienation of the very people that should be the eyes and ears of the police throughout our community, those who are closest to people that have firearms.
Then we look at the problems imposed on people who use firearms for sport. They pay a cost. People who are collectors, people who have lost their property, people that haven't been compensated—they'll pay a cost. But I would argue the impact on mental health is greatest. It's a sad thing that because of the rules under this bill that invade the relationship between a doctor and a patient in relation to mental health, if a person has a firearm—and we were told this on the select committee—people will not seek help, because they think they might lose their licence or be victimised if they talk to their doctor, who will tell the police. That is the biggest own goal for this Government, I can imagine.
But wait, maybe that's not the worst. The real nightmare out of this legislation is the register. I might add it's a political nightmare for New Zealand First, who, let's be clear, despite all their promises of jam tomorrow and "We're sorry.", are voting for a firearms register. That's the reality of the transaction here, and people up and down Aotearoa New Zealand will know that Ron Mark, whatever he says, voted for a register. The problem with a register is not only is it ineffective—and we know that because half the illegal firearms confiscated by police have their serial numbers ground off anyway—a register is one Government leak away from being a steal-to-order list of every firearm in this country for the worst criminal elements in this country. How's that for an own goal when the Minister says his legislation is supposed to be keeping the guns out of the hands of the bad people? He's one leak away from giving bad people more guns than ever before. That's what happens when you don't ask the basic questions: what's the intention? How effective will it be? What are the unintended consequences of this policy?
As I said, my ancestors paddled and sailed to Aotearoa New Zealand in the hope of a better life for future generations, and what they want from this Parliament is not mediocre lawmaking; they want the best. So what should we do? Well, here's something obvious: we should wait for the royal commission to find out why the Christchurch tragedy really happened and how our laws actually need to change. Then we should bring everybody together around the table, including, as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee once said, those ghastly gun people, and actually have a proper conversation so we can again have the world's best firearm laws, based on unity, dignity, and respect. That's something to hope for, and that is the choice that many New Zealanders will be looking at in just a few months' time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): It is an honour to make the last speech in this House on the Arms Legislation Bill. I wish to end with thanks. Thank you to all the people who made submissions on the bill. We received a great many submissions. We listened to a great many people and listened very carefully to what they had to say and made some changes because of what people had to say to us. Thank you to the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who worked hard on the bill. I wish to record a special thanks to Mark Patterson from New Zealand First, who came along and listened carefully and sensibly and advocated and made, I think, a good case for some of the changes that we made in this bill. Thank you to the other members of the committee, who worked hard and sensibly on the bill. 
Thank you to the team of advisers, people who have worked for many, many years on the issues in this bill. It is wonderful to see you here today as this bill goes through its very last stage. I know for many of you it represents work that you are very pleased to see done, work that you have done for many years. It reaches its culmination today. Thank you for your work. 
Thank you to the Minister of Police, who brought this legislation to the House and who has shepherded it through all the stages and, again, has worked very carefully on it. It's legislation that about 85 percent of New Zealanders agree with that we do need to have better control over firearms in this country. This bill represents a step in doing that. We will continue to work on these issues over the years, as should be the case. But today we have achieved something significant. I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms Legislation Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 50
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a third time.





ELECTORAL (REGISTRATION OF SENTENCED PRISONERS) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 16 June.
Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to recap on this bill, the big question is: do criminal offenders—indeed should they—have the right to vote? On this side of the House we say no way. On the other side of the House they say yes, but there is a little caveat. Now, this particular topic—looking back in Hansard and the history books of this Parliament—has been debated since the 1970s. Indeed, the National MP in the last John Key - Bill English National-led Government Paul Quinn—he proposed the change and indeed it went through and now we find ourselves back debating this very important topic now. Now, this bill received something like 2,500 submissions, and it meant that because the Government's got their foot on the throttle, they see that they may indeed need these 1,900 votes that they might get—or potentially may not get.
Hon Andrew Little: 78 percent in favour.
Hon NATHAN GUY: I hear Mr Little chiming in from the back. He's obviously woken up and he's very passionate about screwing electoral law reform to satisfy the election result. We don't think that's fair. And I'll tell the Minister of Justice why we don't think it's fair. 
Why does this particular piece of legislation have to be rushed through? Why does it have to be rushed through, Mr Little? 
Hon Andrew Little: There's Mr 22 percent right there.
Hon NATHAN GUY: Mr Little can't answer a decent question. We know he has a habit of not doing that and getting fired up. That was a straightforward question. And the next question to the Minister is: why did the Justice Committee have to meet through COVID lockdown with all these Zoom sessions? Why? Why the urgency? 
Hon Andrew Little: It wasn't a day off. Everybody else worked. Every other MP worked.
Hon NATHAN GUY: Well—it wasn't a day off. Well, he should go and say that to the thousand people a day that are joining the dole queue. Yeah, well, they're now staring down the barrel of actually hanging out for the Government to create jobs. Now, is this particular bill going to create jobs? No, this is not going to create jobs. What this is going to mean is that 1,900 prisoners will be given the ability to vote in this general election. We don't think that's fair when you think about the fact that these are serious offenders. What about the victims in all of this? They are lost and forgotten. This gives criminals the right to vote when we think they should be serving their time and they have had their freedoms taken away from them—and one of those is voting. We think—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It's a shame that the Opposition continue to play politics for the sake of politics, because they know that this is the right thing to do. The Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal have said that it was an outlandish mistake that the Opposition made in 2010 revoking the rights of those prisoners that would be released during that particular term to determine who would govern them. So therefore it is with great pride—and I acknowledge the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, for his work—that I can commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 50
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a second time.





LAND TRANSPORT (RAIL) LEGISLATION BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 4 June.
ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): I am very happy to take the opportunity to recap on some of the previous points I made in an earlier contribution—I think last week—because I want to express how deeply concerned we are on this side of the House about this bill. Our concerns relate specifically to road safety. Although claims will be made opposite about the need for more investment in rail, what they've been silent on, actually, is the effect on roads around the country. 
Taking $5 billion out of the State highway network, which was one of Phil Twyford's first acts when he became transport Minister, wasn't enough. He claimed that we had over-invested in roads for decades, so he took $5 billion out of the State highway network to instead put into Auckland rail and cycle projects, and now what this bill does is formalises that raid. This says that wasn't enough; we now need to raid that piggy bank of money even more—take more money out of roads to put into rail. 
Unfortunately, what that means is roads up and down this country will be made less safe. I ran through some of those. There's Woodend, where they're in desperate need of a bypass to make that community safer. There's the Waikato Expressway, in Tim van de Molen's part of the world—a much-needed road for that community. There's the Northland motorway. They've been screaming out for four lanes there, and all the Government does is wants to put money into all sorts of other Shane Jones projects, not the one that's actually needed to unlock the Northland economy. And then, in my part of the world, the road between Ashburton and Christchurch—by the Government's own data, the second-most dangerous stretch of highway in the country. When we get back into Government, we'll fix those roads.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): After nine long years, this Government inherited a rail network that was in a state of managed decline. This bill is about enabling this Government to show its commitment to revitalising rail in all of New Zealand, and on those grounds I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 50
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a second time.





GREATER CHRISTCHURCH REGENERATION AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to be here today to give this second reading speech—pleased because this amendment bill supports the transition back to local leadership of the regeneration in greater Christchurch, something for which there is broad support at both central and local government levels. In 2016, when the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act was passed, it was necessary to provide an enabling framework for the Crown to continue to have an active role in regeneration. However, it has become clear that it is time; time to accelerate the transition of regeneration responsibilities back into the hands of local leadership. The 2019 annual review of the Act, completed in September 2019, supports this notion, having identified that a tipping point had been reached and that the Act is no longer required in its current form. We know the people and the long-term institutions on the ground in Christchurch are capable of leading regeneration, and this bill will allow them to take on more of an active leadership role. 
I'd like to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee, and particularly the chair Dr Jian Yang, for their consideration of the bill and the submissions that were received. I acknowledge the additional effort the committee put in to be able to report back to the House on this bill in the first week of June. Given the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on work environments and the request for a shorter than usual time frame for consideration initially, this required some swift work, and I would like to thank all members for that.
Given my well-known expectation to be the last Minister for regeneration that Christchurch needs, it is crucial that we were in a position to be able to pass this bill prior to the election, and I thank the committee for making sure we are in a position to be able to achieve this. The bill will provide certainty for the communities of Christchurch about the rules and the institutions in place to govern regeneration, and it will be great for this House to be able to provide that.
I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the many people in Christchurch who, for over a decade, have worked to get us to this point. The quest for local leadership after the devastating earthquakes that began 10 years ago in 2010 is something that has long been wanted on the ground in the city. There are many and numerous people—and I'm not going to even start naming names because I know inevitably I will miss someone off. But I think we, and I see members across the House from Christchurch too, can think of a number of people who over the years have worked tirelessly for the regeneration and the recovery of our city.
This bill recognises the progress made on regeneration, providing for earlier removal of provisions no longer considered necessary. And, as I'm keen to tell anyone who will listen, the work undertaken over the last four years in greater Christchurch has made significant strides on regeneration. In particular, if we point to the last 12 months, we have seen significant effort to complete a huge amount of work, including the approval of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, which provides a greenprint for the future use and development for the red zone land; and the signing of the Global Settlement Agreement, which includes decisions on how we transition Christchurch back to local leadership. This means it is possible to propose the amendments in the bill to revoke the section 71 power, which provides for an expedited way to make changes for planning documents, and to provide for early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch, which will reduce the number of institutions working on regeneration in Christchurch. It will extend certain land powers required for reconfiguration of land titles in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor to provide a backstop to ensure the Crown can complete the agreed work prior to the transfer of the land to the council and the removal of the requirement for an annual review of the Act and changes to implement the three major changes noted, such as amendments to the regeneration plan process to account for the early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch. The time is right to simplify things to help make this transition back to local leadership seamless and efficient. The bill supports this by simplifying the organisations working on regeneration in Christchurch and removing the Crown's extraordinary powers under section 71.
The committee report notes that submissions were received from six parties, including from local institutions, Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I thank all the submitters for taking the time to make their submissions. No submitters oppose the amendments proposed, with many noting their support for the proposed amendments, in particular the removal of the section 71 power and the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch. I think this is a reflection of the broad support at a local level for the amendments proposed through the bill and recognition that the changes proposed make sense and will help make greater Christchurch continue on its progress on regeneration. I would like to acknowledge the Opposition for their support on this bill; we have had a history of working together across the House on the overarching legislation around Christchurch over the last decade. And I would like to acknowledge those members from Christchurch who are in the House for this debate, for their support for these amendments.
I also note that what we are doing today is made possible in part by the work undertaken by Regenerate Christchurch. The board and the staff have undertaken significant projects and reviews over the last four years that have been a tremendous asset to greater Christchurch. I want to thank them for their work—the work that will leave a lasting imprint on the landscape of Christchurch, but also the work they have done to disestablish themselves. At a very human level, that is something I think we need to thank individuals for.
The committee also recommended two amendments to the bill: one to help clarify the definition of the area the exceeded land powers will apply to, and the other to insert transitional provisions for any section 71 proposal or plan process under way at the date the process provisions for those are repealed. With regard to the first recommendation—this was suggested to better define the definition of the geographical area of application for the extended land powers—the extended land powers will be available for the Crown's land title reconfiguration work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. It does this by clarifying the land the provisions will apply to by reference to land in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor in Crown ownership at 1 July 2021 and also provides a map to aid in interpretation. This suggested change does not change the area the extended land powers apply to, but, rather, ensures that it is clear what area is included. The extended land powers ensure the Crown has the time to complete its work to put Christchurch in the best position to continue its regeneration in this area. The other change is to include transitional provisions for any section 71 proposal or plan process under way at the time the relevant provisions in the Act are repealed. While transitional provisions were not originally seen as necessary, during the course of the committee's consideration, it became clear that clarity on the application of the current provisions to any application under way at the repeal of the relevant provisions would be pragmatic. The provisions included will ensure clarity for any proponent pursuing a proposal or application at the date the relevant provisions were repealed. This will provide certainty around the step in the process that needs to have been reached for a proposal or application to be continued under the current provisions in the Act. So these are very technical descriptions, but I want to finish up by thanking the committee for these recommendations, which have helped clarify these two matters.
This bill is all about the time being right for greater Christchurch to take further progress in the transition back to local leadership of regeneration. Christchurch has shown it is ready, able, and willing, and this bill shows central government's faith that this is the case while also ensuring the Crown has the required ability to complete its work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor to support the ongoing regeneration. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As the Minister has already said, National will be supporting this bill because it's the next step in the parliamentary legislative response to the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010 and 2011. Our first legislative response was the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act of 2011, which really focused on the immediate recovery and rebuild of the city. That Act morphed into the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016, which really marked the shift from post-earthquake, immediate recovery to the ongoing regeneration of greater Christchurch. This bill is the next step in the process, and provides for a transition for decision making back to local government and local stakeholders.
The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act did have a sunset clause—it had a clause that the Act would expire in June 2021. So this amendment bill means that that will just happen a little bit quicker. The bill has three main amendments. The first is the repeal of the powers that were given under section 71 of the principal Act, which allowed the Minister to work with local stakeholders to fast track resource management decisions that underpinned approved regeneration plans. It was designed to support essential urban renewal and development, and to empower that to happen as quickly and as cost effectively and efficiently as possible.
Stakeholders that were involved in these decision making mechanisms included all the local government bodies in greater Christchurch, Ngāi Tahu, and Regenerate Christchurch. Now, Regenerate Christchurch was the agency that was established to consult with the community, to bring parties together, and to deliver on development plans. The Act really allowed for the fast tracking of rebuilding, repairing, improving, and converting land, buildings, and infrastructure. But all of that had to be done within regeneration plans, and plans could be proposed by any of the local stakeholders.
It was an empowering piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, it was rarely used. In actual fact, there were only two regeneration plans that were propagated. The first was in 2017, and that was already in process before the Act was passed, and another was in 2019. It was envisioned at the time that these powers would be extremely helpful to the regeneration of the city, but, disappointingly, they were not really appreciated or embraced by local authorities, making them largely redundant in the long term.
The second amendment to this bill is the disestablishment of that agency: Regenerate Christchurch. Now, this body has spent the last four years developing plans for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and for other parts of the city. Work was supposed to be completed by June 2021, when it was to be wound up. Unfortunately, much of that proposed work is still not finished, and I'm hopeful that that work that has been done won't be wasted.
The third proposed amendment was to extend land powers for title reconfiguration within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. This will support regeneration by preparing the land for future activities—something the people of Christchurch are eagerly awaiting. As the Minister has noted, this bill went to the Governance and Administration Committee in early March. There were nine written submissions, three oral submissions, and the oral submissions were received by video conference because of COVID-19. I would like to also thank the members of the committee for working on this bill during lockdown.
The select committee recommended two main amendments. The first was to clarify the geographical description of the land in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. This land includes sites that the Crown has held under previous legislation, but also adjacent land owned by the city council. This new description doesn't change the amount or the type of land included; it merely changes the way that it is described. Also, an indicative map and further detail will be attached to the Act to assist in interpretation.
The committee was also concerned that the bill as introduced did not contain any transitional provisions following the repeal of the section 71 powers and planning process. The committee believe that transitional provisions are required to allow for the completion of any proposals that are presently under way. They recommended the insertion, via clause 29, of sections 10A, 10B, and 10C—all part of New Part 2—into Schedule 1 of the bill to allow for this transition.
As I've said, this is the third piece of legislation pertaining to the 2010 Canterbury earthquakes. It repeals the special powers that were put in place to fast track the regeneration of Christchurch and it winds up the body established to manage those regeneration plans. All decision-making powers will now go back to local government, and I think this is an indication that greater Christchurch is now returning to a more business-as-usual governance arrangement.
The last decade in our city has been enormously traumatic. We've had thousands of earthquakes, liquefaction, and flooding, lethal fires, and terrorist attacks—and now, of course, a pandemic, but we are generously sharing that with the rest of the country! I'm hopeful that the passing of this bill will see greater Christchurch return to a new normal that we can all embrace, and I'm also very hopeful that this is the end of any emergency or disaster-related legislation in Christchurch and Canterbury for a very long time to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I'm especially pleased that you are in the Chair to hear another part of the passage of the journey of this particular bill. I have a short contribution to make, because I think that the Minister, and the previous speaker, who's just resumed her seat, Nicky Wagner, have articulated what we're here about to do today. But I do want to make a couple of points. 
The first point I want to make, is I want to say a word of thanks to Dr Thérèse Arseneau and her board and Ivan Iafeta and the staff and the team at Regenerate Christchurch, for whom this piece of legislation actually ends that organisation. I know that they have handled the transition extraordinarily well, and I want to thank them for their work and to also acknowledge that the work that they have done will always, always be within the fabric of Christchurch. 
It's important that we acknowledge that this piece of legislation now allows for Christchurch to fully embrace its own regeneration, that the Crown now steps back from that piece of work and acknowledges the passage of time and the importance of Christchurch now determining its own future. I'm extraordinarily proud of that. 
I want to thank the select committee and the chair, Dr Jian Yang, for ensuring that this piece of work was completed in an expeditious way and returned to the House. I also want to commend them for a couple of significant pieces of work that they did—recognising that the section 71 transitional provisions needed to be inserted as an amendment to this piece of work—and I thank them for that. I also want to thank them for ensuring that, when the land title reconfiguration work happened, we included a very clear definition of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, and I thank them for that as well. 
So, just to end, this is another step in the journey and we will soon be putting the final stamp on returning Christchurch's leadership for its own regeneration back into its own hands. I'd like to commend the bill to the House.





Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak briefly on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill in its second reading. Now, it has been almost a decade since we had the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. I have visited Christchurch a number of times and, initially, I saw devastation and vacant land and, later on, I saw more development when, again, I attended events in Christchurch. So we can see the development, but, on the other hand, there was much damage because of the earthquakes. 
Initially, we responded with some immediate measures such as for the safety issue and the livelihood issue, but later on, we needed a longer and longer plan, and for that reason we needed to some legislation, or extraordinary measures, and that was why they had the particular bill, or the particular Act—the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act—in 2016. So that Act was there for some extraordinary measures to fast track the rebuild of Christchurch and the Canterbury region, and it worked to some extent. It was supposed to have central government and local government consultations speeding up, and it did achieve some results. At the same time, we did see that it was necessary, now, to transfer the power back to local government, and this bill itself is trying to, basically, speed up the process. We think it is time to speed up the process to make sure that we have certainty so that local government knows what to do and how it should happen. Also, the bill itself will give sufficient time to complete the required title configuration work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor before its transfer to the council. 
Now, the Governance and Administration Committee itself has worked quite, I would say, constructively in the process. We heard submissions from the officials and from other people, and then there was COVID-19, so we stopped for a while. But as soon as we came to the level 3 lockdown, we actually started working again. So we had a meeting just a couple of days after we entered into level 3 lockdown, and we made some suggestions. Here, I would like to thank our members from both National and Labour, and also, in particular, I want to thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee for his contribution and also the Hon Nicky Wagner for her contribution to this particular bill. 
As I said, we worked constructively. We support the bill, and the committee, in the end, made a couple of major amendments. Previous speakers have mentioned those amendments, but mostly I would say that with the clarification of the area covered by the bill—that is, the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor area—we have made it very clear. As a matter of fact, the officials provided a map so that we could see very clearly what the area covers. So it's very, very detailed work. 
We also have included the transitional provision for section 71 powers and the plan process. Basically, we've made it very clear that we would like to improve the bill to make it clearer for the transitional process and also for the area that the bill itself covers. 
So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I will only take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First, firstly to congratulate the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration on the sterling work she's done and also to recognise the Christchurch-based MPs from across the House who have put in so much effort, so much work, and their support in behind this legislation. I have lived in Canterbury, as you know, Madam Speaker, on and off for about 30-odd years, and I lived in many suburbs out at Burnham, at Rolleston, before it became a mini-city, as it is now, I think, unfortunately, in many ways thanks to—you hate to say it like that—the Christchurch earthquakes. Having a son in the police down there, who's been a long-serving member, and many family members down there who deployed in response to the Christchurch earthquakes—a son-in-law, who I'm very proud of, who won New Zealand's highest valour award the Fire Service has got to give for his actions in the Christchurch earthquake, and that's Scott Shadbolt—and seeing Christchurch come through what have been very, very challenging times, I don't think I'll ever lose the love for Christchurch. It was my home for many, many years. 
And as, Madam Speaker, you know, I stood for Parliament many, many times there and had an electorate office down there—out of Parliament office, I should call it. And I've gotten to know quite a number of the members of Parliament who held those seats down there, and I recognise Clayton Cosgrove, who did good work down there, and Gerry Brownlee. We're political adversaries on occasions and we're political allies on occasions, but I have to say that Gerry was left with a very difficult task over those times.
Christchurch has come through, and Christchurch is at that stage now where it needs to transition again, and this bill supports the return of the leadership in Christchurch's regeneration following those devastating earthquakes to local organisations and local leadership, and that is a very welcome thing. I know that members across the House—Matt Doocey, who's the MP for Waimakariri, my daughter's member of Parliament, has likewise been a strong supporter and political representative down there, alongside you yourself, Madam Speaker, and everybody else. It's been challenging times. The transition that we're now making through this legislation is, I know, very welcome down there. The work and the effort of all of the members of Parliament and the Ministers both present and former in the last Government should be recognised. I commend the bill to the House.





MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm sure you will agree with me when I say how good Christchurch is. What a fantastic city it is. And I must say it's a pleasure to be listening to the Christchurch MPs from across the House—to their contributions today. It clearly demonstrates how we get on well together as MPs from across the House but from one region. Unlike those other nasty MPs from different regions around New Zealand, we clearly get on, but I suppose what we galvanise behind is having the best rugby team in the world. That's what clearly brings us together. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I might just ask for the clock to be stopped so you can go on. 
MATT DOOCEY: Yes—I seek leave to have a 20-minute call! 
But a bit more seriously, today is another small milestone in what is a long journey in recovery for a great historical city. We do have a significant milestone coming up in September of this year, which will be, of course, the first earthquake. Quite rightly, we focus on the second earthquake in February 2011 with the fatalities involved, but, of course, we had the first earthquake in September 2010, which severely affected a town in my electorate, the town of Kaiapoi, where we lost over a thousand residential houses and to this day we still have the only other red zone outside the Christchurch City area. 
But I must say it's great to see the recovery and strength of a parochial town like Kaiapoi as they bounce back. They've had huge Government and private sector investment. We've got the marina development now, a new boat on the Kaiapoi River, and we've got a proposal for a new international aqua sport park to be built on the red zone, which is going to be great for the growing population out there and to bring some confidence and jobs and incomes for a town that was severely impacted.
This bill seeks to bring some leadership and decision making back to local leaders. And of course, I say that Greater Christchurch has changed significantly post the earthquakes and now towns like Kaiapoi or Rolleston and Lincoln and Selwyn are termed as part of Greater Christchurch. So when we do talk of this return to local leadership, it has not only, quite rightly, Christchurch City Council, but "Waimak" District Council, Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and, very importantly, Ngāi Tahu as well—and aren't we lucky to have an iwi like Ngāi Tahu down in Christchurch who are a strong strategic partner but also a cornerstone in the driver of our cultural recovery as well.
We would say on this side of the House, though, that potentially some of the ability for this regeneration power in the previous bill, where parts are being repealed today, were underutilised. I think when you look at the impacts now of COVID-19 on local economies, it's important that local leadership does have a lens for ensuring that they have strong local economies that drive jobs and better incomes for the benefit not only of the wellbeing of the residents but also for improving environmental standards as well. And why I say that is I feel, potentially, some of these powers that we are repealing today could have been used with more urgency to drive several key projects over the line. 
We are still left with a lot of questions around the stadium. As I joked before, being one of the world's best rugby regions, we should, quite rightly, have the architecture and infrastructure that points to that. You only need to go to some of the cities around the world who might be, you know, European premier football team winners. They have those big stadiums. And I think that, quite rightly, Canterbury deserves that again. We all have a lot of childhood memories of being on that embankment during the early 80s of the Ranfurly Shield era of the Canterbury rugby team and it would be great to see that return as well. The Metro Sports Facility is another one that's struggling to get traction and also, disappointingly for Waimakariri commuters, the northern corridor has been delayed as well, potentially to the start of next year.
So I think if we are going to repeal section 71 we are disbanding Regenerate Christchurch. It does put some responsibility on this local leadership team that will be picking this up to ensure we continue the recovery. I will acknowledge the Government for their mental health programmes that they have put in the schools in Greater Christchurch post-earthquakes. We know we still have a lot of young people—and not so young now as we are 10 years down the track—who are still struggling with the mental and psychological impacts of the earthquake. 
But this bill today isn't seeking that this local leadership will have the powers and the ability to make decisions to drive forward Greater Christchurch's regeneration—because we have a lot to do. We started off very aspirational, saying that we wanted to rebuild the best small city in the world and I think we should hold on to that aspiration. It's pretty clear when you go round parts of Christchurch City and the central part of Christchurch, there's a lot of work to be done, and I know there's a lot of historical, traditional families in Christchurch who could have taken their capital very easily to other parts of the world—Australia, for example—but have decided to stay to invest into some of the infrastructure projects we're seeing now: the Riverside Market's a good example. And we just want to acknowledge that private sector who is backing Christchurch.
But it is still disappointing. You know, we don't hear much from Christ Church Cathedral. Regenerate Christchurch were going to do a lot more around the cathedral precinct. And that's why I think—you know, we've heard from around the House today it is important we repeal section 71 and return that local decision-making. But what we want to ensure is that these local decision makers pick up that challenge and run with it because, you know, we are going to be on the back foot with the economic recession ahead of us with COVID-19, and what we want to know is that once we get through that, we'll be focused again on our regeneration and looking forward to one day hosting the Rugby World Cup in the new Christchurch rugby stadium and to a Canterbury rugby player scoring the try to finally beat the French and put that there.
Paul Eagle: That's going too far now.
MATT DOOCEY: OK, thanks, Mr Paul—oh, he told me to sit down, the Wellingtonian. There was a good game in Athletic Park one day I went and—thank you very much for your leniency, Madam Chair, and I commend the bill to the House.





Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I'm very pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill. Yes, 10 years since that 4 September earthquake does seem to have gone very quickly, and a lot has happened in that time.
I'm very pleased with the initiative to repeal the section 71 powers in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act early. I can well remember the discussions in this House, and having the Hon Gerry Brownlee come to the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider whether there could be some more requirements on him, as Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, to do some consultation around the regeneration planning process, because the Greens had some concerns about the very Draconian powers in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. So I'm very pleased that section 71, which enables the Minister to override plans under the Resource Management Act to revoke resource consents, is being repealed a year early. Those provisions, when they've been used—such as for the night lights in Hagley Park for the Hagley Oval—have been controversial with citizens because they have cut across their powers to provide their views.
I think what others have recognised is that this bill is an important signal that the central government powers exercised by the Minister, the Hon Megan Woods, are now returning very much to local councils, Ngāi Tahu, who are providing that local leadership. One of the important things about the principal Act and this one is that word or those words "Greater Christchurch", because, as the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, noted, it is that conglomeration of councils—Christchurch City, Selwyn, Waimakariri—Environment Canterbury, and mana whenua, Ngāi Tahu, that do really provide the sense of a bigger region of councils and Ngāi Tahu working together for the people of the region and Greater Christchurch. It's not just Christchurch City, because of the connections with Waimakariri, with Selwyn, the growth that's happening in Rolleston, so it's working together for a common aim, building on the Greater Christchurch Urban Redevelopment Strategy, and recognising the critical importance of transport connections between the city, Waimakariri, Rolleston, whether it's by rail or by some of those longer bus links.
So I acknowledge the work, as the Hon Poto Williams did, of Regenerate Christchurch; the board, led by Thérèse Arseneau; Ivan Iafeta; and the very inclusive approach that Regenerate Christchurch took to public consultation, to developing that vision for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. And I was really pleased with the change that the Governance and Administration Committee made by including a map in the bill of the whole of the river corridor area to make it very clear to folk what geographic area that encompassed.
One of the other provisions in the bill, which is important, is the ability for Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) to continue on with its work to stop roads, to amalgamate titles—because there are about 5,500 titles in what was the residential red zone—to enable further development, if appropriate, to happen in that area. LINZ expects that work to be completed by July next year, but the bill does enable that to go on until 2023, all of that survey work.
So it is a significant transition now back to councils, back to Ngāi Tahu, in providing that leadership; central government and the agencies it had in partnership with councils retreating those two agencies, Development Christchurch and Regenerate Christchurch, being wound up. I hope that we have, as we approach the 10th anniversary, no more quakes in the area and no more need for the provisions in this bill. Thank you.





ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't wish to bring you into the debate, but I just feel it's very appropriate that you're sitting in the Chair for this bill, and I just want to pass on my thanks to you and to all Christchurch MPs for the enormous amount of case work that you would have done in the days, weeks, and years since the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes.
I'm not a Christchurch-based MP. I grew up just down the road in Ashburton, about an hour down the road, but I spent many years of my life in Christchurch. I went to boarding school at Christchurch Boys' High School and then went on to university at the University of Canterbury. Like our colleague Ron Mark across the House, I lived in a number of suburbs; in St Albans, in Riccarton, and in Papanui. In fact, I think it was just around the corner from Clayton Cosgrove's electorate office at the time. 
Paul Eagle: Oh, you poor thing—poor man. 
ANDREW FALLOON: But it's a real privilege for me to stand here and speak on a bill that relates to Christchurch, which is our gateway to the South Island and, of course, the undisputed second-largest city in New Zealand, Mr Eagle. 
The earthquakes had a profound effect on Christchurch and on the people that live there. Many buildings were destroyed. Many of the landmarks on the skyline that we treated as normal were, unfortunately, lost—buildings like the Grand Chancellor Hotel, which in a very flat city, was often used as a bit of a bearing when you were lost in the city. To this day, I still find myself getting lost in Christchurch, not helped, of course, by its famed one-way streets within the four avenues. But the greatest loss was not the buildings, not its landmarks, but its people. There are very few families in Canterbury who didn't know someone who was lost in those Canterbury earthquakes, and my family is no different. We lost a friend of ours, Philip McDonald, an accountant from Ashburton. That initial loss was tragic, but so has been the ongoing trauma, and very few of my family and friends who lived in Christchurch or in the city at the time of the earthquake, unfortunately, still live there, having moved to places like Rolleston, Banks Peninsula, or further afield. 
Many hung in there for many years, in fact, helping to rebuild some of those shattered communities. I'd particularly like to acknowledge my friend Sam Johnson, a good Mayfield lad, and Erin Jackson, who created and ran the Student Volunteer Army. That organisation has continued to provide support to Christchurch and to Canterbury as recently as the COVID-19 response, delivering groceries to places like Timaru and Ashburton, and it's now led by new leadership, by people like Ashburton's Alyce Lysaght. 
National does support this bill. It helps build on the work led by Gerry Brownlee when he was Minister in the initial response and then later by Nicky Wagner. I also want to acknowledge the work of Megan Woods in recent years. It's not an easy job, and with a population of around 400,000 people there's certainly always someone to give their opinion. 
This bill removes some of the alternative and extraordinary legislation that was introduced in the days, weeks, and months after the earthquakes. Those provisions were needed at the time, just as we've seen with the response to the Kaikōura earthquakes and enabling legislation there and again, more recently, with COVID-19. I do understand the argument that some put forward sometimes that our legislation should be sufficiently robust and flexible to accommodate disaster circumstances. However, the Canterbury earthquakes were absolutely unparalleled in this country in the modern era. Powers that enabled things like zoning, consenting, construction, and rebuilding were necessary at a time when things didn't deserve to wait, and some of those powers worked very well, as we can see today, with new towns and suburbs in places like Rolleston and the wider Selwyn and Waimakariri districts. But it's appropriate that over time those powers are removed, making the way for life as normal in places like Christchurch and other areas hard hit like Kaiapoi. 
The Christchurch of today is a very different place to just a handful of years ago. From shattered infrastructure, we now have wonderful assets in the city. The innovation and determination of Cantabrians was never quelled but is now on full display. Despite the trauma and disruption, Christchurch is a vibrant world-class city, and this bill is an important part in that process.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Greg O'Connor—this is a split call.





GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I asked for the opportunity to speak on this bill because, like Ron Mark before me, and Andrew Falloon, while not a Christchurch MP, I did live there, and it sounds like we have to name, to prove it, the suburbs we lived in—Merivale, in my case, Mr Falloon.
But, seriously, I also was privileged to spend three weeks in Christchurch—I was in Christchurch within 18 hours of that earthquake. I spent most of that time in the red zone, when the real trauma and the understanding of the depth of just what the earthquake had done to Christchurch and Canterbury was being realised, and on behalf of Cantabrians, I don't think the rest of New Zealand still realises just the depth of change, the depth of angst, that still remains in Canterbury, and I think this bill will be just another one of those small things that Cantabrians go through, yet another chapter in rebuilding.
I can't help thinking that all New Zealanders now will remember COVID; this is a time in their lives that changed much. They'll go back to this moment. Cantabrians, I think, for a generation—and perhaps more—will always think of that morning that this occurred, and now they are able to be part of this legislation going through. I think anyone that has ever spent any time in Christchurch will know they are a parochial bunch; they've got a lot to be parochial about. I was just saying that for the people of Kaiapoi to be parochial in Canterbury must be pretty parochial to be overtaking the general population down there.
But appreciating that this is recognition that Christchurch is getting back on its feet, there's a long way to go, and it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.





JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to stand and speak on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill in its second reading. I want to say that I have just left the Christchurch East electorate to move up north, but in my time since arriving there in 2014 and right up to the start of this year, I have felt a lot of warmth there. I didn't know what I was going to, but the Christchurch East people made me feel at home and part of their family, so I just wanted to acknowledge them. 
Pertaining to the bill, I want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee and Nicky Wagner for the work that they did directly after the earthquake. It was a huge job, and I think that they've done an amazing amount of work to actually get it to where the Hon Megan Woods is able to pick and carry on and carry through with the next stage of the regeneration project. You know, National always felt that it was dealing with an unwilling partner in the Christchurch City Council, but the people have spoken, and, as my colleagues on this side and across the House have actually talked about, it was about repealing section 71 so that the power could end up going back into the hands of the local people so that they can do the projects that they wanted to do. In saying that, there were a couple of projects already in line with that: the cranberry—not "the cranberry"—the Cranford Basin, which I'm really pleased to see that the Christchurch City Council is picking up as a project as well as looking after it, and the other one we've heard about is the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor regeneration plan, as part of the red zone. 
I think that I also need to mention here the investment of the taxpayers of New Zealand in the regeneration project, with the $300 million of taxpayers' money available for the regeneration projects of Christchurch. That kind of brings the whole of New Zealand into Christchurch in supporting them to grow and regenerate into, actually, what's going to be a bigger and better city than it was pre-earthquakes. So I think that the council have done an amazing job in being able to work alongside of Regenerate Christchurch, Development Christchurch Ltd, and other organisations to grow their city. 
Finally, I just want to acknowledge the developments in New Brighton. They weren't regeneration projects, but, I tell you what, the work that was done there on the children's playground and the hot saltwater pools has regenerated the—
Hon Member: Don't mention the playground. 
JOANNE HAYES: —ha, ha!—spirits of New Brighton. It has regenerated the heart and the soul and the spirit of those that live in the New Brighton area. That's why it is my pleasure and privilege to commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much. 





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It was a great privilege to be on the select committee that considered the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, the Governance and Administration Committee, and it was really good to hear all those submissions that did come through. The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act was enacted, really, to try and see the progress made kept in a space where it really did. As a former head girl and student of Avonside Girls' High School, and knowing so many of those from Christchurch who have had a hard time in the last decade, it's really good to see such progress going forward, and I look forward to seeing the excellent work in rebuilding a city where I have a lot of strong feelings and good memories. I look forward to seeing that continue, and it's great to see this legislation pass another milestone. I commend this bill to the House.





DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much for the chance to speak. I'm now on the select committee that saw this bill through its initial passage stages—the Governance and Administration Committee. I must admit, I wasn't on the select committee when this was going through, but it is a privilege to have a chance to say a few words in support of the bill. We all remember 2010 and 2011 and those fateful days and events and how much it affected New Zealanders, not just Cantabrians, and how our hearts stopped for those moments, those hours, those days, those weeks, those months. Now here we are, years later, doing our best via parliamentary processes to do our best by Canterbury and all those families affected.
We do support the bill. We know that its aim is to transition back to local leadership. We know that there needs to be a transitioning back because we know that, in practice, the bill is fixing up some of those anomalies, or those redundancies, should I say, around the Government and local authorities and the powers that are no longer appropriate. We know that there needs to be evidence around these changes that we're seeking, and I commend everyone on the select committee and the process that they went through to make sure that what we're doing here this afternoon and into the early evening is appropriate.
We know that the Government has said the time is right for local leadership to deliver the regeneration. We accept that full local decision-making is the right way to go. And it would always happen. This bill is bringing it forward, but we also need to be very mindful that we've all got skin in the game. Taxpayers all around New Zealand have skin in the game, and we need to ask some very fundamental questions, and the select committee process did. There were good contributions around: is the funding the right funding? Will money be spent wisely? Is the regeneration taking place at the right time line and in the right speed and will people be transported in a timely fashion?
We all know that change is tough no matter where it is in New Zealand. And of course, there's some very much detail around that Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and the time line for that. We also note the Government's described that corridor as multigenerational and wants timely delivery. I've got a personal comment around city council delivery, having been a city councillor myself, not in Christchurch, but in Auckland. Sometimes—
Andrew Bayly: A very good one, too—a very good one.
DENISE LEE: Yes, that's right. I'll give no comment, Mr Bayly.
So when it comes to council delivery, sometimes timeliness is not very timely, and I speak from experience there. So from our side of the House, we'd hope that there would be somewhat more of a maintenance of Crown interest to increase the likelihood of timeliness, given history and the speed at which councils sometimes undertake projects.
But having said that, this is a bill that we support. We're not in Government, the transfer of power and decision making is a decision that has come—it was coming anyway, but it's come ahead of what we would have said in terms of a process just to make sure that the council gets things right. We do wish all the teams well, and I include council teams in that, again, knowing how sometimes council teams can unnecessarily delay things.
We're pleased with the minor changes in the select committee process. Other speakers before me have clearly outlined the two major—the two major minor, I guess you could say—changes. We know that clause 21 of the bill as introduced would amend section 8 of the Act in terms of the Act's geographical application. The select committee decided that the geographical description wasn't sufficiently clear, and so they worked diligently to make sure that there was an indicative map attached to the bill to help with interpretation. I think that is a very practical decision. That's something that will be responded to well, I'm sure, by those who look at any great detail as this bill passes its passage in Parliament. There is also the inclusion of transitional provisions for section 71 so that the power in section 71 is used to make changes to planning and other documents through a streamlined process with limited public engagement. That's something that is applied in other legislation in Parliament. It gives a Minister power to approve applications through a bespoke process. So, again, something practical. Hats off to the select committee for picking this up in the process.
My final comment is that I wish Cantabrians—and New Zealand, because as I said before, we've all got skin in the game here for the rejuvenation process. It's a big undertaking. It's a changed city. There were changed lives. And we're doing our best here in Parliament to make sure that those affected lives are affected for the better. Thank you.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It's a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill, because, while I didn't sit on the Governance and Administration Committee, I understand how important this bill is in terms of being a milestone for Christchurch's regeneration. And I think, basically, what this bill does is pave the way for the transition back to local decision-making by local leadership and local institutions, which is incredibly important for Christchurch moving forward. So I commend this bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.





TAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2020-21, FEASIBILITY EXPENDITURE, AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILL
First Reading
Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. 
In recent months, as New Zealand has confronted the threat of coronavirus, the tax system has played a huge role in minimising the economic fallout from the pandemic, and it will continue to play a big role in supporting the recovery of the economy. So a well-functioning tax system is a crucial asset as it will help position us well for economic recovery. This bill is about continuing to do sensible things to support business while maintaining the integrity of the tax system. I will now provide an overview of the proposals in the bill.
Feasibility expenditure: the Government's objective is to grow the economy and encourage productive investment. Generally, the tax system provides support for business investment by making expenditure whose economic value is expected to decline in value either immediately deductible or deductible over a time as appropriate. Businesses tell us that the big bugbear for businesses looking to innovate and grow is the tax treatment of feasibility expenditure. This is expenditure that is undertaken to determine the practicability of a new proposal. If deductions are denied for this expenditure, it can deter a firm from investing in that proposal. The tax treatment should not be a deciding factor. That's not what promotes growth. 
The bill therefore proposes to provide greater deductibility of feasibility and other currently non-deductible expenditure to encourage business innovation and investment. We are proposing that taxpayers can deduct, spread over five years, expenditure incurred to investigate whether to invest in a new asset that is subsequently abandoned. The Government is mindful of the need to minimise complexity, especially for smaller businesses; so to keep things simple, taxpayers will be allowed an immediate deduction of feasibility expenditure if, in a year, that expenditure amounts to $10,000 or less in total. This is a change that is good for business and good for our economy. When the tax system does not allow a deduction for feasibility expenditure, an economic distortion is created, and that weakens the economy and the system.
Purchase price allocation: the second major proposal in this bill aims to prevent tax mismatches arising on the sale of a business or commercial property. The bill proposes amendments to the rules governing how parties to a sale allocate the total purchase price between the various assets for tax purposes. The objective of the amendments is to ensure that buyers and sellers make the same allocation. This will prevent an overall revenue loss when sellers and buyers adopt different price allocations that minimise their own tax liability. The sales in question are usually mixed supplies, which means they include assets with different tax treatments. For example, trading stock is taxable and immediately deductible, while plant and expenditure are taxable but depreciable. And land and goodwill are generally not taxable at all. 
The law will require the buyer and seller in these mixed supplies to allocate the purchase price amongst the various assets to determine how much tax the seller will pay and what deductions the buyer will be able to claim. The issue here is how the prices allocated can make a big difference to these outcomes. Often the parties agree on an allocation which is based on market values, and this is to be encouraged. But sometimes parties adopt different allocations, which are either not based on market value or based on differing views of market value to minimise their own tax liabilities. These practices damage the tax base and are a longstanding issue, as they're difficult for Inland Revenue to deal with under current provisions. 
Therefore, the bill proposes that the buyer and seller be required to use the same purchase price allocation. We don't want to be unduly onerous, but we do need to provide clarity and practical rules for businesses to follow so that both parties' allocations are consistent. The amendments will apply to sale agreements entered into on or after 1 April 2021 and should prevent the revenue losses we're currently seeing from improper allocations. This is a measure aimed at preserving the integrity of the tax system.
Land: ensuring integrity also extends to the taxation of land. The bill proposes amendments in relation to investment property and speculators to improve the efficient use of land and ensure that current tax settings are fair, balanced, and support productive investment. Currently, there are exemptions from land sales tax rules for taxpayers who sell their home or business premises. These exemptions are not meant to apply to people with a regular pattern of buying and selling their home or business premises, but the current regular pattern restrictions are now too narrow, resulting in some habitual buyers and sellers structuring their way around these restrictions to escape their tax liabilities. The bill proposes extending the regular pattern restriction rules. To prevent any unintended overreach, the rules will also be amended so they only apply to land acquired with the purpose or intention of disposal. The proposals also clarify that the cost of purchasing and improving taxable land are deductible, even if it was not clear, when the costs were incurred, that the sale of the land would be taxable. The policy is that these costs should be deductible in full when taxable land is sold.
Mycoplasma bovis: the bill proposes tax relief for some dairy and beef cattle farmers that receive compensation for stock culled as part of the plan to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. Dairy and beef cattle farmers with breeding stock valued under a cost scheme that have derived unexpected taxable income as a result of those stock being culled will be allowed to evenly spread that income forward over six years. This spread will neutralise the tax implications that would otherwise arise from the culling and replacement of that stock. This amendment supports a core principle of the Biosecurity Act 1993 that no person should be better or worse off because of the Crown's use of its powers under that Act to eradicate an organism. The bill proposes the amendment will apply retrospectively from the 2017-18 income year, as the first culls began in 2017.
Annual rates for income tax: an important job for any tax bill that this House considers is to set the income tax rates each year. The annual rates of the income tax for the 2020-21 tax year are to be set at the same rates currently specified in the Income Tax Act 2007 for the 2019-20 tax year. That is, current rates remain unchanged.
New Zealanders' Australian retirement savings: a current gap in trans-Tasman retirement savings portability settings means that New Zealanders' Australian retirement savings sitting with the Australian Tax Office are unable to be transferred to KiwiSaver accounts. Given the ease of movement between Australia and New Zealand, this is an issue likely to affect many New Zealanders. Amendments in this bill would progress a 2019 commitment by our Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister to seeing New Zealanders access their lost Australian retirement savings. The amendments in the bill are a first step, then changes to Australian law will need to be made and diplomatic procedures completed before retirement savings can be transferred from the Australian Tax Office to KiwiSaver accounts. 
Other matters: the bill also proposes granting overseas donee status to three New Zealand charities. Donors to these charities will be eligible for tax benefits on their donations and money. In addition, the bill proposes a range of smaller policy items, including applying GST to outward bound roaming services at the standard rate of 15 percent. This will be in keeping with the OECD's VAT/GST guidelines. And the bill also contains a number of minor remedial, and maintenance items.
In summary, I consider the measures in this bill will help support New Zealand's economic recovery while also improving the fairness of the tax system. I commend the bill to the House.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Revenue for a beautifully read-out speech. He obviously has taken a lot of time to study this bill and present a comprehensive analysis of what is in the bill. I also want to join him in just congratulating the IRD for its work during the COVID-19 lockdown and administering a number of the schemes. The IRD ended up being a key organisation in terms of delivering some of the benefits to New Zealanders and businesses across New Zealand during a very difficult time. So I just want to publicly acknowledge that.
As the Minister has pointed out, this is another in a series of tax bills that regularly go through Parliament, as we seek to continuously upgrade and improve New Zealand's tax system. And as I've said on many occasions before, New Zealand's tax system is the envy of the world. It's simple, it's clear, it's easily administered, but that doesn't necessarily mean we don't continuously need to make changes, because smart people always look at different options, and, essentially, that's what a large part of this bill is about. 
I just want to be clear that whilst the tax rates remain unchanged, we will not be supporting this bill. The principal reason for that is that we do not support any proposition where taxes are increased, whether they be in the form of a direct tax, such as changing personal and company tax rates, or in the form of indirect taxes. We are concerned that this Government has already demonstrated a history of making a whole lot of indirect tax changes and increases, and probably the most pernicious of those is the Auckland fuel tax, but also ring-fencing of losses, Amazon tax, GST on overseas roaming, extended the brightline tax, increased WorkSafe levies, and cancelled tax relief. So that is one of the reasons we are opposing this bill. 
But the second reason is that one of the worst impacts on the amount of tax that people pay in New Zealand is actually the impact of inflation. The National Party has put forward a very good policy, in my personal view—but I know many New Zealand businesses and people support it—whereby we wish to put in place a scheme that effectively deals with the issue of inflation. So as people's wages and salaries increase naturally as a result of inflation, then they inevitably end up going into a higher tax bracket, and our $660 million scheme that we've announced earlier this year is one way of dealing with it. Without addressing the issue of inflation, effectively, New Zealanders end up paying more tax. That's why we believe it is important, and it should have been incorporated in a tax bill such as this, to see that New Zealanders pay their fair share and no more. That is the principal reason why we won't be supporting that. 
But the other thing is it gives rise to the whole issue about where we're going with taxes. Yesterday, we had the advantage of having the Minister of Finance before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and we were talking about tax. Most people will be aware that the debt has probably already gone from about $60 billion to about $110 billion over the last few months, a staggering increase in debt, and the amount of interest that will attract was an interesting figure. When I asked the Minister actually how much interest was going to be on that debt, he wasn't that certain. But I'm going to be more certain because I know the figure. It's projected to be $3.5 billion. So to put that in context, we've just had a firearms debate and the cost to run the police is about $3.5 billion. That will be the equivalent cost that we're going to be increasingly bearing in this country. And as the debt increases to $200 billion, it will double; it will be nearly $7.5 billion—a massive amount. 
That gives rise to the issue of how New Zealand is going to pay for it. How are we going to pay for this staggering increase of debt? We're going to be running deficits at a Crown level, a Government level, for the next four years, totalling just over $100 billion. It is unbelievable. And the big question is: how does the Government pay that money back? That is why we're very concerned about making sure New Zealand is in a position where it can pay that and not necessarily revert to higher taxes and certainly not to a capital gains tax.
Anyway, with that background, I do acknowledge that this bill includes a whole raft of areas that I think will lead to some improvement, and, of course, that is for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to work its way through. The Minister covered those pretty comprehensively. 
I'm just slightly conscious of the time, as we're coming up to 6 o'clock, but I think the issue around feasibility and other expenditure is a crucial one. Again, this came as a result of a court case between Trustpower and the Commissioner of IRD. The key example for this was many entities, and power companies are a classic example of this, where they undertake a lot of work—they look at maybe they're going to set up a wind farm, whatever it might be—incur a lot of expenditure, and they need to be able to offset that expenditure because that was reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of their business. And at the moment, we want to make some of that expenditure much more—well, more available to be written off by those entities provided it is bona fide expenditure.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.